2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[runrussellrun]

wow, MD lax, who knew .........So you must have wanted fiction banned....and all the tabloids. MAD magazine too. Silence D good letters are junk.

Who is kidding who, you just admitted that YOU want more of what GOOGLE admits to doing already.... censorship.....and out of the other side of your mouth you claim that no such censorship exists in the first place.

Can you list any websites that are constantly embellishing or outright lying? And NOT from one guy in his basement, labeling websites, news outlets, etc.

(remember, it's the news that is NOT covered that is a problem for YOUR msm. Case in point, AOC helping raise funds for those arrested in Boston (antifa) google it and you get no MSM hits. Hmmm....why is that. It is very true. Just check her twitter feed. TLD said it was a lie. But, it's NOT)

You also never answered why Tulsi Gabbard was suing google. Hmmm, again, why is that?

You are very much like wife 1, passive aggressive cause N effect denier. I'm very much like Lars, HIT FIRST. Your ivory tower rants are legend.

I guarantee you you do NOT subscribe to any youtube (google) channel to get your news.

True, I don't use Youtube to get my news at all.

I prefer journalism.

I never said that Google isn't screening out content they deem undesirable. Nor do I suggest at all that such power isn't enormous.

But they are a private business, so your personal rights of free speech aren't infringed because they screen out porn and hate speech. You're welcome to publish elsewhere. Yell it from the roof tops. Your roof top preferably.

This is a way more complicated issue, which I suggest is worth discussing...but not by hurling insults.

cause N the effect.....like I said. geez. You'll never get it.

Oh....what's this....youtube channels ? You're such a dinosaur........ (I never said I have never WaTCHED a NY times video , says MDLAXfan )

https://www.youtube.com/user/npr

youtube.com/user/TheNewYorkTimes

https://www.youtube.com/user/epochtimesdigital

https://www.youtube.com/user/WashingtonPost

[MDlaxfan76]

wow, MD lax, who knew .........So you must have wanted fiction banned....and all the tabloids. MAD magazine too. Silence D good letters are junk.

Who is kidding who, you just admitted that YOU want more of what GOOGLE admits to doing already.... censorship.....and out of the other side of your mouth you claim that no such censorship exists in the first place.

Can you list any websites that are constantly embellishing or outright lying? And NOT from one guy in his basement, labeling websites, news outlets, etc.

(remember, it's the news that is NOT covered that is a problem for YOUR msm. Case in point, AOC helping raise funds for those arrested in Boston (antifa) google it and you get no MSM hits. Hmmm....why is that. It is very true. Just check her twitter feed. TLD said it was a lie. But, it's NOT)

You also never answered why Tulsi Gabbard was suing google. Hmmm, again, why is that?

You are very much like wife 1, passive aggressive cause N effect denier. I'm very much like Lars, HIT FIRST. Your ivory tower rants are legend.

I guarantee you you do NOT subscribe to any youtube (google) channel to get your news.

True, I don't use Youtube to get my news at all.

I prefer journalism.

I never said that Google isn't screening out content they deem undesirable. Nor do I suggest at all that such power isn't enormous.

But they are a private business, so your personal rights of free speech aren't infringed because they screen out porn and hate speech. You're welcome to publish elsewhere. Yell it from the roof tops. Your roof top preferably.

This is a way more complicated issue, which I suggest is worth discussing...but not by hurling insults.

cause N the effect.....like I said. geez. You'll never get it.

Oh....what's this....youtube channels ? You're such a dinosaur........ (I never said I have never WaTCHED a NY times video , says MDLAXfan )

https://www.youtube.com/user/npr

youtube.com/user/TheNewYorkTimes

https://www.youtube.com/user/epochtimesdigital

https://www.youtube.com/user/WashingtonPost

Funny how you can't even keep straight your own statements:

"I guarantee you you do NOT subscribe to any youtube (google) channel to get your news."

You claimed I don't subscribe to any youtube channels to get my news.

Yup, I don't.
I don't subscribe to any of the channels, nor do I search youtube in specific to get my news.

But absolutely, lots of news sites, and other web sites, utilize youtube as their hosting platform for serving video content.
Heck, our site uses youtube for that purpose.

I don't know why you are fixated on trying to pick this fight with me.

[old salt]

Nicole Wallace & Erin Burnett should have washed their hair during the debate. Lookin' limp & greasy. Stayin' up late.

[runrussellrun]

wow, MD lax, who knew .........So you must have wanted fiction banned....and all the tabloids. MAD magazine too. Silence D good letters are junk.



True, I don't use Youtube to get my news at all.

I prefer journalism.

I never said that Google isn't screening out content they deem undesirable. Nor do I suggest at all that such power isn't enormous.

But they are a private business, so your personal rights of free speech aren't infringed because they screen out porn and hate speech. You're welcome to publish elsewhere. Yell it from the roof tops. Your roof top preferably.

This is a way more complicated issue, which I suggest is worth discussing...but not by hurling insults.

cause N the effect.....like I said. geez. You'll never get it.

Oh....what's this....youtube channels ? You're such a dinosaur........ (I never said I have never WaTCHED a NY times video , says MDLAXfan )

https://www.youtube.com/user/npr

youtube.com/user/TheNewYorkTimes

https://www.youtube.com/user/epochtimesdigital

https://www.youtube.com/user/WashingtonPost

Funny how you can't even keep straight your own statements:

"I guarantee you you do NOT subscribe to any youtube (google) channel to get your news."

You claimed I don't subscribe to any youtube channels to get my news.

Yup, I don't.
I don't subscribe to any of the channels, nor do I search youtube in specific to get my news. You admit to NOT using youtube, at all, for news. You prefer "journalism " Your words, not mine. So, logic would dictate that if you don't ever watch youtube for news, you don't subscribe.

But absolutely, lots of news sites, and other web sites, utilize youtube as their hosting platform for serving video content.
Heck, our site uses youtube for that purpose.

I don't know why you are fixated on trying to pick this fight with me. Just pointing out how all over the place you are..........clearly, again, your lack of hesitation to belittle other posters, and the sources quite often (those sources stinki because ONE guy said its biased....SO WHAT ) isn't the person who needs a chill pill ,pot and ma & pa meet insulting first, kettle, you ?


/quote]

[MDlaxfan76]

wow, MD lax, who knew .........So you must have wanted fiction banned....and all the tabloids. MAD magazine too. Silence D good letters are junk.



True, I don't use Youtube to get my news at all.

I prefer journalism.

I never said that Google isn't screening out content they deem undesirable. Nor do I suggest at all that such power isn't enormous.

But they are a private business, so your personal rights of free speech aren't infringed because they screen out porn and hate speech. You're welcome to publish elsewhere. Yell it from the roof tops. Your roof top preferably.

This is a way more complicated issue, which I suggest is worth discussing...but not by hurling insults.

cause N the effect.....like I said. geez. You'll never get it.

Oh....what's this....youtube channels ? You're such a dinosaur........ (I never said I have never WaTCHED a NY times video , says MDLAXfan )

https://www.youtube.com/user/npr

youtube.com/user/TheNewYorkTimes

https://www.youtube.com/user/epochtimesdigital

https://www.youtube.com/user/WashingtonPost

Funny how you can't even keep straight your own statements:

"I guarantee you you do NOT subscribe to any youtube (google) channel to get your news."

You claimed I don't subscribe to any youtube channels to get my news.

Yup, I don't.
I don't subscribe to any of the channels, nor do I search youtube in specific to get my news. You admit to NOT using youtube, at all, for news. You prefer "journalism " Your words, not mine. So, logic would dictate that if you don't ever watch youtube for news, you don't subscribe.

But absolutely, lots of news sites, and other web sites, utilize youtube as their hosting platform for serving video content.
Heck, our site uses youtube for that purpose.

I don't know why you are fixated on trying to pick this fight with me. Just pointing out how all over the place you are..........clearly, again, your lack of hesitation to belittle other posters, and the sources quite often (those sources stinki because ONE guy said its biased....SO WHAT ) isn't the person who needs a chill pill ,pot and ma & pa meet insulting first, kettle, you ?


/quote]


sheesh RRR, you really are like a dog with a bone on this.

I said I don't use Youtube for my news source AFTER you got nasty about it, saying I don't subscribe to Youtube channels...yup, I don't.
Not sure why that matters at all to you or you think "I admit it" is somehow damning of my view.

But no, I didn't say I don't have a clue how Youtube works or that I never watch anything hosted on Youtube. Just that it's not where I go for news.

If I come across as "belittle other posters" I apologize. Not really my intent, but if I've been caustic in a back and forth, I'll own that.

As to various biased sources, yeah I can be a little rough. Much of what gets published on the web is pretty darn transparently biased and is little more than propaganda for one side or another. So, if I don't know a site well, but suspect (based upon a first impression) that it's just a few jerks (or worse) penning whatever screed they want without any real journalistic oversight, I'll google the site and take a look at whether the site has been reviewed by any media bias reviewers. Those folks dig deeper and over many more articles, devoting far more time to the task, than I'm willing to do. They look at who owns the site and the pattern of behaviors that slant to the way various news is characterized. They've been pretty darn reliable and, not coincidentally, often strongly confirming of my suspicions on first blush.

Some sources have more fundamental credibility than others so it can be interesting to take a look at the author's background, what they've previously written or said...again, looking for a pattern in the way they think and/or treat various topics. Salty, for instance, has a favorite author, published in respectable journals etc. Lots of credibility in some respects, but also some pretty darn deep-seated biases that color his work often quite predictably. He's best read understanding that background.

But let's be clear: There's a lot of garbage out there. Buyer beware.

[youthathletics]

Corey Lewandowski keepin' it real: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2hw099nQij/
and there is this: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2hpZ5Vn0HM/

[a fan]

Dems fishing for their "what difference, at this point, does it make?" moment.

Pointless political theater.

[seacoaster]

Corey Lewandowski keepin' it real: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2hw099nQij/
and there is this: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2hpZ5Vn0HM/

If you are looking to help with the last and final debasement of politics in this country, you'll move to New Hampshire and cast a vote for Lewandowski. He is really the most loathsome POS around. This is a guy with absolutely nothing to add; everything he does subtracts.

[MDlaxfan76]

Corey Lewandowski keepin' it real: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2hw099nQij/
and there is this: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2hpZ5Vn0HM/

If you are looking to help with the last and final debasement of politics in this country, you'll move to New Hampshire and cast a vote for Lewandowski. He is really the most loathsome POS around. This is a guy with absolutely nothing to add; everything he does subtracts.

Painful ain't it?

[thatsmell]

Lots of Jeb!s this year.

Here's a regularly updated guide to keep them all straight:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... de/582598/

[foreverlax]

Lots of Jeb!s this year.

Here's a regularly updated guide to keep them all straight:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... de/582598/

Great, the sooner the better.

Not a prediction, but it seems like the only hope - Joe and anybody else other then Bernie...while Joe pledges he won't run again..duh.

Trump and Pompeo would be a very very tough out.

[kramerica.inc]

California Dems lose a main supporter/major donor for a while:

https://abc7.com/amp/democratic-donor-e ... ssion=true

[HooDat]

Screen Shot 2019-09-19 at 12.22.36 PM.png (231.12 KiB) Viewed 1465 times

[seacoaster]

Screen Shot 2019-09-19 at 12.22.36 PM.png

Good source.

[HooDat]

with the actual events occurring around us, parody is indeed dying....

[seacoaster]

That is so true!!

The WSJ Editorial Board -- notable left wing crazies, FLPs, TDS'ers and maybe "weeds:"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-cance ... 1568753944

"State primaries have been canceled in the past. George W. Bush had no serious GOP opposition in 2004, nor did Mr. Clinton have a serious Democratic opponent in 1996 or Barack Obama in 2012. Some states canceled primaries in those years because there was so little discernible interest in holding them.

That isn’t true this time. The three Republicans running against President Trump are long-shots, but they aren’t nobodies. Bill Weld is a former Governor of Massachusetts. Mark Sanford made a joke of himself in 2009 when he disappeared for five days (he was South Carolina Governor at the time) and re-emerged to confess to an extramarital affair. But he went on to win his old Congressional seat.

Joe Walsh is famous for outrageous pronouncements, leading us to wonder why he thinks America should exchange one provocateur for another, but he did serve in Congress. All three are known beyond their home states and are capable of making serious policy arguments that deserve debate.

When Mr. Trump won the GOP nomination in 2016, he disrupted a long tradition of Republican leadership and policy. He rejected GOP positions on trade and entitlement reform. In chief respects he abandoned the party’s hawkish stance on foreign policy. On guns and health care he has taken multiple positions, sometimes in the same week.

And—how to put it delicately?—Mr. Trump has introduced a new standard of presidential behavior, by turns abrasive, funny and appalling. These and related matters are far from settled in Republican circles, and it seems unwise to prevent the rank-and-file from debating them. If Mr. Trump is as popular with Republicans as the polls say, he has nothing to fear from letting voters show it in primaries."

[dislaxxic]

Screen Shot 2019-09-19 at 12.22.36 PM.png

Good source.

Yeah, Don and Stormy laughed about that paleface story right after their tryst whilst smoking blunts and scarfing cheeseburglers!



..

[Trinity]

Who can forget Shark Week? The Toadstool jokes. Big Ben outside Stormy’s room, begging. Nothing but class, this gang. Trump says he doesn’t know her.

[HooDat]

So if this Ukraine thing ends up taking down Trump and Biden in a two-for-one special.

...and does so relatively quickly ....

does that inevitably lead to a Nov 2020 choice between Warren and Haley? please,please,please,please,please,please.....

[youthathletics]

So if this Ukraine thing ends up taking down Trump and Biden in a two-for-one special.

...and does so relatively quickly ....

does that inevitably lead to a Nov 2020 choice between Warren and Haley? please,please,please,please,please,please.....

And Crenshaw as the VP. I like it.