jomar

what things would the Democrats do that would make the Republicans feel pain? Universal healthcare? Sensible gun control? regulations to take care of our planet? raising taxes on rich people and corporations? because those are the things that will keep some people divided. things can never get better if people can't even agree on even the most basic issues. who could be against leaving a better planet for our kids? people were divided over whether gay people could get married. how does one person bring people together who fight tooth and nail against issues like these? look at the rhetoric already, Radical Democrats, Socialists. I can't imagine ever this country being united again until the next major tragedy occurs and I mean major. if a school shooting where 20 kids die or a concert where 60 people are killed obviously couldn't do it, any one person can't

Politics are and always have been divisive and it was becoming more divisive as time moved on. However, this is not just a politics thing. If Kasich or Rubio were President now, does anyone think we'd have the divisiveness we do now? Because I don't believe that at all. Whenever Trump is gone from office and (hopefully) someone sane and with character and class takes over, 95% of what we see in this forum will be gone in an instant. A lot of Americans are disgusted, not that a Republican is President, but that a person like Trump is President. He's reprehensible in every way and that stink gets transferred onto those that still support him. At times, it can be hard to ignore that stink and not point it out but ignore it we must for the sake of the PSF.

who knows? is where this ends up every time

is this like when Bill Clinton said it depends on what the definition of is is? didn't make any sense back then either. as it stands, saying 'Republicans have not been allowed to participate in the inquiry' is false. the poster is free to change his statement to clarify it to then make it correct but we all know that doesn't happen. he disappears and comes back the next day with the same nonsense. there is no response to clarify what he means, just the same false talking point repeated. rinse and repeat for a weak until eventually another poster says he thinks its just 'trolling', and then you get people whining about being called trolls and how its just a difference of opinion.

there was an example in my post you quoted as an example of something where the truth might be blurry, I believe disinformation is a threat to our democracy, Supermike doesn't believe this is so. since we don't know with absolute certainty whether it is or isn't, we can both hold different views and agree to disagree. that's fine. this would not be an instance where Mike is spreading false info, its just a different opinion

when you say 'it' is not, are you saying that disinformation is not a threat to Democracy?

because a decent percentage of Americans are no longer able to discern what is true. I agree with you if this was 10 years ago, it would have been amusing in some way. this is now a threat to democracy and should start being dealt with more seriously

I agree but I was thinking more from Joe's perspective if he doesn't want bad information being spread on his site.

this happens Joe, and it's ignored. they just come back the next day with the same ridiculous claim. and after a few times of doing this, it would certainly appear as though the poster is intentionally trying to spread bad info.

no and no. these are the times were in I guess, where nothing is true anymore. everything is partisan, everything is 'who knows?' I thought the example being talked about was more than obvious. It is either true that Republicans haven't been allowed in the impeachment inquiry or they have. both can't be true and to say 'who knows' seems lazy. In this case it was shown that, indeed, Republicans have been allowed to participate in the inquiry and anyone saying they aren't is either lying or spreading false information. there is no 'who knows' in that case. you and others who are having a hard time with this seem to think this line of thinking will be used in all circumstances. there are plenty of scenarios where what is true and what is not true is blurry. I am not talking about those scenarios. there are also scenarios where one thing is certainly true and another thing is patently false. Those are the things I'm talking about. and if anyone would like to argue that the patently false thing is true, then lay out your argument and lets hear it. what I have pointed out more than once is that that doesn't happen. the poster will just disappear after asked to clarify his statement, and come back the next day with the same thing, and over and over again

need to start one of these at flex, PPR McLaurin Corey Davis Devante Parker Chris Conley thanks

dude..... I was being sarcastic with the whole Benghazi thing. back to impeachment talk

check it again, its still broken anyway, I always thought the lie was that Hillary told the mom of one of the 4 fallen that it wasn't a terrorist attack. I could be wrong on that as I don't follow right wing talking points that closely, but I did remember the phrase. I think I even saw a bumper sticker with it

I'd love a link to one of these instances. I have no idea if what you're saying is true or not

your sarcasm meter could use some adjustin'. I realize its the age of Trump though so I will forgive you