Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Move along nothing to see

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 12:03:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Except those cites have credentials, although I do try to avoid using them whenever possible because I don't like corporate media. The political insider is a semi blog site and click bait site.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 12:48:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 12:03:57 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Except those cites have credentials, although I do try to avoid using them whenever possible because I don't like corporate media. The political insider is a semi blog site and click bait site.

I'd like to not use them either but then one is only left with blogs, partisanship (breitbart-huffington), and loons.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 12:56:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:03:10 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
A lil expose by the FBI and DOJ... but really, there's nothing to see.

htthttp://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged. The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity

That's not good enough.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 5:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, to be fair, Fox is the only member of corporate media to have declared themselves an entertainment company, rather than a news organization, as a consequence of which they didn't have to abide by standards of journalistic integrity in their reporting (which, with the omission of some details, is effectively what they were being sued for).

I think you're making the mistake of assuming everything's being shades of grey means they're all comparably credible, which is untrue. I hold outlets like CNN and MSNBC in some contempt for favoring progressives, same as I sometimes take more prestigious publications like the Economist for having a bit of a rightward slant. But Fox is arguably one of the least credible mainstream sources you could find (empirically, the quality of their reporting is subpar, and tends to scale inversely with audience size), and I think it's pretty ludicrous you could even compare their standard-issue pieces with Reuters or AP.

My point is I don't disagree there's something kind of weird/shifty about Hillary not even being indicted, but I have trouble believing there are no more trustworthy sources. Even your main source, "The Political Insider" (which is a blog, which apparently meets your stated "If it were a blog, sure" criterion for dismissing a source), makes it clear on the About that they're oriented against "the liberal media", and most of their "Politics" page is pretty unambiguous partisan hackery. Even the one page that pays mind to Trump's attitude toward women has a poll at the bottom which, while asking whether his inappropriate behavior should lead him to duck out of the race, frames the question strictly in terms of beating Hillary Clinton, rather than as a question of how people perceive his moral character [http://imgur.com...].
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 9:35:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:03:10 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
A lil expose by the FBI and DOJ... but really, there's nothing to see.

htthttp://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

There's a law podcast that specifically addressed Hillary's email scandal, and the lawyer on the show (Andrew Torrez) explained the FBI's decision really well by going over past cases. Based on what he said, it seems very unlikely that the DOJ would actually go after Hillary. The particular podcast episode is here:

http://openargs.com...

Torrez also wrote a detailed blog post about it, if you don't want to listen to the podcast:

http://patorrez.com...

I know it's long, but this isn't a simple issue. The gist is that, for what Hillary has been accused of/investigated for, there are only a handful of prosecutions from the past. In those cases, the people who were prosecuted and convicted only had that happen when the documents actually wound up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have had access to them, and only when the person knew the specific documents should not have been removed from their secure location. Without any clear intent on Hillary's part, or evidence that her docs wound up in the wrong hands, there just isn't much reason for her to be indicted.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 9:50:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 9:35:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:03:10 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
A lil expose by the FBI and DOJ... but really, there's nothing to see.

htthttp://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

There's a law podcast that specifically addressed Hillary's email scandal, and the lawyer on the show (Andrew Torrez) explained the FBI's decision really well by going over past cases. Based on what he said, it seems very unlikely that the DOJ would actually go after Hillary. The particular podcast episode is here:

http://openargs.com...

Torrez also wrote a detailed blog post about it, if you don't want to listen to the podcast:

http://patorrez.com...

I know it's long, but this isn't a simple issue. The gist is that, for what Hillary has been accused of/investigated for, there are only a handful of prosecutions from the past. In those cases, the people who were prosecuted and convicted only had that happen when the documents actually wound up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have had access to them, and only when the person knew the specific documents should not have been removed from their secure location. Without any clear intent on Hillary's part, or evidence that her docs wound up in the wrong hands, there just isn't much reason for her to be indicted.

I actually jumped the gun. I got a mail notification, looked, and Reuters, dailymail, fox, politicalinsider, Reuters... all had the story. An hour later it was down to fox, political insider, and townhall. I wouldn't have posted just those 3 referencing 1 anonymous DOJ lawyer.

Smoke but no fire. I read through explanations similar to the blog you cited back July after the comey explanation. Incompetent, but only borderline illegal, was my thought at the time.

What caught my eye was the 'multiple' FBI and DOJ sources. But I should have known. Enter. Anonymous source stories, take a wait approach.

Thanks for posting the explanation/blog!
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 12:21:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 12:48:36 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 12:03:57 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Except those cites have credentials, although I do try to avoid using them whenever possible because I don't like corporate media. The political insider is a semi blog site and click bait site.

I'd like to not use them either but then one is only left with blogs, partisanship (breitbart-huffington), and loons.

There are good independent media outlets out there, and even some good blogs as well, (for them it all really comes down to the author).
RT, Al Jazeera, Democracy Now, The Guardian, The Intercept, The District Sentinel, The BBC, TruthDig, Jacobin magazine, etc.
For most of my news I use either the news app on my phone, google top headlines, see what's in my youtube feed, or check twitter. I also listen to Democracy Now in the morning. I particularly like getting US news from foreign sources like Channel 4 News, Al Jazeera, and the Guardian.
Comedy News sources like the Daily Show, Redacted Tonight, Last Week Tonight etc are also great sources of news.

Sources like CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, etc. should be taken with a grain of salt, but they can be useful at times. I prefer not to use them, but if I have no choice I will use them.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 12:46:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, I searched around, and got nothing but far right sites. Got a CNN link?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:01:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 12:46:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, I searched around, and got nothing but far right sites. Got a CNN link?

Scroll down a few more posts. I clarify my op. Lol
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:03:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 5:20:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, to be fair, Fox is the only member of corporate media to have declared themselves an entertainment company, rather than a news organization, as a consequence of which they didn't have to abide by standards of journalistic integrity in their reporting (which, with the omission of some details, is effectively what they were being sued for).

I think you're making the mistake of assuming everything's being shades of grey means they're all comparably credible, which is untrue. I hold outlets like CNN and MSNBC in some contempt for favoring progressives, same as I sometimes take more prestigious publications like the Economist for having a bit of a rightward slant. But Fox is arguably one of the least credible mainstream sources you could find (empirically, the quality of their reporting is subpar, and tends to scale inversely with audience size), and I think it's pretty ludicrous you could even compare their standard-issue pieces with Reuters or AP.

My point is I don't disagree there's something kind of weird/shifty about Hillary not even being indicted, but I have trouble believing there are no more trustworthy sources. Even your main source, "The Political Insider" (which is a blog, which apparently meets your stated "If it were a blog, sure" criterion for dismissing a source), makes it clear on the About that they're oriented against "the liberal media", and most of their "Politics" page is pretty unambiguous partisan hackery. Even the one page that pays mind to Trump's attitude toward women has a poll at the bottom which, while asking whether his inappropriate behavior should lead him to duck out of the race, frames the question strictly in terms of beating Hillary Clinton, rather than as a question of how people perceive his moral character [http://imgur.com...].

Check out post 10 or 11, I clarify. Lol
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:26:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 1:01:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 12:46:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, I searched around, and got nothing but far right sites. Got a CNN link?

Scroll down a few more posts. I clarify my op. Lol

No problem. Thanks
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:32:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 1:26:15 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:01:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 12:46:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, I searched around, and got nothing but far right sites. Got a CNN link?

Scroll down a few more posts. I clarify my op. Lol

No problem. Thanks
I always try to admit an error or misplaced source
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:34:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 1:32:44 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:26:15 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:01:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 12:46:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, I searched around, and got nothing but far right sites. Got a CNN link?

Scroll down a few more posts. I clarify my op. Lol

No problem. Thanks
I always try to admit an error or misplaced source

Your a good man, and a great right-leaning addition to this site.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:45:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 1:34:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:32:44 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:26:15 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:01:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 12:46:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, I searched around, and got nothing but far right sites. Got a CNN link?

Scroll down a few more posts. I clarify my op. Lol

No problem. Thanks
I always try to admit an error or misplaced source

Your a good man, and a great right-leaning addition to this site.

Only if you mean right in regards to restricting federal government. Lol the 'modern right' hijacked origin Isra and libertarians are often a bit... um, out there?

You know biggest problem with the 'left'? The failure, often, to chastise their own (mrs. washerman-Schulz. Seriously how t.f. Did she stay there so long!) and the demonizing of 'the right' which often puts those willing to compromise on the defensive (in issue specific here like same gender marriage, refugee acceptance, education principles). The 'neo-con' should actually merge with the left as they follow the same platform just spun a different way.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:50:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 1:45:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:34:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:32:44 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:26:15 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:01:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 12:46:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, I searched around, and got nothing but far right sites. Got a CNN link?

Scroll down a few more posts. I clarify my op. Lol

No problem. Thanks
I always try to admit an error or misplaced source

Your a good man, and a great right-leaning addition to this site.

Only if you mean right in regards to restricting federal government. Lol the 'modern right' hijacked origin Isra and libertarians are often a bit... um, out there?
Yes. My Grandfather, and Step-father were Republicans. Both severed as aldermen out of civic responsibility. These men would find no home in the Republican party of today.


You know biggest problem with the 'left'? The failure, often, to chastise their own (mrs. washerman-Schulz. Seriously how t.f. Did she stay there so long!) and the demonizing of 'the right' which often puts those willing to compromise on the defensive (in issue specific here like same gender marriage, refugee acceptance, education principles). The 'neo-con' should actually merge with the left as they follow the same platform just spun a different way.
Well.... See. I would say the same of the right. Thing is, as you noted, the right HAS gone all "Pure right". There is no room for a moderate in the party right now. They started kicking them all out in the late 80's, 90's they were endangered species, 0-16 - GONE. I can think of one republican I would call truly "moderate"
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:56:45 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 1:50:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:45:52 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:34:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:32:44 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:26:15 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:01:40 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 12:46:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/12/2016 11:30:13 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:16:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's supposed to route to http://www.foxnews.com...

And, if so, let me first say I'm disappointed you ultimately landed on Fox News as a source.

Nope, there were 4 but I only posted the 1.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Works fine for me. And on the disappointed front... I love when people do that. If it were a blog, sure. But CNN, fox, abc, cbs, even Reuters and AP writers, although all with bias, retain some validity.

Well, I searched around, and got nothing but far right sites. Got a CNN link?

Scroll down a few more posts. I clarify my op. Lol

No problem. Thanks
I always try to admit an error or misplaced source

Your a good man, and a great right-leaning addition to this site.

Only if you mean right in regards to restricting federal government. Lol the 'modern right' hijacked origin Isra and libertarians are often a bit... um, out there?
Yes. My Grandfather, and Step-father were Republicans. Both severed as aldermen out of civic responsibility. These men would find no home in the Republican party of today.


You know biggest problem with the 'left'? The failure, often, to chastise their own (mrs. washerman-Schulz. Seriously how t.f. Did she stay there so long!) and the demonizing of 'the right' which often puts those willing to compromise on the defensive (in issue specific here like same gender marriage, refugee acceptance, education principles). The 'neo-con' should actually merge with the left as they follow the same platform just spun a different way.
Well.... See. I would say the same of the right. Thing is, as you noted, the right HAS gone all "Pure right". There is no room for a moderate in the party right now. They started kicking them all out in the late 80's, 90's they were endangered species, 0-16 - GONE. I can think of one republican I would call truly "moderate"

Rand is as close as it gets. I guess you could say his dad as well but they are both pariahs. Kasich isn't a bad dude.

But leadership wise? Ugh. Social commentator wise? Put it this way: I'd punch hannity before Maddow. I think I'd make her cry first anyway. O'Reilly id punch just for being a smug azz (although him and miller were great together before I tuned off his show completely in 2011).