Back then I was very opposed to Bush policies. The media, as it always does supports the establishment, be it government or corporate, because they know who butters their bread. They both serve shit sandwiches, but one has some red food coloring in it and one has some blue food coloring in it. Back then "liberal" meant leave people who aren't bothering anyone else alone, and being liberal was anti-establishment. Now being "liberal" means not leaving people alone until they comply with the establishment. There is nothing liberal about the modern left just like there wasn't anything conservative about the Bush era right.

This is part of the media's role in electing Trump. Everyone sees the media down on their knees slurping down establishment dick be it red or blue, and they attack no one more than Donald Trump. Their consistent targeting of him essentially is the seal of approval by the people as he is rejected by the establishment. He was elected as a rejection of all things establishment on both sides of the isle, and that is why he is going to win again in 2020.

@KingScorpio your title seemed so exciting, but in the post you have added nothing that justifies your title.
In my opinion you’re right to call them as thugs and racists, but Nazis no I would not call them that unless you can prove that they have executed hundreds of Jews. The answer is quiet simple as banks are protected by the governments, and those governments will never legalise crypto’s hence there’ll be no competition for the banks.

In case people are wondering why I termed banks as racists:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/11/20958953/apple-credit-card-gender-discrimination-algorithms-black-box-investigation

https://nypost.com/2019/12/11/jpmorgan-chase-employees-caught-making-racist-comments-to-intimidating-black-clients/

joe biden is the biggest trash american's can vote for, he is just a career politician, claims he is fighting racist injustice but defacto thinks "after me the flood" and just turns race relation upside down, instead of seeking to boost equity.

trump is unknowingly the most communist candidate.

biden represents whats wrong with democracy

oh nice. so it was a very humane attack. the "good people" kind of attack.

I'm so proud! Hope is restored again. go G.I. Joe!

thank you for the explanation.

That number of Dem defections is about what was expected. It would've been interesting if the impeachment had been defeated, but that seemed incredibly unlikely.

I heard a theory that the Democrats might never actually send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Then they'll be able to imply that the impeachment proves that Trump is corrupt without the Republicans being able to respond that he was acquitted. Once he's acquitted, it'll be much easier for Republicans to build a narrative that the whole thing was a witch hunt and a waste of time by the Democrats.

But I think that in any case it's not going to have any huge effect for either side, since in November most swing voters won't be thinking about it anymore. Maybe it'll be a small net help for Republicans in the House elections.

When most people think of overpopulation, they tend to conflate this with the issue of space, and living comfortably when the population around them is becoming more and more dense. In some places in the world, this unfortunately is the case. Take a look at any drone shot of the streets of Mumbai, where people seemed to be crammed in like sardines, or documentaries on Japanese apartment complexes filled with rooms no bigger than a closet, in some cases, even a cage, due to the amount of available space so limited in those areas.

However, if you look at the global population as a whole, you can in fact fit all of Earth's inhabitants into a space no bigger than the state of Texas, and if piled on top of each other, in terms of just pure mass, it wouldn't even reach the top lip of the Grand Canyon. The real issue when it comes to overpopulation is resources, or "carrying capacity".
Carrying capacity is simply the number of people, other living organisms, or crops that a region can support without environmental degradation. Certain regions of the world have a higher carrying capacity as others, however the real issue lies in the global carrying capacity. As a whole we are increasingly diminishing our resources to the point where they cannot return back to their normal levels. Take a look at over fishing for an example...

This National Geographic article is really interesting and really shows the drastic effects of over fishing
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/climate-change-is-shrinking-essential-fisheries/

This is true, but from what I understand, you also need to establish intent, which is a quite difficult standard that often could require significant surveillance to be accomplished, unless you get lucky and find some one who is very incompetent as well as corrupt.

The frequency with which representations made by F.B.I. personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other F.B.I. applications is reliable -  Judge Collyer wrote.

Yes.   Slander, defamation and libel can be claimed in a suit. Case would be stronger if you can show financial loss.

If anyone's done it, I'm sure they have.

Think that one kids family sued CNN. (The kids who 'smirked" at the Indian dude who was harassing him

This is an issue that has been dividing the country for a while, but more so in recent years.

Unfortunately, with the rise of hyper-bipartisanship, people feel the need to immediately side with the argument that belongs on their side of the political spectrum, even if they do not fully understand the implications of what they are saying. People get so heated and animated over this argument, on both sides, calling people who perform abortions MURDERERS and people on the other side saying that the baby is "part of their body, so it is their choice". It is stupid in my mind to have these arguments, as both sides both present arguments that are logical and make sense. There is nothing to disprove, or show using facts, it is purely subjective, and therefore I do not think we will ever find a peaceful common ground when it comes to abortion.

In my personal opinion, I believe if a woman is pregnant and not prepared to have a child, they should make the decision to get an abortion at the very earliest stages, otherwise, just put the child up for adoption. Of course, there lies the argument of how early is early enough, which again, I do not think we will ever find a middle ground for. There's that infamous clip of Ben Shapiro telling the girl who is claiming to abort a "bundle of cells", to which Ben replies that SHE IS technically just a bundle of cells. While funny, he isn't wrong, and it even made me question my own beliefs a little bit.

To conclude, I think Dave Chappelle presented a funny, yet valid compromise to this issue in one of his recent comedy specials...
He says that when arguing about the issue of abortion, men should stay out of the discussion all together. This is purely a women's issue, it is their body, we should not be the ones to decide what they are and are not allowed to do with the child they are bearing. HOWEVER, in the case where a woman has the ability to choose whether or not she wants to keep the baby, we as men should have the ability to decide whether we want to pay for the child or not!

Arguments over abortion are a waste of time, as you will rarely change anyone's mind about the issue. All it does is create unhealthy debate and drives a wedge between the right and left.

LOL "shenanigans." You mean like winning the popular and electoral votes?


Well, that's what FOX News is for. FOX News is popular because there indeed exists a bias toward the left in most mainstream news, and there is a consumer demand for counterbalance.

I think the bias in the general media exists because leftist ideology just makes for better news. And by "better news" I mean it attracts more viewers and sells more commercials. It can be more sensational or plain interesting. Whereas "conservative news" tends to be dry and boring.

Fourth, there’s no reason to believe that Trump’s comments on Sunday were anything more than his typical bullshitting: He knew the storm was going to hit the South, he knows Alabama is a southern state, and it’s important to him electorally, so he rambled on. While there’s no reason to believe the initial statement was anything other than an unintentional error, it’s unclear at this point whether Trump now believes his own lie or recognizes it and just won’t let go. It’s also unclear which would be worse.

https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1206317239726559232


James Comey was the director of the FBI but claims he did not know about the FISA abuse and then claimed during an interview in 2018 that the FISA application process in which Carter Paige, former campaign associate of the Trump campaign, did not contain any errors of signs of abuse. According to the inspector General report, there was a total of 17 significant errors in the FISA application process which points towards rampant FISA application abuse in the wire tapping of Carter Paige.

To add, Comey claimed that the debunked Steele Dossier was apart of a broad "mosaic" in regards to granting the FISA warrant when the Inspector General claimed in an open hearing that the Steel Dossier was a "central" piece in granting the application. And James Comey still claims the integrity of the FBI was upheld? Unbelievable.

I agree, and while I think it's important that we bring awareness to the issue of climate change, I did not think this was the proper way to do it.
As soon as I saw Greta making her speech I couldn't help but wonder... who is this girl? and what makes her special enough to get up on that podium and speak in front of the world? If someone is to speak to the nation on an issue that important, it should be an expert in that field, not a little girl, who I would presume has some background in acting or the performing arts, reading off of a script.

I have no problem with the message she was trying to convey, and while a little extreme, it definitely caught the world's eye. However, I would presume that most sensible people watching this speech would realize that SOMEONE had to have put her there, and put her there only to target emotions and push an agenda, as you said. To me I couldn't get over the fact of how childish this seemed to play the sympathy card on such an important issue, and it in many ways de-legitimize a very real argument.

If you link trade deals to Brexit withdrawal, then it isn't Brexit. We need to regain complete control, and then leave the industries to sort out trade deals. I hope Boris does try to help us to regain independence, but he is an Eton/Oxford banker, so it is unlikely that he will allow us to break free completely. The EU is controlled by the morphed British Empire, and the ruling dynasties there are the Rothscilds, The Vatican and the British Crown. They also control the UK civil service, Westminster, the police and the judiciary. They also control the mainstream media. It is difficult to see how Boris can get us away from that.

If he really wants to improve the NHS, then banning Statins, repurchasing NHS property, and taking back control of services will save massive cash outflows for generations to come. Lets have some research into the real effects of allopathic drugs, and reduce over prescribing them.

Then he can address banking. The UK used to be a capitalist nation, but the EU is one of the vehicles that has consistently transferred capital out of the country. You can't have capitalism without capital, so lets return to wealth creation, and get back to rebuilding capital and entrepreneurship.

Rodger Ver tweeted that since sanctions are an act of War, the US should immediately drop all sanctions against NK, as he sees war as universally evil.

I view this as an "absolute" and to be an extremest view. I don't believe many things are either good or bad in any and all situations and circumstances. War is generally a negative outcome, but sanctions are far superior than boots on the ground, which involves bloodshed. Absent some kind of sanctions against NK, the NK government would likely commit their own acts of war against other countries that would involve bloodshed. There are also other military conflicts that produced better outcomes than the probable outcome had the US military not gotten involved.

It is possible that Griffith had similar viewpoints, and wanted to do something to make sanctions less effective (and of course profit in doing so).

Look at Squatz parroting Captain Postmodern talking points over here. Careful, next you will be telling me true Communism has never been tried because all the other times they tried it turned out to be massive genocidal failures.