Deckard, I would agree with you that CNN has more people in the editorial side (Jake Tapper) willing to report close to the middle than Fox or CNN. Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera tend to seem marginalized on Fox compared to Jake Tapper on CNN. Having said that, Chris Wallace was pretty tough on Mitch McConnell this morning on Fox News Sunday. Having said that, I thank CNN, like Fox, overwhelming creates programming from the perspective of one politicle ideology. And let’s be honest, most of the news shows on TV today are just glorified op-Ed shows not news journalism. Don Lemon is one of the most partisaned op-Ed hosts on TV. No middle of the road news journalist would ever defend violence by a terrorist group because that terrorist group (antifa) shared certain ideological beliefs. CNN certainly comes across as a network that almost universally buys into and defends intersectionality. CNN seems to go along with the radical lefts opinion that not living by rules of intersectionality makes you a racist and sexist. Fox tends to report from the point of view that intersectionality is racism and sexism. I fall in the category of the latter and that as much as anything is what has driven me from the middle (I voted for President Obama twice) with libertarian beliefs, squarely into the Republican camp. Tucker Carlson is obviously Fox News version of Don Lemon except his shows are done from the conservative point of view. Like Don Lemon on CNN that tends to defend the Democratic agenda on his show, Tucker certainly defends the Republican agenda on his show. You and I grew up in a time that people like Ted Koppel were the standard bearer for how to do editorial types of news journalism shows. You didn’t get a host that would talk over his guest or shut down the conversation because that guest was making a strong argument against a political ideological belief. They tended to be skilled arbitrators that insured facts were not lost in the debates while maintaining a civil tone throughout the show. It would be nice if we could get back to that but I honestly believe the networks intentionally play to one base or the other for ratings. I understand that you have developed a distaste for me based on my traditional beliefs of the 1st and 2nd amendment rights as well as my belief that Supreme Court Justices should be textualists and not legislate from the bench. I’ve been reading you posts for a very very long time and continue to have a tremendous amount of respect for you regardless of a difference of ideological views. One of my personal core beliefs is that we are all entitled to our own ideological and politely beliefs along as those beliefs are not racist or sexist in nature. I certainly don’t believe now, nor have I ever believed you fall into the category of racist or sexist.
More to my point, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't "believe evidence" rather than just basing opinion upon a characteristic such as the sex of the accuser.
Crash, while I disagree with your politics, at least what I've read that you've posted here in D&D, I certainly haven't changed my regard for you. When I see one of your posts in the other forums, I always read them and frequently agree. I've shown my high regard for you by trying not to post in threads you've started down here, mainly because I don't want to argue politics with you! Things can get pretty heated in the Basement (that's what I call this sub-forum, sometimes). In fact, my ignore list has grown to 50+ mainly by ignoring members who post bigoted takes here or in any of the other forums. Blatant bigotry is a sure way to make my list. I'm fixing to put @BruceAndre on it for exactly that reason. Because you have more intelligence than he could ever hope to have in the depths of his empty head, you don't post stuff like that, thank goodness. I've suggested to @Clutch in the past that we have a forum specific ignore feature for supporting members. That way, I could read the other posts these people make in the GARM, Hangout, and the like, which I often consider worth reading, excepting @BruceAndre, who seems to either be a "bot," or so stupid that he's unaware of just how bigoted he is. Since I won't be reading him in a minute, I'll let someone else deal with the "entity." Intersectionality? I had to look it up. Merriam-Webster didn't add it as a "new word" until April, 2017, which tells me, to put it in a political way, that it has suddenly become a "dog whistle" for one or more of the several sides of the political spectrum. Which one, I couldn't tell you. What I can tell you is that I read and watch a wide variety of news sources, including CNN, and have for many years. I've never heard them use the word. Perhaps they have and I missed it, but I watch CNN pretty often. I have to disagree with you on where they are politically. Of the major 24 hour "cable news" sources (news is put out in all sorts of ways now, of course), CNN is middle of the road. Yes, that is my opinion, but I've asked people before in "real life" what they thought about the three main 24 hour sources. Literally all of them described CNN as "middle of the road," or used a similar term, with FOX seen as being from the Right, and MSNBC being from the Left. Oh, I don't like Don Lemon either. It isn't because of his politics, but because I think he inserts his political leanings too far into his news program, basically making him one of numerous "talking heads" littering the news landscape. I'm not impressed. As an aside, I started watching CNN when we moved to Austin in 1980 and had cable for the first time, and CNN was pioneering the 24 hour news service that's now widely copied. Perfect for a news junkie like me, who had had a subscription to Time for years and continued taking a Houston paper here in Austin longer than I should have (the local paper has always sucked). I still have copies of Time I saved from the 1960's during Vietnam, and I'm glad I did. Anyway, I looked up "intersectionality" and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I just hope you realize that it's sudden emergence on the political scene is no accident. Someone or some things are pushing the term. I thought you should know. I also miss Ted and Uncle Walter and the really good print news that used to be available. What has replaced those sources is far different. Anyway, no worries! I thought you deserved more than a one sentence response, which is what I usually get from too many people down here. Cheers!
No one accused Ford of witness tampering. The FBI found that FBI agent Monica McLean texted Geyser and trying to get her to revise her story. I think you're having trouble keeping up. At the very least, someone who involved herself with the letter of support for Ford, having to deny that she was involved in being coached by Ford to pass a polygraph test and being extremely familiar with the investigative process would have the sense to stay clear of texting a witness.
The one question that I'd love to hear Ford answer is why she would run off and leave her best friend in a house full of would be rapists
one fumbled around in his clothes allegedly and the other forced oral sex on an unwilling participant? or am I misinterpreting your meaning?
His testimony convinced me that he is. He was just pumping out that, "I got caught in a lie about an awful thing I did when I was young and my reaction is to uncork tremendous, bizarre rants that include insulting a United States Senator who is questioning me," vibe. Kavanaugh has no business being on the Supreme Court, in my opinion. He is a partisan hack and made no secret of it.
Were there witnesses at the house/place of and at the time of the Fairfax incident that could be forced to corroborate accounts with FBI interviews (that are standard with SCOTUS nomination)? If not, then there is no point in publishing the accusation. Or do you suggest that news organizations actually publish any and all sexual assault/harassment accusations. I agree with FranchiseBlade - Federalist needs to do better to prove the double standard. (The Federalist piece is the only article I read on the topic)
here's another https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...s-against-brett-kavanaugh-and-justin-fairfax/ Spoiler "The Fairfax accuser came forward far sooner than Ford, she identified the specific time and place of the attack, the accused agreed that he was with the accuser at that time and place, there was an admitted sexual encounter, and — according to the Post — the paper 'did not find significant red flags and inconsistencies' in her claims."
The accusations should be investigated, but... there are significant differences. Fairfax's accusers charges were investigated originally. There were no other accusers or accusations against Fairfax (before, at the time, or after). The accuser didn't telly anyone else at the time or after. And correct me if wrong, but did Ford indicate that it was consensual at any moment? Again, such a serious accusation should be investigated. And none of the things I listed diminish the accuser's accusations.
Fairfax's accuser has hired the same P.R. firm that Christine Blasey Ford hired: "A California woman who has accused Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexually assaulting her 15 years ago has hired the same law firm that represented Christine Blasey Ford in her allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. "Fairfax has denied the allegation, which first surfaced on a conservative blog and was later described in a report by The Washington Post. "The allegation has come to light just as Fairfax could be on the verge of becoming the state's chief executive in the wake of a scandal involving Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam and a blackface yearbook photo. "The woman making the accusation against Fairfax has retained Katz, Marshall and Banks, a Washington, D.C.-based firm, and is consulting with her attorneys about next steps, according to a source close to the legal team. The law firm assisted Blasey Ford as she came forward during Kavanaugh's confirmation process with allegations that he assaulted her when the two were in high school." https://www.npr.org/2019/02/05/6915...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190205
Dude you seem to be pretty fixated on me. The ignore function is pretty is easy to employ. I've been using it on you for some time, which is probably why I didn't see this until now. All that said, ask me a question or two, and I shall reply reasonably and without vitriol. Just because I say or might have said something you don't agree with doesn't make me an idiot or a bigot. Only someone worships at the altar of equalism and egalitarianism would have such a view, IMO. In any case, if you want to ask me a question, then pose it to me. Like I said, I'm a reasonable guy unless someone attacks me personally (as opposed to criticizing POVs).
I think the Clintons, Political & Hollywood elites have raped and murdered more children than we can count
