[Newfie]

VT,

You expect life without discomfort?

How do you evaluate discomfort?

You are twisting my comment more then a bit.
Much of what you say further down is valid. I know of no position that would be exceptable to all sides.

My apologies if it came across that way. I quite possibly miss understood your point.

[AdamB]

The MAGA enthusiast in you maybe,

You are confused about my positions. I have never been pro Trump or MAGA. America has never been un great so did not need to be great again.

Well, then perhaps I will just stick with the more obvious link, "reverse partisanship extremist"? Covers the same bases except without the Dear Leader being involved.

Trump won because he was not Hillary.

I completely agree. And he managed Obama's recovery from King George II's historic fiscal disaster very nicely.

While he was in the Republican establishment put in place conservative polices that worked and Trump did not stop them which was probably because he did not understand what they were doing.

I've already admitted he managed Obama's recovery nicely. Mostly by not interfering, because other than managing huge deficit spending and tax cuts for corporations, there wasn't much policy he put into place.

The idea that the GOP tax cut is a Trump tax cut is laughable considering he can not even do his own taxes much less draft tax law.

Just as Obama didn't personally draft the policies to stop King George II's disaster, but handily figured it out anyway, that Trump might inherit it.

Now we have Biden winning because he is not Trump and we have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.

Certainly Biden did win because of the outrage Trump generated along the way, and he did inherit the screaming horrific economic disaster left to him by Trumps mismanagement of Obama's recovery.

I look at a Trump run in 2024 as a disaster the GOP should avoid at all cost.

And we agree again. Looks like we see pretty much eye to eye on all this stuff VT.

[evilgenius]

I was out there on the front lines, yesterday, with my signs. I was protesting for a woman's right to choose in my local area. I stood by the side of one of our local roundabouts. I held a sign that said, "6-3 = Rape by Committee," on one side, and "If women don't have rights then no one has rights," on the other. A lot of people cheered us on, there being a couple hundred of us. People were good.

[vtsnowedin]

I think it is a bit early for protests. It is just a leak after all, and maybe a trial balloon sent out to gauge public opinion or stir up the frenzy you are participating in.
I thought Manchin's no vote and his explanation for it was correct. The bill Schumer put forward goes far left of Roe.V Wade and Manchin will not go that far. Why they don't listen to Manchin beforehand and go with what he clearly said he would vote for is beyond me.
The majority of the public is not at one extreme or the other. A bill that passes will have to be a bit left of center not at AOC's extreme left position.

[Newfie]

Why not put out a Munchin approved bill?

They do not want a solution, they want a flag to rally round. AH’s.

[careinke]

I was out there on the front lines, yesterday, with my signs. I was protesting for a woman's right to choose in my local area. I stood by the side of one of our local roundabouts. I held a sign that said, "6-3 = Rape by Committee," on one side, and "If women don't have rights then no one has rights," on the other. A lot of people cheered us on, there being a couple hundred of us. People were good.

Have you read the decision yet? I did, and saw nothing that made abortion illegal at the Federal level. I'm kind of wondering why you were protesting.

Of course if it was a protest over a state law, depending on the law, I could very well be out there with you.

Peace

[AdamB]

I think it is a bit early for protests. It is just a leak after all, and maybe a trial balloon sent out to gauge public opinion or stir up the frenzy you are participating in.

Then again, it could be Republicrats crossing into the promised land after half a centuryof gradual gerrymandering, buying all the local comunications outlets to sell whatever story is dictated, pushing first the Tea Party reorg (otherwise known as the rise of the American Taliban), followed by continued intolerance of...well....most everything not white nationalist related leading straight to the most recent sacking of the capital by the seditionists.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see how it lines up with the final opinion. Sure seemed way too detailed for a trial ballon though. When someone, be they a lawyer or scientist, puts that much time into their references and background argument, it isn't something done as some sort of half assed joke.

Why they don't listen to Manchin beforehand and go with what he clearly said he would vote for is beyond me.

Coal magnates enriching themselves at the publics expense are hardly the fearless leaders the Democans are looking for. I'm surprised Manchin hasn't converted to Republicrat already. WV is a weird place when it comes to how politics are sold.

The majority of the public is not at one extreme or the other.

Nope. But how would you know? Do you get to see those folks living in Bernie, "I love Pelosi" land? Maybe you've got some neighbors that aren't full MAGA?

[jedrider]

Not sure what all this arguing is about, but just an observation:

1. It looks like the SC vote tally is already in. They sometimes change their minds over legal arguments. However, this supreme court is so ideological, that reasonable (i.e. non-fantasizing people) don't think is possible any more.

2. The arguments they arrive at may be more significant for presaging their future decisions than the particular precedent they are setting. Let's face it, any argument they provide is specious at best, considering their aim is to overthrow all 'liberal' law.

3. Clarence mentioned 'one bad apple.' I think theire are more than that: Maybe, up to 5 bad apples!

[vtsnowedin]

Then again, it could be Republicrats crossing into the promised land after half a century of gradual gerrymandering, buying all the local comunications outlets to sell whatever story is dictated, pushing first the Tea Party reorg (otherwise known as the rise of the American Taliban), followed by continued intolerance of...well....most everything not white nationalist related leading straight to the most recent sacking of the capital by the seditionists.

I see Fox and The Wall street journal on one side and most all the rest of the media on the left side. So if the Republicans had a plan or program to buy up and silence the opposition they have failed worse then a Russian army river crossing.

[jedrider]

Then again, it could be Republicrats crossing into the promised land after half a century of gradual gerrymandering, buying all the local comunications outlets to sell whatever story is dictated, pushing first the Tea Party reorg (otherwise known as the rise of the American Taliban), followed by continued intolerance of...well....most everything not white nationalist related leading straight to the most recent sacking of the capital by the seditionists.

I see Fox and The Wall street journal on one side and most all the rest of the media on the left side. So if the Republicans had a plan or program to buy up and silence the opposition they have failed worse then a Russian army river crossing.

Don't know. Clearly, we don't have a 'left' media, just a not so far off the plank media. Extremism on one side does seem to get all the focus, however, whether for or against. But, we always know who the winners will be. That hasn't changed.

[vtsnowedin]

Clearly, we don't have a 'left' media,

Can you possibly actually believe that.???

[jedrider]

Clearly, we don't have a 'left' media,

Can you possibly actually believe that.???

Say that we did. Have they been effectual? No.

I know of a media outlet or two that are 'Left',

but, clearly, the right ignores them for good reason,

their audience reach is probably abysmal except

for some areas with college campuses nearby.

[vtsnowedin]

Left leaning media:
MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, The NY times, The Washington Post, Facebook. Google, Twitter, Boston Globe (one newspaper from every metro area), .... Shall I go on?

[careinke]

Left leaning media:
MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, The NY times, The Washington Post, Facebook. Google, Twitter, Boston Globe (one newspaper from every metro area), .... Shall I go on?

Here, Ill add some more for you, but first my source:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

Buzzfeed News, Daily Beast, Huffpost, Mother Jones, Nation, Slate, Vox, USA today, Time, Yahoo News, Bloomberg, NPR, AP political fact check, Democracy Now, and Vice.

Someone seems to be Emoting rather than thinking.

Peace

[jedrider]

I'm sorry. That's not Left versus Right. That's a battle for the center. Should I say that again. CENTER. A rather mediocre discourse is all that can be expected of that.

I would call that CONSERVATIVE versus LIBERAL, sociologically opposite sentiments, but both firmly playing the same game.

[careinke]

I'm sorry. That's not Left versus Right. That's a battle for the center. Should I say that again. CENTER. A rather mediocre discourse is all that can be expected of that.

I would call that CONSERVATIVE versus LIBERAL, sociologically opposite sentiments, but both firmly playing the same game.

So where are your facts supporting your position?? Your emoting is making little sense. Of course that is part of the definition of the word emoting and why I chose it.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/emoting
You remind me of a Beta trying to act like an Alpha. All bluster with nothing backing you up.

Peace

[Newfie]

You can use Media Bias Fact Check to see where your news source lays on the political spectrum.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

They have filtered searches so can get a list of what meets what criteria.

I put in most unbiased, web only, high traffic in USA and got ONE response:
ThoughtCo.COM. And that is education topical but not news.

Then again, even this is an online source subject to its own bias, so there is that.

At least it is a start.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

[AdamB]

Then again, it could be Republicrats crossing into the promised land after half a century of gradual gerrymandering, buying all the local comunications outlets to sell whatever story is dictated, pushing first the Tea Party reorg (otherwise known as the rise of the American Taliban), followed by continued intolerance of...well....most everything not white nationalist related leading straight to the most recent sacking of the capital by the seditionists.

I see Fox and The Wall street journal on one side and most all the rest of the media on the left side.

Can you define said "sides"? I am familiar with the talking points, and see them sprinkled in various and differing quantities among various news outlets. I don't think of "sides" when it comes to media, any more than I do people, but I do watch very carefully the selective use of data in order to determine selective bias. Just haven't applied analytic rigor to news organizations.

So if the Republicans had a plan or program to buy up and silence the opposition they have failed worse then a Russian army river crossing.

You don't need to silence the opposition, you just need to gerrymander local districts in such a way as to make small fiefdoms, organize the fiefdoms ideologically, sell it to rabid believers telling them how they have lost the good ol' days to folks of color, the college educated, the elites and smart people and whatnot, work on packing the courts when possible, and let the answer come your way. At the top level, it is a beautiful example of long term planning and ideological cohesion. Some will love the results, the opposition by design will hate it. In part, I speculate, because of the sheer organizational genius of it. I think sacking the Capital was a bit much, but the partisans seem to love it. Direct action against the oppressive liberal overlords!

[Newfie]

How about we just start thinking for ourselves, independently?

[vtsnowedin]

How about we just start thinking for ourselves, independently?

Well you have the prehistoric system where the chief decides and the even older system where the Mother decides, then the Church system where the priests decide and now the Capitalists system where the board and CEO decide. Throughout history most of us have most of the decisions made for us.