|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 15, 2025 21:57:38 GMT
lol. Why? So you can critique them? Ah well, I don’t care. It depends upon the day, but generally some combination of the following: NYT, WaPo, the AP, Axios, Politico, Semafor, BBC. And others, like CNN or MSNBC. It's important to note, that any news source, Left or Right, can and do get it wrong. The most telling factor is what they do about it. Just one example: A major news story from the Left leaning news media was that Trump called neo Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people". Most, if not all, leaving out the fact that in the very same statement he specifically said the words "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally". They left that out to insinuate that was exactly who he was saying were the "very fine people". For years. Of those 9 that you use as your news sources, how many of them left that MAJOR fact out in their reporting? Which is dishonest enough. But, then of those, how many corrected that dishonest reporting? You skipped right over this, mollycoddle. How many corrected that dishonest reporting? |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 15, 2025 22:21:09 GMT
It's not OK, which is why Dems [ETA: Progressives, really] support more paths for poor immigrants to come here legally. Legal presence would protect them from a lot of exploitation because they could both unionize and file complaints against employers who are treating them poorly without fear of being rounded up and deported. And I'm fine with paying more for produce for them to be paid appropriately. The thing is that most Americans aren't willing to do those jobs at all, at any price. I'm sure we would agree that *neither* party has taken adequate steps to address the lack of legal pathways for non-wealthy immigrants to come here and do the jobs we need to have done. Do we agree on even that, though? I am NOT going to be lectured on immigration policy by people who knowingly voted for - and still support - the man who sunk a (granted not great, but it was something) bipartisan immigration bill in 2024 - all so he could campaign on open borders. www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-kill-border-bill-sign-trumps-strength-mcconnells-waning-in-rcna137477Not happening. Not bloody likely. Democrats killed the bill themselves when they insisted at least 5000 people a day had to be allowed through before a restriction would kick in as the only way it would work. That has been proven to be a lie. The rest of us refuse to be lectured on immigration policy by people who knowingly voted for the man who said the border couldn't be fixed without a ridiculous bill that was clearly a lie. Not going to be lectured to by people that supported an administration that was very clearly lying about the obvious cognitive decline of Biden. That's a national security issue. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 15, 2025 22:35:51 GMT
Christopher Wray said there were a few dozen known or suspected terrorists in America and we don't know where they are.
That's how bad the vetting was. Another national security issue you supported.
|
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 16, 2025 0:40:20 GMT
No FF has to return the funds that he has taken away from states, towns etc just like he did to DC. If they had proper funding maybe the issues would be fixed locally! WHEN did he take the funds? How was the crime BEFORE he took the funds? |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Aug 16, 2025 0:59:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 16, 2025 1:13:38 GMT
It's important to note, that any news source, Left or Right, can and do get it wrong. The most telling factor is what they do about it. Just one example: A major news story from the Left leaning news media was that Trump called neo Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people". Most, if not all, leaving out the fact that in the very same statement he specifically said the words "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally". They left that out to insinuate that was exactly who he was saying were the "very fine people". For years. Of those 9 that you use as your news sources, how many of them left that MAJOR fact out in their reporting? Which is dishonest enough. But, then of those, how many corrected that dishonest reporting? You skipped right over this, mollycoddle. How many corrected that dishonest reporting? I did skip over it. You gave an example, and now you seem to want me to do research. Do you think that you can introduce a topic and get people to spend time researching it? If you want to look it up though, feel free. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 16, 2025 3:36:19 GMT
Where is the medical evidence to back up the claim? Without it the claims mean nothing. And as a reminder… ”Ronald Reagan's mental state as president: a complex picture Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, six years after leaving office. This diagnosis sparked speculation about whether his mental state had been impacted during his presidency (1981-1989), leading to considerable academic and public debate. Several lines of evidence and differing viewpoints contribute to a complex picture: Evidence suggesting potential decline Changes in Speech Patterns: Studies analyzing Reagan's speech patterns, particularly during press conferences, suggest some changes consistent with early-stage cognitive decline towards the end of his presidency. These changes included increased use of repetitive words, substituting non-specific terms for specific nouns, and a decline in the use of unique words. Iran-Contra Testimony: His testimony during the Iran-Contra hearings, where he displayed difficulty remembering certain details and individuals, has been interpreted by some as potential evidence of cognitive impairment. Reagan's Son's Observations: His son, Ron Reagan, claimed to have observed early signs of Alzheimer's as early as 1984, although these were subtle at the time. Later Analysis of Diaries: Some analyses of Reagan's diaries suggest differences in entries from his second term, showing less text, more laconic analysis, word-finding difficulties, spatial confusion, and suggestions of disinhibition, potentially indicative of early cognitive impairment. Evidence suggesting mental soundness White House Doctors' Accounts: Reagan's White House doctors, who saw him regularly, consistently maintained that they did not observe any symptoms of dementia during his time in office. They noted occasional memory lapses but stressed they were not frequent or significant enough to raise concerns of Alzheimer's. Staff Observations: Many close aides and staff members also attest to Reagan's sharp and decisive nature in office, despite acknowledging that he could be forgetful or inconsistently attentive at times. No Formal Diagnosis While in Office: Reagan was not formally diagnosed with Alzheimer's during his presidency, and initial cognitive tests conducted after he left office in 1990 showed results within the normal range for his age. Important considerations Retrospective Interpretation: It's important to remember that much of the speculation surrounding Reagan's mental state in office occurred after his Alzheimer's diagnosis, leading to retrospective interpretations of his behavior. Limitations of Research: While studies analyzing speech patterns are intriguing, they are not conclusive proof of Alzheimer's during his presidency, according to Business Insider. These methods are still evolving and require further research to establish their predictive accuracy. Natural Aging vs. Disease: Differentiating between the normal forgetfulness associated with aging and the early stages of a neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer's can be challenging, especially without specific blood or other tests available at the time to confirm a diagnosis while the patient is alive. In conclusion, while there is ongoing debate and some evidence suggesting potential early signs of cognitive decline during Ronald Reagan's presidency, there is no definitive consensus or proof that he had Alzheimer's or that it significantly impacted his ability to perform his duties as president. His White House physicians and many close aides maintain he was mentally sound in office. The topic continues to be a subject of historical and medical discussion. |
|
cindosha
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,118 
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 16, 2025 14:28:33 GMT
Where is the medical evidence to back up the claim? Without it the claims mean nothing. And as a reminder… ”Ronald Reagan's mental state as president: a complex picture Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, six years after leaving office. This diagnosis sparked speculation about whether his mental state had been impacted during his presidency (1981-1989), leading to considerable academic and public debate. Several lines of evidence and differing viewpoints contribute to a complex picture: Evidence suggesting potential decline Changes in Speech Patterns: Studies analyzing Reagan's speech patterns, particularly during press conferences, suggest some changes consistent with early-stage cognitive decline towards the end of his presidency. These changes included increased use of repetitive words, substituting non-specific terms for specific nouns, and a decline in the use of unique words. Iran-Contra Testimony: His testimony during the Iran-Contra hearings, where he displayed difficulty remembering certain details and individuals, has been interpreted by some as potential evidence of cognitive impairment. Reagan's Son's Observations: His son, Ron Reagan, claimed to have observed early signs of Alzheimer's as early as 1984, although these were subtle at the time. Later Analysis of Diaries: Some analyses of Reagan's diaries suggest differences in entries from his second term, showing less text, more laconic analysis, word-finding difficulties, spatial confusion, and suggestions of disinhibition, potentially indicative of early cognitive impairment. Evidence suggesting mental soundness White House Doctors' Accounts: Reagan's White House doctors, who saw him regularly, consistently maintained that they did not observe any symptoms of dementia during his time in office. They noted occasional memory lapses but stressed they were not frequent or significant enough to raise concerns of Alzheimer's. Staff Observations: Many close aides and staff members also attest to Reagan's sharp and decisive nature in office, despite acknowledging that he could be forgetful or inconsistently attentive at times. No Formal Diagnosis While in Office: Reagan was not formally diagnosed with Alzheimer's during his presidency, and initial cognitive tests conducted after he left office in 1990 showed results within the normal range for his age. Important considerations Retrospective Interpretation: It's important to remember that much of the speculation surrounding Reagan's mental state in office occurred after his Alzheimer's diagnosis, leading to retrospective interpretations of his behavior. Limitations of Research: While studies analyzing speech patterns are intriguing, they are not conclusive proof of Alzheimer's during his presidency, according to Business Insider. These methods are still evolving and require further research to establish their predictive accuracy. Natural Aging vs. Disease: Differentiating between the normal forgetfulness associated with aging and the early stages of a neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer's can be challenging, especially without specific blood or other tests available at the time to confirm a diagnosis while the patient is alive. In conclusion, while there is ongoing debate and some evidence suggesting potential early signs of cognitive decline during Ronald Reagan's presidency, there is no definitive consensus or proof that he had Alzheimer's or that it significantly impacted his ability to perform his duties as president. His White House physicians and many close aides maintain he was mentally sound in office. The topic continues to be a subject of historical and medical discussion. Haven't the conservatives on this board been hand slapped dozens of times for bringing up an old president, i.e. biden, and now you’re bringing president Reagan? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. just as a reminder, biden’s doctor pleaded the fifth on every single question he was asked. And so did his staff. Which tells me that he and they knew that biden was mentally incapacitated. Nice try though. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 16, 2025 14:51:28 GMT
Democrats killed the bill themselves when they insisted at least 5000 people a day had to be allowed through before a restriction would kick in as the only way it would work. That has been proven to be a lie. The rest of us refuse to be lectured on immigration policy by people who knowingly voted for the man who said the border couldn't be fixed without a ridiculous bill that was clearly a lie. Not going to be lectured to by people that supported an administration that was very clearly lying about the obvious cognitive decline of Biden. That's a national security issue. Weird how the bill also had the support of MAGA until Trump decided they couldn't let the Democrats have a win. Guess they didn't think it was a lie. Guess they also knew no one said it was the "only" way. It was the way agreed on by both parties at that time; thus it was the only path forward that would get the necessary votes at that time. Any claims to the contrary are a lie indeed. |
|
cindosha
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,118
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 16, 2025 15:33:34 GMT
Democrats killed the bill themselves when they insisted at least 5000 people a day had to be allowed through before a restriction would kick in as the only way it would work. That has been proven to be a lie. The rest of us refuse to be lectured on immigration policy by people who knowingly voted for the man who said the border couldn't be fixed without a ridiculous bill that was clearly a lie. Not going to be lectured to by people that supported an administration that was very clearly lying about the obvious cognitive decline of Biden. That's a national security issue. Weird how the bill also had the support of MAGA until Trump decided they couldn't let the Democrats have a win. Guess they didn't think it was a lie. Guess they also knew no one said it was the "only" way. It was the way agreed on by both parties at that time; thus it was the only path forward that would get the necessary votes at that time. Any claims to the contrary are a lie indeed. I guess maybe Trump told them that he could get the border closed without the ridiculous bill. Maybe Trump said it WAS the only way and it turns out that we didn’t need the bill in order to get the votes. He certainly WAS more successful at it once he was president. He didn’t need the ridiculous bill to close the border. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 16, 2025 16:57:41 GMT
Weird how the bill also had the support of MAGA until Trump decided they couldn't let the Democrats have a win. Guess they didn't think it was a lie. Guess they also knew no one said it was the "only" way. It was the way agreed on by both parties at that time; thus it was the only path forward that would get the necessary votes at that time. Any claims to the contrary are a lie indeed. I guess maybe Trump told them that he could get the border closed without the ridiculous bill. Maybe Trump said it WAS the only way and it turns out that we didn’t need the bill in order to get the votes. He certainly WAS more successful at it once he was president. He didn’t need the ridiculous bill to close the border. "I guess maybe." LOL no. Trump admits he ruined border deal to hurt Democrats. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsR001be-UGotta wonder, if the border was such an emergency, why was hurting the Democrats a bigger priority? Trump also admits with a smirk in that clip that he made up the idea of "migrant crime" and had the idea of making it "worse than any other kind of crime." He's telling the country how he set you up to believe a lie and how proud he is of doing it, and making you look like a fool in the process. |
|
cindosha
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,118
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 16, 2025 18:17:08 GMT
I guess maybe Trump told them that he could get the border closed without the ridiculous bill. Maybe Trump said it WAS the only way and it turns out that we didn’t need the bill in order to get the votes. He certainly WAS more successful at it once he was president. He didn’t need the ridiculous bill to close the border. "I guess maybe." LOL no. Trump admits he ruined border deal to hurt Democrats. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsR001be-UGotta wonder, if the border was such an emergency, why was hurting the Democrats a bigger priority? Trump also admits with a smirk in that clip that he made up the idea of "migrant crime" and had the idea of making it "worse than any other kind of crime." He's telling the country how he set you up to believe a lie and how proud he is of doing it, and making you look like a fool in the process. First of all your video was so chopped up, God only knows what he said. If you want to post a video of the entire uncut interview, maybe I’ll look at that. It’s quite a stretch even for you. What do you mean IF the border was such an emergency? Quit trying to convince yourself that border security wasn’t/isn’t a problem. For anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 16, 2025 18:25:28 GMT
"I guess maybe." LOL no. Trump admits he ruined border deal to hurt Democrats. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsR001be-UGotta wonder, if the border was such an emergency, why was hurting the Democrats a bigger priority? Trump also admits with a smirk in that clip that he made up the idea of "migrant crime" and had the idea of making it "worse than any other kind of crime." He's telling the country how he set you up to believe a lie and how proud he is of doing it, and making you look like a fool in the process. First of all your video was so chopped up, God only knows what he said. If you want to post a video of the entire uncut interview, maybe I’ll look at that. It’s quite a stretch even for you. What do you mean IF the border was such an emergency? Quit trying to convince yourself that border security wasn’t/isn’t a problem. For anyone. There are plenty of places where you can hear him talking about killing that bill to hurt the Democrats if you’re interested. It’s not my job to research for you. An “emergency” is not something that can wait a year to be fixed so you can stick it to your political rivals. Period. |
|
cindosha
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,118
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 16, 2025 20:14:50 GMT
First of all your video was so chopped up, God only knows what he said. If you want to post a video of the entire uncut interview, maybe I’ll look at that. It’s quite a stretch even for you. What do you mean IF the border was such an emergency? Quit trying to convince yourself that border security wasn’t/isn’t a problem. For anyone. There are plenty of places where you can hear him talking about killing that bill to hurt the Democrats if you’re interested. It’s not my job to research for you. An “emergency” is not something that can wait a year to be fixed so you can stick it to your political rivals. Period. Yeah. Because biden and harris and schumer and clinton and brag, obama and every single leftist MSM never tried to stick it to Trump. Do you think anybody’s gonna take msnbc as gospel? Biden never try to fix the border in four years. And in fact, denied that there WAS a problem with it for four years. Trump ran his campaign on fixing the border. And the bill that allowed 5000 people daily over the border was no fix. If that comment wasn’t so pathetically moronic, it would be hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 17, 2025 0:41:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 17, 2025 1:23:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 17, 2025 15:39:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Aug 17, 2025 18:17:54 GMT
😳 iamkristinl16 those videos are crazy! In that first one several of the “police” aren’t even wearing anything resembling an actual uniform other than the flak jacket type vest that says POLICE on it. And I wouldn’t unroll my window either if the “officer” asking refused to show a badge. I’d be calling 911. I think the whole thing with the masks really undermines people’s trust in law enforcement, and rightly so. I hope the people targeted in both of those videos sue the shit out of the government because this is seriously messed up. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 17, 2025 18:31:45 GMT
"Federal agents." Yeah. These are pardoned J6 insurrectionists or hate group/militia members, no doubt. Trump's brownshirts. This should not be happening in a free society. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 18, 2025 14:14:41 GMT
|
|
compeateropeator
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,898
Member is Online
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 18, 2025 16:43:23 GMT
Those videos are horrifying to me.
As a person who had LEO family and we have had incidents in our area with random people posing as LEO agents, I have been told that if I was ever concerned or was not shown proper identification to acknowledge that you knew they were there but want verification, but not open windows or doors. To call 911 and have them confirm that the person was an actual officer. I have also been told that I should be able to ask why I was stopped, even if given some generic you were driving erratically or whatever.
I also worry the other way. What if some poor unsuspecting LEO is making a routine stop that goes very bad. So I am not disregarding LEOs making some decisions that they do, but holy heck those do not seem to be that type of a situation. If someone has the ability and “right” to legally detain, arrest, use physical force or weapons against me I want them to have body cameras. You would think everyone would agree to that as then the transparency is there for both sides.
To me this is crazy. And I live in an area where the LEOs I experience are Local sheriffs and deputies, city or town police, state police, a college/university’s police ( they are not just security) and Border Patrol. I have in fact have been stopped by border patrol for no reason and not on the border (near the border but on main road in the US) a few times.
I have never had any legitimate officer wear a mask or refuse to show a badge or identity themselves. IMO, as a land committed to law and order, transparency, and every other freedom that we supposedly have, to think this is in any way acceptable is just mouth/jaw dropping.
|
|
|
|
Post by sassyangel on Aug 18, 2025 16:49:20 GMT
|
|
compeateropeator
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,898
Member is Online
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 18, 2025 16:55:16 GMT
The puns and comments I have seen for the weaponized sandwich incident have been great, varied, very amusing and very very plentiful. People are so creative and quick with the zingers. |
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Aug 18, 2025 18:03:13 GMT
😳 iamkristinl16 those videos are crazy! In that first one several of the “police” aren’t even wearing anything resembling an actual uniform other than the flak jacket type vest that says POLICE on it. And I wouldn’t unroll my window either if the “officer” asking refused to show a badge. I’d be calling 911. I think the whole thing with the masks really undermines people’s trust in law enforcement, and rightly so. I hope the people targeted in both of those videos sue the shit out of the government because this is seriously messed up. Exactly. We had a man that had a tripped out motorcycle, helmet and uniform, tasers along with fake badge. It did say traffic but still since most don’t know the details of uniforms snd such could mistake him for a real officer. I know he was arrested but no idea what happened to him. Really scary. How are people supposed to know who are the real police when they just show up like this? |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Aug 18, 2025 18:08:46 GMT
Just giving the guy his lunch! |
|
