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...

He's incredibly lucky.

If his bindings were so loose that he lost a ski flopping over like that, there's no way he would have made it down anyway. Better to fail at 5 mph in powder than 50+ over a cliff.

Also, what kind of back country skier can't ski with just one ski? I could before I was 10.

Perhaps that's why

I imagine it must be quite hard to make comfortable flip flops.

From the beginning of this series I've always wondered why he has never tried making primitive flip-flops. The calluses on his feet must be an inch thick.

I know he says that neither option is available to you, but I figure this particular method, performed apparently by yourself, pulling the car towards you, supported by the cheap shit jack your car came with, would be a recipe for disaster.

You trip, the jack flops over, the car drives over you. The parking brake is designed to stop your car from rolling, not stop it from moving in the gear with the most torque at low RPMs.

In this day and age, there is almost nowhere you couldn't call AAA (CAA in Canada). This is silly and dangerous.

High quality B move that will flop.

This is a mindset of a child.

"Pussed out"? Presidents aren't the ones on the front lines. There's nothing courageous about sending other men to die.

But you know who really did puss out? Your boy Trump, when he dodged the draft. He was young, strong, and played football. But when it came time to serve... "boo, I have heel spurts!" Pussy.

And I thought we didn't want to start new wars... Or are we back on starting wars? With you right-wingers, every position changes with the wind.

And, out of all things, you wanted Obama to start an actual war with Russia??? Do you understand the calamity that a war with Russia would cause?

...And I thought your boy likes Putin and wants to restore relations... So Obama should've literally gotten us into a war with Russia, but Trump is great because he's tight with Putin and wants to restore relations? There's that flip-flopping from right wingers again... You people really don't think.

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/american-unintelligence-on-russia-op-ed-56746

I know it's the Moscow Times, but still, the content is valid. And it's the only place I've seen, outside the blogosphere that is, where a prominent piece points out just how ridiculous it is for the DNI report on hacking to focus so much on RT.

And not only that, but to paint RT's coverage of inequality, excessive surveillance and police brutality in the US as a sign of it being a tool of the Kremlin... that's just hilarious. The line about "alleged Wall Street greed" (RT, 31 October) on the other hand was too much even for me.

These two cut through the shit rather well, I'd say:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/01/intelligence-report-on-russian-election-influence-is-a-flop.html
http://bit.ly/2i4UOwS

You're probably right, but enough costly redux flops will eventually stop future waves of nothing but rehashed movies....maybe.

For me, they don't destroy the memories but do tarnish them. I can't think of Evil Lord Vader without also thinking of little orphan Anni now. I can't watch Indiana Jones kicking ass without remembering how he was totally (figuratively) ass raped in the last movie. It certainly takes something from the purer memories of my youth to have the stories and characters pimped out for $15.

Is it the bit where she ineptly tries to be ironic by adding on pointless bits like "how to apply mascara"? Maybe the silly double entendres about screwing etc? Or the flip flop between "I'm just a helpless woman who can't do anything" to "Fuck sake people, of course I can do this"..?

Irony is only irony when it reverses expectations. Perhaps this would be hilarious to a person who honestly believes that she is the ditsy centerfold she spends half the video making out to be. Maybe if she maintained some sort of constant narrative rather than flipping between polar opposites, it wouldn't have landed so flat for me.

That being said, it's all subjective. I don't view women as incapable, subservient morons, so attempts to play up that view as the predominant one don't really get much traction with me...

She can change a tyre and make a decent end table, but she's a shit comedian.

Without need for physical punishment, my dog knows she's in trouble when I point at something and growl "WHAT IS THIS?!?!".

Similarly, she cowers when I say "Time for a bath".

She knows what she doesn't like, and she knows when we're not happy, and the typical pack submission routine of cowering or flopping down, refusing to make eye contact, is somewhat similar to shame in humans.

This isn't "the media", this is some random dudes youtube channel with a whopping 168 subscribers.... hardly "media elite".

This has nothing to do with biased or unbiased reporting. It's simply showing that Trump is a liar.

Here's the thing: I don't mind people changing their minds... that's not "flip-flopping", that's re-evaluating the evidence. Changing your mind is a good thing (if you have been convinced by sound reason).

But Trump is a liar. He doesn't say he changed his mind, he flat-out denies every saying whatever in the first place! What's even more worrying is that he doesn't seem to realise that he's on the record. It's not just dishonest, it's incompetent.

Actually, I think most Sanders supporters would say the entire primary process has been a "mockery of democracy". (although that contention starts from the misunderstanding that the primaries are supposed to be purely democratic...they aren't, the parties are private clubs not government organizations, so they're under no requirement to be democratic)
That "mockery" starting with the super delegates declaring their votes for Clinton before a single actual vote was cast, and continuing through the media pretending they don't understand that super delegates are not counted in the delegate count to "secure the nomination" and claiming that Clinton has had it secured for a while now, even though they know clearly that they are repeating a lie, because until they actually vote at the convention, super delegates can change their minds, so their "votes" aren't actually votes yet....which is why they are never counted in the pre-convention vote totals, except this time.... it's a con game that they're winning. Similar to Trump, they're banking on the American people's ignorance and gulibility, and it's working.

That said, you have a good point. Either the super delegate system is terrible and undemocratic and should be eradicated, or it's a good tool for choosing the best candidate and should continue....but many respond as if they think it all depends on who it's benefiting today and they flip flop like a mud skipper. Those people can be ignored, because their 1/2 vote for counters their 1/2 vote against, as I see it.

What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.