In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Like already? They are already pledging to oppose unknown nominees? Are we going to have 8 judges on the bench until the GOP goes through whatever crisis it is having?
I guess this answers the question of whether Republicans plan on working with Clinton on anything they wouldn't pass on their own. "4 more years! (of obstruction)".
Like already? They are already pledging to oppose unknown nominees? Are we going to have 8 judges on the bench until the GOP goes through whatever crisis it is having?
I guess this answers the question of whether Republicans plan on working with Clinton on anything they wouldn't pass on their own. "4 more years! (of obstruction)".
Thank god the polls are showing Democrats might control the senate. If they can work through all the held up appointments, it would be a small victory.
On October 17 2016 19:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 19:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On October 17 2016 19:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:57 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:09 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
I can agree with all of that.
I think one has to distinguish him from people like Maher (to whom he was compared before) who brings very little facts on the table. What i like about oliver is the depth at which he goes into certain topics while staying very accessible, and that i always end up having learnt a great deal.
I didn't say anything about how they present information. I just compared him to Maher for his smugness.
British humour, not for everyone.
I'm also quite sure you are uncomfortable with the content of what he says, and that probably don't help you to like him.
Nothing he says makes me uncomfortable I just don't find him funny, entertaining, or fair. Some of the content his writers put out is interesting but that's nothing to credit him for.
Given that Oliver writes and produces the show in addition to hosting it, I'm not sure that makes any sense.
That's actually really impressive.
It would be if they had more than like 10 episodes a year...
On October 18 2016 02:45 Nevuk wrote: I think Russia will drop Trump like nuclear waste after he loses.
Or they could drop that nuclear waste on a country that isn't being very friendly.
Honestly I don't think Russia wants Trump or believes he has a good chance of winning. Any involvement is just a low-cost way to pull at tensions within the US political system and bring out the stupid using a "useful idiot" as a tool. Not a great thing to do but all the big countries do that to each other and to little countries. It's a testament to how divided the country is along party lines that people don't really believe or care that someone is apparently meddling in the election.
Like already? They are already pledging to oppose unknown nominees? Are we going to have 8 judges on the bench until the GOP goes through whatever crisis it is having?
I guess this answers the question of whether Republicans plan on working with Clinton on anything they wouldn't pass on their own. "4 more years! (of obstruction)".
We need more sane, moderate Republicans like this to distance themselves from the nominee.
Like already? They are already pledging to oppose unknown nominees? Are we going to have 8 judges on the bench until the GOP goes through whatever crisis it is having?
I guess this answers the question of whether Republicans plan on working with Clinton on anything they wouldn't pass on their own. "4 more years! (of obstruction)".
We need more sane, moderate Republicans like this to distance themselves from the nominee.
Then the tea party runs against anyone who works with democrats and not working with others is a selling point for the candidacy for some reason that people think is useful.
On October 18 2016 02:45 Nevuk wrote: I think Russia will drop Trump like nuclear waste after he loses.
Or they could drop that nuclear waste on a country that isn't being very friendly.
Honestly I don't think Russia wants Trump or believes he has a good chance of winning. Any involvement is just a low-cost way to pull at tensions within the US political system and bring out the stupid using a "useful idiot" as a tool. Not a great thing to do but all the big countries do that to each other and to little countries. It's a testament to how divided the country is along party lines that people don't really believe or care that someone is apparently meddling in the election.
In an interview with Bloomberg Putin said he doesn't want an unpredictable president (which quite obviously refers to Trump). Of course Putin lies when it suits him but I found the logic behind it solid enough to believe that he really isn't in favour of a Trump presidency although I doubt he likes Clinton either.
North Dakota prosecutors are seeking “riot” charges against Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman for her reporting on the oil pipeline protests, drawing widespread concerns about press intimidation and free speech violations.
After the award-winning broadcast journalist filmed security guards working for the Dakota access pipeline using dogs and pepper spray on protesters, authorities issued a warrant for Goodman’s arrest, accusing her of “criminal trespass”. Now, state prosecutors are alleging that she participated in a “riot”, a serious offense that could result in months in jail.
“I wasn’t trespassing, I wasn’t engaging in a riot, I was doing my job as a journalist by covering a violent attack on Native American protesters,” Goodman said in a statement on Sunday in advance of a Monday court appearance.
The case stems from a 3 September report when Goodman traveled to the Native American-led protest against a controversial $3.8bn oil pipeline that the Standing Rock Sioux tribe says is threatening its water supply and cultural heritage.
Goodman’s dispatch on the use of dogs went viral and has since garnered 14m views on Facebook and also prompted coverage from many news outlets, including CBS, NBC, NPR and CNN.
Last week, the North Dakota state attorney’s office emailed Goodman’s attorney, admitting that there were “legal issues with proving the notice of trespassing requirements in the statute”, according to Democracy Now! Prosecutors subsequently informed the journalist’s lawyers that the state was instead accusing her of being involved in a riot.
“Obviously, the charges are ridiculous and baseless,” Reed Brody, one of Goodman’s lawyers, told the Guardian on Monday. “Amy Goodman is not somebody who is intimidated by being prosecuted for her reporting. I think that the authorities are just shooting themselves in the foot by doing this.”
In one email, state’s attorney Ladd Erickson alleged that Goodman “was not acting as a journalist”, according to Democracy Now! However, the original trespassing complaint noted that she is a reporter, with prosecutors writing that Goodman “can be seen on video identifying herself and interviewing protesters”.
Erickson claimed to the local Bismarck Tribune newspaper that Goodman is a “a protester, basically”, adding, “Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions.”
@zeo: I don't think debate moderators watch Infowars. You should probably email them and tell them about whatever conspiracy-of-the-day your youtube video hypes.
On October 18 2016 03:19 KwarK wrote: Wanna tell us what's in the youtube video zeo or should I just put on my tin foil helmet and tune it to Russian frequencies?
DNC, Clinton Campaign and Clinton Super PAC employees on video talking about paying and organizing people to incite violence at Trump events.
On October 18 2016 03:30 Doodsmack wrote: Surprised that's not all over Fox News if it's legit. That's the same guy who did secret video of ACORN right?
Im assuming after that video was found to be a massively edited piece of footage to make them look worse than they actually were and then his next set of videos turned out to be massively edited pieces of footage that did the same its possible that even Fox News is smart enough to not jump on any more of this guys fake journalism.
On October 18 2016 02:45 Nevuk wrote: I think Russia will drop Trump like nuclear waste after he loses.
Or they could drop that nuclear waste on a country that isn't being very friendly.
Honestly I don't think Russia wants Trump or believes he has a good chance of winning. Any involvement is just a low-cost way to pull at tensions within the US political system and bring out the stupid using a "useful idiot" as a tool. Not a great thing to do but all the big countries do that to each other and to little countries. It's a testament to how divided the country is along party lines that people don't really believe or care that someone is apparently meddling in the election.
In an interview with Bloomberg Putin said he doesn't want an unpredictable president (which quite obviously refers to Trump). Of course Putin lies when it suits him but I found the logic behind it solid enough to believe that he really isn't in favour of a Trump presidency although I doubt he likes Clinton either.
From a purely logical perspective, I can't imagine Putin actually wanting Trump to be president. No one benefits from a president who doesn't understand why we can't use nuclear weapons and who could as easily be triggered by a minor slight as bought over by a compliment. But at the same time I can easily see how the campaign of Trump presents a useful opportunity to influence the state of public discourse.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/82EAs4Z.png)
