If I’m reading this correctly, she only claimed to be the “Jane Doe”, not that the actual Jane Doe letter was false, which there is no way of even vetting without knowing who the actual “Jane Doe” is.
Great post, and I find myself thinking the same thing. (I must have missed whatever this BTG thing was, but maybe that's Ok.) A lot of people here argue (make their points) fairly and with decency. A number of others don't, engaging in the worst style of argument that can be found on the internet. I may advocate things that some see as "extreme," but I don't believe I have ever personally attacked anyone here. The reverse has not been true. Edit: Oh I see. Looks like Bobby got banned.
I don't recall denying the existence of any such bailout. What I may have said was that I didn't know about them. The main thing about that thread, as I remember it, was that some people were getting unduly agitated about tariffs (IMO); and then, it seemed to me, using my indifference about tariffs to claim (as I understood it) that my Libertarianism was therefore suspect, because I did not oppose tariffs. (It's still a bit strange to me that some people are so worked up about that topic.) That was my perception of what was going on in that thread. Which was ridiculous. There are Libertarians that advocate for open borders; and there are other Libertarians who vehemently oppose such a view. Libertarians can disagree internally about things, just like Republicans do. I would have added that Democrats also disagree with themselves and have their own internal conflicts, except that increasingly, they don't. You don't see pro-lifers in the Democratic party anymore, for example. The Democrats are increasingly adhering to the leftist "hive mind," in my view. And yes, I think there's a point at which slavishly following the "news" yields diminishing returns. Anyway, per my other post, I'm going to give this place a break (maybe permanently) from my posting. I know the forum title says "monkeys flinging....at each other," but the rancor here often displays the worst aspects of the internet.
you said you were unaware of trumps farm bailouts so then i posted about a half dozen articles discussing them and you dismissed all the sources as "leftists" and said they were lying. even fox. then i posted a breitbart article discussing trumps farm bailouts and you disappeared. actually it is the thread we are posting in now and we were discussing trumps fiscal irresponsibility and i cited the farm bailouts as an example and thats when you chimed in and said they were not happening...and then i posted a bunch of articles discussing them and you dismissed them all as leftists and then said people who keep up with the news have no lives or full-time jobs. the only thing "ridiculous" is your interpretation of the discussion. thats not what you said though. you said, and i quote... you also said... its weird that you think paying attention to the news is "slavish". you are also showing your bias when you put "news" in quotes. fact is fact. news is news. opinion is opinion. its really not that hard to understand. but lets be real here...you dont like it when the "news" reports unfavorable stories about trump or is critical of him in any way. thats really all that this is about. the fact that you say breitbart is the only unbiased source of news and that everyone is "leftist" says all we need to know about how you think. you accuse everyone else of being biased, but it is you who is the most biased. you have to know this. you were the one who initially started arguing with me and implied i had no life or full-time job simply because i kept up with the news and current events. i had never even seen a single post from you before that. you said you dont keep up with the news and you criticize those who do as "political junkies", but here you are in the D&D arguing about news. and if you cant handle people holding you accountable for the things you say then perhaps internet message boards are not for you. and perhaps you should do a better job of not constantly saying things that are factually incorrect. anyway, you said you were too busy with work and life to keep up with the news so how do you have time to post on here?
Withou any sense of irony, a clutchfan who voted for a reality TV star states that entertainers should avoid politics. Onion headline?
Must be incredibly hard to be an Onion writer these days. So much of what is reality today is yesterday's Onion articles.
Let ignore the fact that Trump turned his business into a billion dollar empire and later on used his fame to build on his professional career
...not to mention just plain old stand up comedy. ...nothing anybody comes up with comes close to the president's act...
only after receiving injection of $$$ from HK real estate typcoons w connection to the Bank of China, and then loans/investment from Russian oligarchs and the Russian mafia
Not sure if previously posted but here is a pretty insightful Politico article on Beto. Most relevant quote: Too long to post it all but well worth a read... Did Beto Blow It
I read it and agree with most of the premise (ignored center, focused far left) but I and the rest of my family still voted Beto. The truth is, it's not a Beto problem it's a democrat problem. It's lose-lose for them. Stay center and the far left crazy liberals go to war against them. Follow the far left noise and lose the center. Meanwhile The Donald (and the leeches) seems to have captured the center moderates of middle america who overlook the racist overtones, lying, tactlessness, etc... which the far right crave. So no Beto didn't blow it, the far left did by attacking their own. Despite that he still has a chance to win tomorrow and even further down the line but the left better get their **** together.
Well I thought a key point in the article FROM POLITICO was; But with a debate beginning to rage inside the Democratic Party over how best to defeat Trump—galvanizing the left or recapturing the center—a lopsided loss in Texas could force O’Rourke to answer tough questions relating to ideology and strategy. Politico is all in with the idea that the Dems must run as centrists and traditional campaigns so the establishment wins regardless of what party wins.. To push this idea they continually run articles trashing Bernie as an old white guy who therefore cannot win, but Joe Biden lol (one year younger) is a winner. Since most mainstream predictions have Bet losing it gives them a chance to push their centrist convictions that the cautious centricism is always the way to go. Now wrt to Texas. There are many more Texas voters who identify with the GOP than the Dems. Trump won Texas easily. Texas has an incredible large number of non voters, especially Latinos and young folks who need to be energized to vote. At the minimum it is certainly reasonable to decide that it may be easier to energize these folks to vote than to try to convince some of the approximately 15% of Trump voters who are still not supporting Dear Leader.
Democrats need balls. They don’t have to be dishonest like the republicans, but call them out in their BS. When Beto launched his “retaliation” ad to all of the attack ads Cruz was running, all he did was fart out the same pacifist BS.
These political ads from Ted Cruz has me convinced he starts every conversation at the family dinner table about the border. "Had a s*** day at work, but at least we're still working on that wall. Btw, boss still thinks you're ugly."
I mean... Trump was never not going to win it - but Clinton improved on Obama's '12 performance, losing by the smallest margin of any Democrat since 1996.
Isn't that a problem for both sides, though? A centrist repub can't get through a primary, either...once they get tagged as a RINO. I think he has a better chance of winning tomorrow than a lot think. The sheer volume of votes is enough to cover the gap that showed during the primaries. If there's a big turnout tomorrow (assuming that not everyone voted early), it's going to be very interesting.
