This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I think that illustration isn’t that bad a take on how Trump is perceived to have treated the “office” of the Presidency, if not the actual Oval Office. And, you could also interpret that drawing as Biden having “occupied” the Oval Office in the same manner the Capitol was occupied just a couple weeks ago.
I don't have a problem with it. It's really hard to deny the facts of the last month.
Personally, I think the one they did with him superimposed over the little girl a couple years ago for their immigration coverage is much more in line with the "clickbait" kind of stuff. This one is pretty tame in comparison to what they could have put out there (and still been 100% accurate on). It saddens me that people have attempted to reduce the activities that happened on Jan 6th into "ho hum....just like this other time" stuff. The gravity of that day and it's semblance was/is huge.
From Daniel Dale, the POTUS fact checker for CNN (along with other politicians) who relentlessly called out Trump's lies for four years and is now showing that he is even handed in his coverage.
Let's see how this plays out over the next 4 years. One example ain't going to move the needle.
No one has said that. Please.
It’s not one example. It’s a ton of examples that are consistently and conveniently ignored.
Daniel Dale should be as far as fact checking POTUS and other politicians for CNN is concerned if the first day is any indication. We shall see.
And again here is the problem: you want equal treatment not accurate reporting. Accurate reporting is that the Trump inaugural speech (American Carnage) was horrific and the Biden inaugural speech was great (Chris Wallace, no liberal, called Biden’s speech the best he ever heard.) You believe that this sort of analysis is bias because it favors the liberal over the conservative POV (according to some)- but what if it’s also the truth?
I don't think it's even close to clickbait. I think this is an accurate depiction of the state of the office and pretending otherwise won't make it better. And yes, everyone pays attention to all of your posts.
Unless Trump directly said "march on the capitol and burn it down" then I don't think it matters what others say. That's just my opinion but, then again, the last impeachment trial was nothing but a dog and pony show based on mostly nonsense too.2Squirrels1Nut said:
It was his implied actions over time that caused the Capitol riot as much as anything he said or (more importantly) didn't say.
You are overplaying your hand - you made a good point and showed a good example. To imply that stations like CNN and MSNBC bend over backwards to conservatives on a consistent basis (which is how your post reads) is kind of silly. And sure, I think right-leaning media in most cases are less fair to liberals/progressives but that's a different discussion.
IMO right up there is that people are using "MSM" as a blanket term for what seems to be whatever they don't use for news. It seems to be ill defined in most cases when people use the term, and ironically sometimes using MSM as a negative term while posting a link to some youtube channel or something even worse than a FOX or CNN.
As we've seen previously, the impeachment doesn't really require direct evidence. Simple assumptions and unsubstantiated allegations are enough. Or even just hating the guy. So I suppose they'll get him now since the Dems control both chambers - no actual evidence needed.
I don't know either. I think it has to be some combo of:
Well this time there will be a trial in the Senate, so let’s see what evidence is presented. It takes 2/3 to convict, so it will take compelling evidence to turn enough republicans to convict.
I appreciate your thoughts, thanks.
Don’t they need 2/3 of the senate for impeachment? If so, then 17 R’s need to agree.
I think what MSM does is report news, but more that favor the left. Obviously it doesn’t have to be one for one as Trump can make enough news on his own. I don’t know how much Hunter Biden coverage there was, but I got the impression it was swept under the rug.
This latest go around or when it originally happened? There was international investigation and cooperation among several countries the first time it came up several years ago.
Lawrence Tribe on The Last Word MSNBC a couple weeks ago said they only need 2/3 of those present.
Not sure, actually.
It's 2/3 of the Senate. There are probably 7-8 that lean/vote for impeachment from the right.
If you look at his words through Nov/dec and his Jan 6 speech, then I think he avoids conviction. If there is a larger plot uncovered where people in his orbit were coordinating an assault in order to delay certification to buy some time, then he should be convicted. You act as if he’s perfectly innocent and the only reason he’s been impeached again is because dems don’t like him. This time there will be a trial, and he can’t use the government to obstruct it. All his election cases went nowhere, the senate protected him in the first impeachment and then said “I didn’t see any evidence”, and he obstructed the mueller investigation and used executive privilege and eventually pardons to avoid any prosecution. The whole time he’s claimed it’s a witch hunt. This will be the first time he won’t be protected by his AG, executive privilege, the evidence will be presented and he has actual exposure. Let’s see what’s presented before calling it a witch hunt.
