Until you've argued that black is white, the sun rises in the west, that we've always been at war with Eastasia, and are perfectly willing to fuck over most of the world for your own self-aggrandizement, you have come nowhere near to sinking to Trump's level.

SHS was politely asked to leave a restaurant because of her role as a willing and eager mouthpiece for policies that physically and emotionally have hurt (at a minimum) thousands of people. That we're equating that with something like gay people being refused service because of who they are says a lot about how skewed our perception of balance is.

People making the civility argument in good faith (i.e., not Fox talking heads) are making it because they actually have a moral compass and know that two wrongs don't make a right.

However, what was done to SHS isn't a wrong--no harm was done to her other than embarrassment, which is exactly what she should be feeling about her role in the world. When people are being terrible, whether it's a child, the president, or one of his enablers, they need to be told politely but firmly that it's not OK.

Think of this less as pouring gasoline on a fire and more like a controlled burn to help control the blaze.

Sadlly I think you are correct, they have zero capacity to filter bullshit from their talking heads, and zero capacity to refrain from calling anything contradicting their most outrageous fever dreams "bullshit", facts be damned, logic be damned, history be damned, and you better believe Latinos be damned.
Like their chosen president, comprehension is not their strong suit...knowing stuff and actual facts are for liberals, and there's no such thing as an independent. That's where we are.

No, they aren't compelling in the least, they're obvious disingenuous propaganda, lies, and misdirection not worth debunking.....but you asked so here's your comments.....

First....
"catch and release" refers to a practice of releasing an immigrant to the community while he or she awaits hearings in immigration court, as an alternative to holding them in immigration detention.The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum.

There is no "hard-and-fast definition" of the phrase, which is pejorative. Rather, the phrase refers to a "collection of policies, court precedents, executive actions and federal statutes spanning more than 20 years, cobbled together throughout Democratic and Republican administrations."-Wiki

So he starts by lying about what catch and release is and who started the policies.

....Can send the asylum seeker to the interior until they've been adjudicated, which can be forever......
No, it can't be forever, and Trump/Republicans are doing all they can to extend the wait times. Obama did it to unaccompanied minors, he didn't separate families. Another lie. Funding immigration courts would solve it all, end separation and get everyone processed in a reasonable, legal timeframe....perhaps why Trump took that off the table.

Really, a Faux news talking head wants to deride someone's English.....Try Trump, he can't put a rational English sentence together.....ever.

Trump destroyed Daesh? I think Syria and Russia might disagree, as well as Daesh, which is still in existence.

Yes, the N Korea summit was a loss for us and a win for them. We gave massive concessions and granted them official recognition, and got vague unsecured promises to negotiate in the future in return.


You claim to not be a Trumpophile, but it's blatantly obvious that's a lie. Your bias is so thick and blinding perhaps you can't see through it.

OK, the actual statement made by Melania's camp (as seen on screen at 1:10):
"I don't believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani."

That's a pretty significant nudge. To me, pretty clearly says "don't put words in my mouth". You can infer it as "don't put words in my mouth, you weaselly little prick", but the statement itself is pretty carefully reserved in the exact wording.

Newsworthy? Sure. But to me, I think a good journalist (and I'd usually include Anderson Cooper in that camp) should show the statement itself, without any opinion or commentary first, and then make a distinct segue showing that we're now moving into pundit's reactions and opinions.

The lead here was "First Lady Melania Trump's Office Fires Back at Rudy Giuliani Over His Remarks About Stormy Daniels". That just seems a bit clickbait-y to me. "Fires Back" requires reading between the lines of the statement itself. Accurate? Probably. But I think they should have honored the carefully worded nature of the actual statement and gone with something like ..."Responds to" instead of "Fires Back".

Furthermore, they should have kept the full text of the statement itself up on the screen during the whole reaction/opinion portion segment where Cooper and the other talking heads discuss things. By all means, discuss. I even mostly agree with their interpretations and take on the situation. But keep the text of the actual statement up so that viewers can decide for themselves.


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was actually fantastic for hoisting people on their own petard by fairly and accurately showing their actual statements and reacting to them -- no bait and switch / obfuscation necessary. Stewart's kind of subtlety in pointing out contradictions and bullshit was awesome.

I guess I feel like the best response to Trump's "Fake News" shtick is to be doubly rigorous when it comes to journalistic integrity. Trump's gonna give you plenty of ammo to use against him. Use it, but do it in such a way that any allegations of bias or unfairness are clearly wrong.

To be fair, I'm sure that examples could be found of media personalities praising Obama/Clinton for similar stuff that they ragged Bush Sr./Jr. for. Best example off the top of my head might be Bush's "terrible war crimes" vs Obama's "brilliant use of drones".

Now, that all comes with a big disclaimer from me. I disliked Obama's expansion of drone bombing, flip-flop in in-office stance vs campaign stance on whistleblower protection, etc. But, I'd still personally evaluate Bush's, uh, miscues as overwhelmingly worse than Obama's. All I'm saying is that there have certainly been talking heads that have been hypocritical in the other direction before.

That being said, this clip takes it to a whole other level. This isn't nuanced, this is blatant. The only rational explanation is that Fox News simply is that biased, shamelessly so (no surprise to most of us). The problem is that Fox News' audience isn't particularly swayed by rational explanations.

I think clearing that "reality distortion field" is something that takes lots of time and lots of indisputable evidence. That's why I basically hope that Trump gets plenty of leash to try (and fail) to fulfill all of his ridiculous promises and self-hype. Nothing like a pointless and decaying border wall to serve as a reminder to be careful about who's cult of personality you get sucked into...

Your video, Trump vs Talking Heads, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 37 Badge!

You've got to be kidding, you know the judge isn't a DOJ employee, right?
You understand the concept that ignoring a judges direct legal orders is a crime no matter what your politics, right?
He wasn't convicted of the civil rights violations, (for pulling over Hispanic looking people and demanding they show their papers) but he was ordered to stop them, and he continued. He was convicted of criminal contempt.
It wasn't the DOJ, it was a federal judge he ignored and the constitution he violated after being ordered to stop it.
EDIT: But yeah...ignoring the constitution, judges, fairness, civility, the Geneva convention, and the rule of law certainly does make him the a America's best sheriff, doesn't it? I hope you and your family gets pulled over at gunpoint by black sheriffs at least once a week for life to check your papers, perhaps you'll eventually learn it's wrong.

If Obama abused that power as you suggest, why weren't there constantly DOJ investigations of elected Republicans and talking heads? It seems insane to even suggest that he reserved it for one evil sheriff.

Also, how do you explain all the charges and lost lawsuits from before Obama? Arpaio's legal troubles didn't suddenly start 8.5 years ago, you know. Was Bush's thumb on that scale against him too?

Well, that's one step in the right direction that you now admit the undeniable fact that global temperatures are rising....finally.
Interesting, then what is your theory, seeing as natural cycles would have our temperatures falling right now, but since the industrial revolution they've been trending higher. You can't blame volcanos, there've been no massive volcanic releases to cause it, only minor ones that barely register.

Yes, true, the Paris accord is too little too late, that's not somehow condemnation of the idea that global climate change is man made. Only one nation even questions that, and really only <1/3 of that nation.
Did you ever watch An Inconvenient Truth....I don't think so, because it said no such thing, I think you're repeating what a talking head told you it said. He did say we would probably see obvious effects by now...and we do. He did not say we would all be dead, not even in 100 years.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are not still here, they are dead of famine and wars caused by, and causing, migrating populations. Most of East Africa is in severe drought as bad or worse than Ethiopia in the 80's, just like Gore warned would be increasingly more likely due to climate change, and India and Asia are threatened with losing their main sources of water because of accelerated glacial melting.

Rememer the talking point that 17 intelligence agencies pointed their fingers at Russia for having orchestrated the hacks during the election?

Even the NYT has finally buried that one:

The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

Director: "Quick sound guys, whats-your-face, sneak over to sit at the bar like you're a customer and then just nod and agree with whatever the talking head says. Maybe adlib a little bit about a Mexican raping your job or something."

I never talked about the nomination, only about liberals pointing out that Sanders would stand a much better shot at winning against Trump.

Yet Sanders not winning the Democratic nomination is sort of the point. The DNC and the talking heads had their mind set on a candidate from amongst their midst, and put their combined weight behind her. They went with a candidate who was vulnerable on just about every angle to attacks from Trump, due to her being a continuation of previous policies. That's not picking the candidate who stands the highest chance of winning the Presidential Election, that's picking someone who represents their own interests. Which is fair enough. But then don't blame the purist liberals for pointing out the dangers of this strategy.

Thing is, we know the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign. Even more details of this are coming in bit by bit through discovery during the class-action lawsuit filed against the DNC. To call the Hillary Victory Fund a money-laundering operation for the Clinton campaign might even be too kind by now.

We also know that they actively pushed for Trump to be the nominee, thinking the election would be a cakewalk then. Brilliant strategists, the lot of them.

And the same people are running „the Resistence“ now, doubling down on what they did before. How is that for learning a lesson. Instead, they play the blame game. And Maher, in this clip, jumped in and blamed „purist liberals“. Not the DNC, not Clinton for running a campaign based on platitudes, clichés, and everything except policy substance.

If you want to blame the purist liberals for anything, blame them for not having campaigned hard enough, for not having put enough pressure to either get their candidate nominated or to get Clinton to at least pretend to be willing to do something about the suffering of the lower class. Blame the liberals for being content with a few improvements in social policies while swallowing economic policies that cause a continuous degredation of the standard of living of the lower class.

Still, purist liberals kept saying that the antidote against right-wing populism is left-wing populism. Sanders was not vulnerable on policy issues. In fact, this 187 year old bloke with bad posture is nigh untouchable on policy issues. When even Trump voters in West Virginia admit that a guy from the Northeast is a better advocate of theirs than local Republicans, you know his policies are not open to attack from right-wing populists.

As for purity vs pragmatism: pragmatism is a label for the policies that led to the current state of affairs. It's the policies that led to large-scale devastation across the country. It's not pragmatic to vote for more of the same if it means a continuation of policies that led you into despair. Purity is the label talking heads apply to a principled stance when they don't agree with it, plain and simple. Both labels allow them to distract from discussions about policy substance.

Oops.....
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Trumps-Wiretapping-Claims-Destroyed-By-Comey
And they've had to publicly apologize to the Brits too.

What's ironic is, Trump is also accused of enlisting a foreign intelligence office to spy on and damage a political opponent, and there's a lot of evidence indicating that it really happened, coming not only directly from multiple sources in the intelligence community, (not conspiracy theory loving fake news talking heads with a clear bias) but also directly from Trump's mouth when he publicly asked the Russians to hack Clinton and release any emails they find....which they actually did in a clear attempt to help him get elected.

I think any nomination hearings need to be postponed until this investigation is complete, because if it does find what seems apparent, that Trump and his administration colluded with a hostile foreign power to rig our election, that makes them treasonous traitors, and we certainly don't want that kind of person installing Supreme Court judges (or any other nominees for permanent or important positions) that are working for our enemies. As long as there's serious question of Trump's Russian ties, it's possible treason to follow his lead in any way. If it finds collusion, anyone involved should probably be executed as traitors after conviction, with their assets seized.

Once that investigation is over...if it finds no collusion...it's time to start a second investigation into his mental condition, as it seems he's developing dementia at a rapid pace, and that's a legal reason to remove him from office. He needs to prove he's not mentally impaired using accepted medical tests and standards...the long form tests.

I think it is a case of him realizing that his work, up to the time when he changed tune, sort of led to the divide that allowed Donald Trump to seize power. I get this deep sense of "Oh fuck, I helped cause this!" coming from him.

I worry now that the liberal talking heads will make the same mistake now, because when you only spew doom and gloom, it opens the door for bad people.

I had not heard the term except from a few talking heads on tv that seem to have made the same mistake about what it means that I did. Not so much a rebranding, it's just not used (that I hear).
I think I prefer neoliberal to neocon. Their goals seem similar, profit, but the neocon methods are far more draconian (that's not to say that the neolib methods you describe are good).

As the last vestige of Republican establishment support distances itself from Trump, his campaign managers scramble to fill media space with any talking head they can offer up as a sacrifice to the talk show gods.