Presidential power

[idhawkman]

Like I said above, Mueller did not say or imply that the only reason he didn't indict Trump was due to department policy. You're trying to read between the lines.

As far as impeachment goes, the Dems would be extremely foolish to push it, and I'm surprised that Pelosi is entertaining the idea. With just 18 months until the next election, all Trump has to do is go into a 4 corner offense (old CBK term) and run out the clock by forcing everything to go to court.

I agree with you on this. "IF" the dems were smart, they would take Gingrich's recommendation and pass some low level bi-partisan bills between now and the election. This would show that they are actually doing something with the power they were given in 2018. Then let the candidates on their side make the case for replacing the president with their policy differences.

In the meantime, Trump is continuing with governing as I mentioned, he announced a statement on the border crisis is coming. He also announced that the WH will have an official statement on the abortion bills being passed in LA, AL, GA, MO, etc. He's just got back from a meeting in Japan on trade and is going to UK for tea with the Queen. He is showing (not just saying) that he can defend himself and still do the job he was sent to do.

"NOT" voting for someone is a weak platform to stand on when considering a presidential election. The dems better start coming with some actual policies that have a chance of working (unlike the Green new deal which is the only legislation that congress has actually introduced) or they will suffer a huge defeat in the 2020 election.

[idhawkman]

BTW, I like your 4 corners analogy Riv. I think it was Indiana that made that popular but I could be mistaken. Its why they have the 5 second rule now.

[RiverDog]

BTW, I like your 4 corners analogy Riv. I think it was Indiana that made that popular but I could be mistaken. Its why they have the 5 second rule now.

Nope. North Carolina and Dean Smith coined the 4 corner offense. John Wooden used to complain about the lack of a shot clock yet he would be the first to take advantage of it and go into a stall anytime he had a lead of 10-15 points halfway through the 2nd half.

And it wasn't a '5 second rule' that changed it. They always had a 5 second rule, but by spreading out the court, they could easily penetrate that line or give up the ball and avoid the count. If ran properly, the only way to stop a 4 corner offense was to foul. It was the shot clock that eliminated that strategy.

[idhawkman]

Nope. North Carolina and Dean Smith coined the 4 corner offense. John Wooden used to complain about the lack of a shot clock yet he would be the first to take advantage of it and go into a stall anytime he had a lead of 10-15 points halfway through the 2nd half.

And it wasn't a '5 second rule' that changed it. They always had a 5 second rule, but by spreading out the court, they could easily penetrate that line or give up the ball and avoid the count. If ran properly, the only way to stop a 4 corner offense was to foul. It was the shot clock that eliminated that strategy.

I know if you didn't press the guy with the ball he'd just hold it for as long you let him. I thought that the 5 second clock was the first to counter that move but the shot clock is, as you point out, the biggest buster of the 4 corners.

I'm not much of a pumpkin player - I took wrestling in HS and didn't pay much attention to those guys who played with pumpkins.

[RiverDog]

The dems better start coming with some actual policies that have a chance of working (unlike the Green new deal which is the only legislation that congress has actually introduced) or they will suffer a huge defeat in the 2020 election.

Another prediction? I would think that the results of your past predictions would have taught you to shy away from such forecasts.

If anything, the math alone will make holding onto the Senate extremely difficult for the R's. They have to defend 22 seats to the Dem's 12.

[idhawkman]

Another prediction? I would think that the results of your past predictions would have taught you to shy away from such forecasts.

If anything, the math alone will make holding onto the Senate extremely difficult for the R's. They have to defend 22 seats to the Dem's 12.

You know many more of my predictions have been right save for the one that you like to refer to regarding Manafort.

It depends on where those seats are located and on what the dems do this year.

[idhawkman]

According to this map, there's only 3 seats as toss ups and 2 of them have republican incumbents.

https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/

Edited: Oh, and one of those three is the Alabama "Roy Moore" seat currently held by a dem.

Studying the map more, I don't see a lot of movement in either direction as I don't see many opportunities for REpublicans for picking up seats other than Alabama and an extreme outside chance at NM or Michigan but the odds are way against them.

Same for dems but they could turn Colorado, Arizona and Maine but unlikely they will pull all three off and doubt they have a chance at any other state (save for some kind of scandal that pops up between now and election day which could change any race.)

[RiverDog]

Nope. North Carolina and Dean Smith coined the 4 corner offense. John Wooden used to complain about the lack of a shot clock yet he would be the first to take advantage of it and go into a stall anytime he had a lead of 10-15 points halfway through the 2nd half.

And it wasn't a '5 second rule' that changed it. They always had a 5 second rule, but by spreading out the court, they could easily penetrate that line or give up the ball and avoid the count. If ran properly, the only way to stop a 4 corner offense was to foul. It was the shot clock that eliminated that strategy.

I know if you didn't press the guy with the ball he'd just hold it for as long you let him. I thought that the 5 second clock was the first to counter that move but the shot clock is, as you point out, the biggest buster of the 4 corners.

I'm not much of a pumpkin player - I took wrestling in HS and didn't pay much attention to those guys who played with pumpkins.

I played organized basketball way back in the early 60's and they had a 5 second 'zone' back then. It was relatively easy to avoid a zone violation as I can't recall very many turnovers caused by it. Most turnovers would occur if the offense screwed up and got trapped and either threw an errant pass or held onto the ball for 5 seconds, which you can't do anywhere on the court, and even if they did get trapped, they could always call a timeout.

[RiverDog]

You know many more of my predictions have been right save for the one that you like to refer to regarding Manafort.

Ahh, you have a memory that's shorter than my manhood. You also predicted that the R's would hold onto the House in 2018. That one didn't work out so well.

[idhawkman]

You know many more of my predictions have been right save for the one that you like to refer to regarding Manafort.

Ahh, you have a memory that's shorter than my manhood. You also predicted that the R's would hold onto the House in 2018. That one didn't work out so well.

Touche'. Yep, I did predict that on here - more of a wish though but I did predict it here. Feeling too many oats that day I guess.

Sorry about your manhood!!!

[idhawkman]

I played organized basketball way back in the early 60's and they had a 5 second 'zone' back then. It was relatively easy to avoid a zone violation as I can't recall very many turnovers caused by it. Most turnovers would occur if the offense screwed up and got trapped and either threw an errant pass or held onto the ball for 5 seconds, which you can't do anywhere on the court, and even if they did get trapped, they could always call a timeout.

I don't follow basketball very close but isn't there a rule that you can't just hold the ball - you have to dribble within xx number of seconds? I know when pressed if you don't get rid of the ball it would create a turnover but I seem to remember that if no one was pressing you, you could hold it without dribbling or passing it. (maybe it was a playground rule in elementary school which was the last time I played competitive b-ball.)

[I-5]

Well, if what you say is true (and we don't know that yet), then at least he is open and transparent about it unlike the dems who said they would abide by the voter's wishes and yet have refused to accept the election results even 2.5 years later.

Open and transparent about it? How would he know if it was fixed or not? You and I both know he talks like a toddler in a 74-year old man’s body. Use your logic; if he thought it was fixed, then why run in the first place? Did he actually learn something during the campaign that it was fixed? Of course he didn’t, it’s just his narcissistic character to prep himself and his followers should not win.

To your first point about ‘if it’s true’, then that means he really is an illegitimately elected president. Which is it, then? Was he telling the truth or lying about it being fixed? You can have one, but not both.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I don't think "fixed" is the appropriate term when it came to the last presidential election, but I would hope even the most ardent Trump detractors will admit that the mainstream media was 100% stacked against Trump. They didn't even pretend to be unbiased. Hilary could do absolutely zero wrong with all the spin and lack of coverage of any of her misdeeds yet we heard about any and all things Trump had done wrong no matter how small. That was incredibly irresponsible of the media. In light of that, it seems odd to me that the Dems want to point the finger at Russian interference yet no word about how the MSM clearly heavily influenced the election towards Hilary.

[idhawkman]

Well, if what you say is true (and we don't know that yet), then at least he is open and transparent about it unlike the dems who said they would abide by the voter's wishes and yet have refused to accept the election results even 2.5 years later.

Open and transparent about it? How would he know if it was fixed or not? You and I both know he talks like a toddler in a 74-year old man’s body. Use your logic; if he thought it was fixed, then why run in the first place? Did he actually learn something during the campaign that it was fixed? Of course he didn’t, it’s just his narcissistic character to prep himself and his followers should not win.

To your first point about ‘if it’s true’, then that means he really is an illegitimately elected president. Which is it, then? Was he telling the truth or lying about it being fixed? You can have one, but not both.

Ah yes, I love it when you don't follow the thread and try to warp something into what it is now.

You stated the following:

Dunno, but I’m on record saying no impeachment necessary. Much much better and clearer to simply vote him out. If that happens, we already know Trump is going to say it’s fixed. Remember when he kept repeating that claim over and over, then suddenly changed his tune after he won? I do. Can’t believe his supporters actually believed him, but he’ll try to do it again.

To which I stated that if he is voted out (e.g. If what you say is true...) then he's transparent since he's already stated that he won't go if it seems rigged. So I'm totally consistent here but you are trying to spin it into last election and not the one coming up. Good try, I didn't fall for it though.

[RiverDog]

I played organized basketball way back in the early 60's and they had a 5 second 'zone' back then. It was relatively easy to avoid a zone violation as I can't recall very many turnovers caused by it. Most turnovers would occur if the offense screwed up and got trapped and either threw an errant pass or held onto the ball for 5 seconds, which you can't do anywhere on the court, and even if they did get trapped, they could always call a timeout.

I don't follow basketball very close but isn't there a rule that you can't just hold the ball - you have to dribble within xx number of seconds? I know when pressed if you don't get rid of the ball it would create a turnover but I seem to remember that if no one was pressing you, you could hold it without dribbling or passing it. (maybe it was a playground rule in elementary school which was the last time I played competitive b-ball.)

See the underlined portion. You can't hold onto the ball w/o dribbling for 5 seconds anywhere on the court. The 5 second rule that I believed you to have been referring to is a zone that runs parallel to the half court line about 10 feet away from half court. You have to either penetrate outside that zone or pass the ball within 5 seconds to avoid a violation.

[RiverDog]

You know many more of my predictions have been right save for the one that you like to refer to regarding Manafort.

Ahh, you have a memory that's shorter than my manhood. You also predicted that the R's would hold onto the House in 2018. That one didn't work out so well.

Touche'. Yep, I did predict that on here - more of a wish though but I did predict it here. Feeling too many oats that day I guess.

The reason I keep rubbing your nose in it is because they weren't just wrong, they were REALLY off. Manafort was found guilty of 8 of 18 counts and was one undecided juror away from having all 18 counts go against him and the Republicans didn't just lose the House, they got trounced in one of the largest swings the Dems have posted in our lifetimes with a net loss of 41 seats.

Sort of like predicting a bright sunny day and having it rain a couple inches.

[RiverDog]

I don't think "fixed" is the appropriate term when it came to the last presidential election, but I would hope even the most ardent Trump detractors will admit that the mainstream media was 100% stacked against Trump. They didn't even pretend to be unbiased. Hilary could do absolutely zero wrong with all the spin and lack of coverage of any of her misdeeds yet we heard about any and all things Trump had done wrong no matter how small. That was incredibly irresponsible of the media. In light of that, it seems odd to me that the Dems want to point the finger at Russian interference yet no word about how the MSM clearly heavily influenced the election towards Hilary.

I had this debate with burrton. If the evil MSM is so heavily biased and influenced the 2016 way in which you have described, why is it that the R's were able to hold onto the House, the Senate (despite having to defend way more seats), governorships, and state houses? Why is it that in the 17 Presidential elections since 1952, the Republicans have won 10 of them? Why is it that in the past 26 years that the Republicans controlled the House for 20 years and the Senate for 16?

2016 was a huge win for the R's, and it's inconceivable how any party could f$%k up bad enough as the Dems would have had to in order to lose multiple elections across the country that decisively if the MSM was so influential.

The so-called MSM is not the 500 pound gorilla some make it out to be. Fox has many more cable viewers than any other channel, and talk radio, with tens of millions of listeners, is almost exclusively conservative. Both are far more biased than the "MSM" and now with social media being able to bypass all those institutions, there are plenty of avenues for both conservatives and liberals to get their message across to voters.

[idhawkman]

The reason I keep rubbing your nose in it is because they weren't just wrong, they were REALLY off. Manafort was found guilty of 8 of 18 counts and was one undecided juror away from having all 18 counts go against him

Yeah, i didn't know the Ukrainians were helping the Mueller team by releasing documents from 2005 and redacting the Podesta info on them. I thought they were going off the same info that he was cleared of (read as not charged) back in 2005 when the DOJ looked at it. This info wasn't available to us until just a couple weeks ago when the Ukrainians jailed their politician for interfering in the US election in 2016 helping Hilliary.

and the Republicans didn't just lose the House, they got trounced in one of the largest swings the Dems have posted in our lifetimes with a net loss of 41 seats.

Sort of like predicting a bright sunny day and having it rain a couple inches.

I underestimated how bad the dems in close districts lied to their voters and claimed to be centrists. The deceit will be born out or NOT in the 2020 election after their voters have had 2 years to watch what they do as opposed to just saying what they will do. Like one of my favorite quotes, "Your actions are speaking so loud I can't hear the words coming out of your mouth."

Plus, I wanted it to be true that the Rs would keep the house, no denying that.

[I-5]

To which I stated that if he is voted out (e.g. If what you say is true...) then he's transparent since he's already stated that he won't go if it seems rigged.

Can someone explain this sentence to me? I've read it 3-4 times and I get nothing.

[idhawkman]

[quote="RiverDog]

I had this debate with burrton. If the evil MSM is so heavily biased and influenced the 2016 way in which you have described, why is it that the R's were able to hold onto the House, the Senate (despite having to defend way more seats), governorships, and state houses? Why is it that in the 17 Presidential elections since 1952, the Republicans have won 10 of them? Why is it that in the past 26 years that the Republicans controlled the House for 20 years and the Senate for 16?

2016 was a huge win for the R's, and it's inconceivable how any party could f$%k up bad enough as the Dems would have had to in order to lose multiple elections across the country that decisively if the MSM was so influential.

The so-called MSM is not the 500 pound gorilla some make it out to be. Fox has many more cable viewers than any other channel, and talk radio is almost exclusively conservative. Both are far more biased than the "MSM" and now with social media being able to bypass all those institutions, there are plenty of avenues for both conservatives and liberals to get their message across to voters.[/quote]
You have some good points but don't let recent events get skewed by stuff over 20 or so years. Under Obama the dems lost over 1,000 seats in state and federal elections. I believe that they did that despite the MSM. People are growing very tired of the destruction politics and it took every devisive class to be hurled at Trump this past election and it still didn't work. In the past, just being racist or misogynistic was enough. People are tuning out to the traditional media because they have lost their objectivity. This is more of a recent thing than something that goes back to the 50s when not every home had a tv let alone multiple tvs.

Yes, conservatives have Foxnews vs local stations, MSNBC, CNBC, ESPN, CNN, etc. And yes, conservatives own talk radio but not because the dems haven't tried, no one agrees with their policy ideas so they failed. What they do have is social media to offset the imbalance of talk radio though. What they didn't count on was Trump's following that he brought to the table and the social media folks running his campaign in the last election.

[idhawkman]

To which I stated that if he is voted out (e.g. If what you say is true...) then he's transparent since he's already stated that he won't go if it seems rigged.

Can someone explain this sentence to me? I've read it 3-4 times and I get nothing.

Really? You stated:

Dunno, but I’m on record saying no impeachment necessary. Much much better and clearer to simply vote him out. If that happens, we already know Trump is going to say it’s fixed.

So you stated as a fact that "IF" Trump loses in 2020 that he'll state it is fixed and not leave office. To which I said, if what you say is true.... he's transparent since he told people in 2016 that he may not go whereas we've seen the dems refuse to accept the result of the 2016 election but told us they would accept it.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I don't think "fixed" is the appropriate term when it came to the last presidential election, but I would hope even the most ardent Trump detractors will admit that the mainstream media was 100% stacked against Trump. They didn't even pretend to be unbiased. Hilary could do absolutely zero wrong with all the spin and lack of coverage of any of her misdeeds yet we heard about any and all things Trump had done wrong no matter how small. That was incredibly irresponsible of the media. In light of that, it seems odd to me that the Dems want to point the finger at Russian interference yet no word about how the MSM clearly heavily influenced the election towards Hilary.

I had this debate with burrton. If the evil MSM is so heavily biased and influenced the 2016 way in which you have described, why is it that the R's were able to hold onto the House, the Senate (despite having to defend way more seats), governorships, and state houses? Why is it that in the 17 Presidential elections since 1952, the Republicans have won 10 of them? Why is it that in the past 26 years that the Republicans controlled the House for 20 years and the Senate for 16?

2016 was a huge win for the R's, and it's inconceivable how any party could f$%k up bad enough as the Dems would have had to in order to lose multiple elections across the country that decisively if the MSM was so influential.

The so-called MSM is not the 500 pound gorilla some make it out to be. Fox has many more cable viewers than any other channel, and talk radio, with tens of millions of listeners, is almost exclusively conservative. Both are far more biased than the "MSM" and now with social media being able to bypass all those institutions, there are plenty of avenues for both conservatives and liberals to get their message across to voters.

If I'm overstating it, then I think you're understating it, and I should say then they tried to influence the election. It obviously didn't work, but you're talking about one major news outlet leaning towards Trump. CNN, USA Today, MSNBC, and The Washington Post consistently blasted Trump and propped up Hilary. It was literally hit piece after hit piece. It was so heavy handed that I truly believe it worked against the Dems during that time; that's why I think the R's were able to hold on.

[RiverDog]

You have some good points but don't let recent events get skewed by stuff over 20 or so years. Under Obama the dems lost over 1,000 seats in state and federal elections. I believe that they did that despite the MSM. People are growing very tired of the destruction politics and it took every devisive class to be hurled at Trump this past election and it still didn't work. In the past, just being racist or misogynistic was enough. People are tuning out to the traditional media because they have lost their objectivity. This is more of a recent thing than something that goes back to the 50s when not every home had a tv let alone multiple tvs.

Yes, conservatives have Foxnews vs local stations, MSNBC, CNBC, ESPN, CNN, etc. And yes, conservatives own talk radio but not because the dems haven't tried, no one agrees with their policy ideas so they failed. What they do have is social media to offset the imbalance of talk radio though. What they didn't count on was Trump's following that he brought to the table and the social media folks running his campaign in the last election.

ESPN is part of the MSM bias? The only political ideologue that I can remember them hiring was Rush Limbaugh.

[RiverDog]

I don't think "fixed" is the appropriate term when it came to the last presidential election, but I would hope even the most ardent Trump detractors will admit that the mainstream media was 100% stacked against Trump. They didn't even pretend to be unbiased. Hilary could do absolutely zero wrong with all the spin and lack of coverage of any of her misdeeds yet we heard about any and all things Trump had done wrong no matter how small. That was incredibly irresponsible of the media. In light of that, it seems odd to me that the Dems want to point the finger at Russian interference yet no word about how the MSM clearly heavily influenced the election towards Hilary.

I had this debate with burrton. If the evil MSM is so heavily biased and influenced the 2016 way in which you have described, why is it that the R's were able to hold onto the House, the Senate (despite having to defend way more seats), governorships, and state houses? Why is it that in the 17 Presidential elections since 1952, the Republicans have won 10 of them? Why is it that in the past 26 years that the Republicans controlled the House for 20 years and the Senate for 16?

2016 was a huge win for the R's, and it's inconceivable how any party could f$%k up bad enough as the Dems would have had to in order to lose multiple elections across the country that decisively if the MSM was so influential.

The so-called MSM is not the 500 pound gorilla some make it out to be. Fox has many more cable viewers than any other channel, and talk radio, with tens of millions of listeners, is almost exclusively conservative. Both are far more biased than the "MSM" and now with social media being able to bypass all those institutions, there are plenty of avenues for both conservatives and liberals to get their message across to voters.

If I'm overstating it, then I think you're understating it, and I should say then they tried to influence the election. It obviously didn't work, but you're talking about one major news outlet leaning towards Trump. CNN, USA Today, MSNBC, and The Washington Post consistently blasted Trump and propped up Hilary. It was literally hit piece after hit piece. It was so heavy handed that I truly believe it worked against the Dems during that time; that's why I think the R's were able to hold on.

The difference is that I've posted some factual points to support my contention that a media bias is not as influential as you're indicating. So far, all you've done is venture an opinion.

If you really want to see a true media bias that had tangible effects, you should take a look at the political landscape from 1932-1990. The Democrats controlled the House for all but 4 years and the Senate for all but 10. That was before the advent of talk radio and cable news commentaries like Fox. From the 30's through the 60's, all of the White House press corps hailed from the Northeast. There's no way that JFK would have won in 1960 without favorable treatment from the press. It's what caused Richard Nixon to become so paranoid that he ruined his presidency trying to fight them.

One of my endearing memories of my childhood is how my parents got their news. They had a local evening newspaper and spent 30 minutes watching Huntley-Brinkley. It's quite a contrast to how varied news sources are today. People have scores of choices in how they get their news in today's world. You don't HAVE to watch CNN or any of the others you mentioned if you don't agree with their politics.

[idhawkman]

You have some good points but don't let recent events get skewed by stuff over 20 or so years. Under Obama the dems lost over 1,000 seats in state and federal elections. I believe that they did that despite the MSM. People are growing very tired of the destruction politics and it took every devisive class to be hurled at Trump this past election and it still didn't work. In the past, just being racist or misogynistic was enough. People are tuning out to the traditional media because they have lost their objectivity. This is more of a recent thing than something that goes back to the 50s when not every home had a tv let alone multiple tvs.

Yes, conservatives have Foxnews vs local stations, MSNBC, CNBC, ESPN, CNN, etc. And yes, conservatives own talk radio but not because the dems haven't tried, no one agrees with their policy ideas so they failed. What they do have is social media to offset the imbalance of talk radio though. What they didn't count on was Trump's following that he brought to the table and the social media folks running his campaign in the last election.

ESPN is part of the MSM bias? The only political ideologue that I can remember them hiring was Rush Limbaugh.

Don't believe me but their new CEO said they had to stop the political rhetoric when he took over. They lost too many viewers because of it.

Easy to find articles on it, too. I just googled ESPN political bias and here's the first article.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/05/21/espn-president-yeah-our-customers-really-dont-want-us-covering-politics-n2546634

[I-5]

Question for you id...what do you think 'rigged' means when he says it? Do you think he's talking about the MSM, or the actual electoral process? If it's the former, I can't think of any candidate who has benefitted more from MSM than Trump in terms of free airtime. Or is he talking about the 'deep state' being part of the rigging within government? If that's the case, how is he president then?

[RiverDog]

Don't believe me but their new CEO said they had to stop the political rhetoric when he took over. They lost too many viewers because of it.

You're right, I don't believe you, and won't unless you can post something that backs up your claim.

[idhawkman]

Question for you id...what do you think 'rigged' means when he says it?

Depends on the context. During the primaries, the RNC and DNC support their candidate as you saw with Hilliary vs. Bernie and the super delegates. In the REpublican primaries you saw it with the threatened contested convention even after Trump had won the nomination. Carry that over into the general and note the media bias along with the never Trumpers, the "unverified and salacious Dossier", unmaskings, etc. etc. You can also add in there the motor voter registration laws that don't verify citizenship or the voting polls that don't require photo id or the states that don't cull their voter rolls. There's lots of ways to "rig" the system.

Do you think he's talking about the MSM, or the actual electoral process? If it's the former, I can't think of any candidate who has benefitted more from MSM than Trump in terms of free airtime. Or is he talking about the 'deep state' being part of the rigging within government? If that's the case, how is he president then?

One word, "GOD".

[idhawkman]

Don't believe me but their new CEO said they had to stop the political rhetoric when he took over. They lost too many viewers because of it.

You're right, I don't believe you, and won't unless you can post something that backs up your claim.

I edited that post and put in a link for you. I know, it just happened a week or so ago and the news outlets you watch probably didn't cover it like Fox News did.

[idhawkman]

LOL, just saw on the financial news that Trump is going to trigger a process that will speed up Congress' vote on the USMCA agreement. This should really get under the dems skin. Again, Trump continues to govern while the congress tries to figure out if they want to do something or not. Too funny!

Let's try and keep a running tally.

Announcement on Border crisis coming today or tomorrow by Trump.
Statement on the abortion laws being passed by states - White House position paper coming
Triggering a process to force action on USMCA within 30 days - Trump again
Commencement speech in Colorado (AF academy) - Trump
Tea with Queen of England - Trump

House Dems/Pelosi
??? Issue another subpoena?
Decide to start Impeachment or not?

[I-5]

Are you saying GOD intervened in the conspiracy to make sure Trump loses, and good triumphed over evil? Ok, no further questions.....

[RiverDog]

Don't believe me but their new CEO said they had to stop the political rhetoric when he took over. They lost too many viewers because of it.

You're right, I don't believe you, and won't unless you can post something that backs up your claim.

I edited that post and put in a link for you. I know, it just happened a week or so ago and the news outlets you watch probably didn't cover it like Fox News did.

OK, I'll give you credit for backing up your claim and I appreciate it. However, mentioning ESPN as a politically orientated network in the same breath with CNN, MSNBC, etc is elevating them way, way out of proportion.

I sincerely doubt that their politics is a major contributor to ESPN's loss of viewership. IMO cord cutters, particularly the Millennials, are the primary cause for their loss of viewership. There's also been a ton of sports network programming that have given ESPN more competition, ie all of the major sports have their own networks as do the major college conferences. They no longer monopolize the industry.

And BTW, I've told you and others in this forum on multiple occasions that I watch Fox News regularly in addition to having them on my personalized news feed. Looks like another memory loss issue.

[idhawkman]

OK, I'll give you credit for backing up your claim and I appreciate it. However, mentioning ESPN as a politically orientated network in the same breath with CNN, MSNBC, etc is elevating them way, way out of proportion.

I sincerely doubt that their politics is a major contributor to ESPN's loss of viewership. IMO cord cutters, particularly the Millennials, are the primary cause for their loss of viewership. There's also been a ton of sports network programming that have given ESPN more competition, ie all of the major sports have their own networks as do the major college conferences. They no longer monopolize the industry.

AS I said, don't take my word for it, take their new CEOs words for it.

And BTW, I've told you and others in this forum on multiple occasions that I watch Fox News regularly in addition to having them on my personalized news feed. Looks like another memory loss issue.

Nope, no memory loss, that's why I said it just happened and the news outlets that you watch didn't report it (YET!!!!) Give em another 4 months and it will be new news on the other channels. Regarding Fox, it was reported there but you were probably focused on another channel or not watching tv at all at that time. It was mentioned on every show though one night. E.g. Tucker, Hannity, Laura, etc.

[idhawkman]

So of the 40 house dems who want to impeach Trump, none of them came from one of the moderate districts that flipped the house from Repub to Democrat in 2018. It appears that there are some level heads in the Dem party after all. Unfortunately, those 40 that do want it suck all the air out of the media and are the only ones being covered.

[RiverDog]

AS I said, don't take my word for it, take their new CEOs words for it.

The CEO just said it was "some percentage". Obviously the factors I mentioned are responsible for a lot more loss in viewership.

And BTW, I've told you and others in this forum on multiple occasions that I watch Fox News regularly in addition to having them on my personalized news feed. Looks like another memory loss issue.

Nope, no memory loss, that's why I said it just happened and the news outlets that you watch didn't report it (YET!!!!) Give em another 4 months and it will be new news on the other channels. Regarding Fox, it was reported there but you were probably focused on another channel or not watching tv at all at that time. It was mentioned on every show though one night. E.g. Tucker, Hannity, Laura, etc.

I would caution you not to assume where I'm getting my news from as you're likely going to be as wrong about that as you are about your other predictions.

[idhawkman]

The CEO just said it was "some percentage". Obviously the factors I mentioned are responsible for a lot more loss in viewership.

And you base your "factors" on what study?

I would caution you not to assume where I'm getting my news from as you're likely going to be as wrong about that as you are about your other predictions.

Well what I do know is you were not getting it from where it was breaking... Otherwise, you'd have known.

[idhawkman]

And, there it is. 5% tariff on all goods coming from Mexico until the illegal border crossings stop. Will begin June 10th and will increase gradually until the illegal border crossings stop. Just learned that it will increase by 5% every month until a maximum of 25% on all goods is reached.

Maybe they will eventually end up paying for the border wall. They may even build it for us.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I don't think "fixed" is the appropriate term when it came to the last presidential election, but I would hope even the most ardent Trump detractors will admit that the mainstream media was 100% stacked against Trump. They didn't even pretend to be unbiased. Hilary could do absolutely zero wrong with all the spin and lack of coverage of any of her misdeeds yet we heard about any and all things Trump had done wrong no matter how small. That was incredibly irresponsible of the media. In light of that, it seems odd to me that the Dems want to point the finger at Russian interference yet no word about how the MSM clearly heavily influenced the election towards Hilary.

The difference is that I've posted some factual points to support my contention that a media bias is not as influential as you're indicating. So far, all you've done is venture an opinion.

If you really want to see a true media bias that had tangible effects, you should take a look at the political landscape from 1932-1990. The Democrats controlled the House for all but 4 years and the Senate for all but 10. That was before the advent of talk radio and cable news commentaries like Fox. From the 30's through the 60's, all of the White House press corps hailed from the Northeast. There's no way that JFK would have won in 1960 without favorable treatment from the press. It's what caused Richard Nixon to become so paranoid that he ruined his presidency trying to fight them.

One of my endearing memories of my childhood is how my parents got their news. They had a local evening newspaper and spent 30 minutes watching Huntley-Brinkley. It's quite a contrast to how varied news sources are today. People have scores of choices in how they get their news in today's world. You don't HAVE to watch CNN or any of the others you mentioned if you don't agree with their politics.

River, I do wish I had changed my wording of the statement in bold; my assertion truly isn't that it was dead nuts definite the majority of mainstream media influenced the election against Trump; like you said, the man won, but you couldn't tune into media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today during the election without consistently hearing something negative about Trump, and, yet, outside of Fox News, no one was taking Hillary to task over her transgressions. What else was the point of that bias if not to try and influence voters? I believe that it instead turned off a lot of voters, me included. If the media wants to take candidates out to the wood shed, then sure, go for it, but do it across the board. It will be a poor tactic again if all the Dems and left-leaning media outlets can push is "Trump bad!".

[burrrton]

And, there it is. 5% tariff on all goods coming from Mexico until the illegal border crossings stop.

That'll teach us!

[idhawkman]

And, there it is. 5% tariff on all goods coming from Mexico until the illegal border crossings stop.

That'll teach us!

With inflation under 2%/yr even in the current tariff environment and the fed considering a rate cut because of it, this won't impact us much at least not nearly as much as the welfare programs, costs at processing centers, and hospitals, schools, etc.