Stossel couldn’t back up that claim, that left and right are equally honest, because far right sites/outlets are intentionally +-95% untruthful while far left sites are 5-10% untruthful (and often print corrections).

Remember, I think it was Newt Gingrich who said “facts are for liberals”. The right wing abandoned facts and truth completely by 2008 at the latest.

A site that is designed to contain honest facts should, and seemingly does have no political affiliation, and should not strive to be politically balanced. It should strive to be correct. I think they do this. That leaves the lying right wing media out, but not based on politics.

bill clinton use to joke about gingrich's "contract w/american".

he'd say, [parphrasing] when i heard the details, i'd thought i misheard. should have been "contract ON american"!

looks like bill heard right the first time.

Not only did he abolish it, but it was one of the highest priorities of the GOP once Reagan came in. Haynes Johnson writes extensively about this in his frighteningly-prescient book 'Sleepwalking Through History'. The GOP was already following the lead of Roger Ailes (later of Fox News) after he polished the turd named Nixon and the GOP understood if they controlled the narrative, they could stay in power. Newt Gingrich, and the shitshow that followed, was the natural extension of Ailes's methodology. Abolishing the Fairness Doctrine will be studied for centuries as one of the single greatest acts of self-destruction in world history.

jesus,could we all stop with the histrionics already?

there are reasons why trump won,and it certainly was not because he is a decent human being,he is not,he is a terrible human being.

so if you are going to assume what kind of president he is going to be based solely on his emotionally,super-charged rhetoric,then you are..by definition..pre-judging.

i do not know what kind of president he is going to be,and neither do you.

i suspect it going to be in the area of horrifying and bumbling buffoon,but we won't know until he gets in office.

all rubin is pointing out is that there are some positives,and freaking out does nothing,and is based on assumption.

but chew on this for a minute.
both the democrats and republicans HATE trump and the fact he won has scared the living shit out of both parties.the political elite just got kicked in the balls.

i have been watching in horror as trump began to surround himself with some of the most vile,and opportunistic people:gingrich,gulliani,christie,and let us not forget the christian supremacist mike pence.

yet two days ago pence cleared all the lobbyist choices trump had made for positions in his cabinet.they are calling it the "pence purge".was this a political ploy to stick with the "drain the swamp" meme?

sure..that is possible.
but it is still a good sign.

and rubin brings up a good point in regards to trump.he likes being popular and loved.while i find this narcissistic and childish,and not a quality i want in a president,it does offer a window where normal people can apply pressure to his presidency,and that is no small influence.

hey,i get it,trump is a bumbling buffoon who is a terrible human being,but he won't be this countries first awful human being to hold the presidency.

and we really do not know what kind of president he is going to be.so all rubin is saying is:remain cautiously optimistic.

i say:be cautiously optimistic,but prepare for the worst.

because many people have concerns,and i think those concerns are valid.i suspect that a trump presidency will rival the bush era,possibly worse,but i could be wrong.not the first time i was wrong.

so this could all manifest in a pleasant surprise..or a horrible nightmare,but we won't know until trump actually takes over the job.

Weird, why didn't this show up when I searched before I posted the 'dupe'? I did look, searched for "Newt" and only Gingrich showed up.
Enjoy the votes, oddly I had 14 last I looked, I'm guessing 'someone' with an axe to grind (and I'm thinking multiple accounts) downvoted before killing the 'dupe'.

Newt Gingrich: “My personal guess is you are going to see a Romney landslide, 53% plus in the popular vote, 300 electoral votes plus. And we may come very close to capturing control of the Senate.”

Rush Limbaugh: ”You know, all of my thinking says Romney big…it’s not even close. Three hundred-plus Electoral Votes for Romney.”

Glenn Beck: “321 votes!! That’d be great, which would be a mandate, giant giant spankin’ — that’s huge!”

A case of winning the short term battles but losing the wars....

I am still deeply pissed off at Newt Gingrich for how he singlehandedly dismantled our political process with two things. (1) His Contract with America, where he browbeat all Republicans to always ALWAYS vote the partyline, instead of their conscience and (2) His List of Words that he taught to all Republicans -- positive words to describe themselves and negative words to describe their Democrat opponents, regardless the truth of them.

His soundbite tactics led to a Republican takeover -- and to the end of compromise, negotiation, across the aisle deal making.

It also led directly to Romney's defeat. Enough of the people are sick of these tactics.

I know lots of people get upset at the idea of the dreaded "compromise." But this country is made up of a variety of people with different interests. I figure a law is pretty good if it vaguely annoys everyone. If one "side" crows victory where there truly is a difference of policy and opinion, then we're in trouble. In my opinion.

^Fairbs

I do not get my information from Youtube, it's great for entertainment - not so much for accurate Information.

Here are some relevant points I found from a Washington Post article dated April 6, 2012 entitled "Why Ron Paul rallies never translate into votes".

Ron Paul recently held a rally at UCLA, and between 6,000 and 10,000 people attended. The rally itself was a complete success. Yet while Ron Paul has consistently attracted larger, more enthusiastic crowds than his GOP competitors, those events always fail to translate into victories at the ballot box. Ron Paul has never won a presidential primary or caucus.

The media bias argument is nonsense. The media could never hate Ron Paul with the pure passion and ferocity that they despise Rick Santorum. The liberal media loathes social conservatives. They love Republicans who bash other conservatives. This is how John McCain in 2008 and Jon Huntsman in 2012 became the darlings of the liberal media. The media will end up despising whomever the GOP nominee is, and Ron Paul has suffered much less abuse than Newt Gingrich. Every day there are calls for Gingrich, and now even Santorum, to drop out. Dr. Paul does not face those calls.

As for election fraud, the GOP should just agree to give the Virgin Islands and Maine to Ron Paul in exchange for a vow of silence from the movement. The Paul movement uses complaints as their oxygen. All the voter fraud in the world cannot explain Florida, Illinois, and many other big states where Dr. Paul was rejected by more than 90% of the voters.

For those Paul supporters who are still unable to understand these repeated, huge rejections at the polls, the answer can be found right in front of their faces. The Ron Paul movement consists of too many supporters who are completely certifiable. They run up and down the hallways of GOP conventions screaming about revolutions. Decorum is replaced with degradation and debasement.

They shout down speakers they disagree with. They have zero interest in freedom and liberty for anybody except those who agree with them. Decent human beings would just accept this under the rule of "live and let live." The verbal carpet-bombers in the Ron Paul movement consist of some intolerant zealots who will harass, bully, and intimidate anybody just for thinking differently. The same hypocrites who are against undeclared wars engage in undeclared wars against their fellow Americans just for not worshipping Ron Paul. It makes the David Koresh movement look moderate.

Tell a Ron Paul supporter you disagree with his candidate. The responses will be:
1) You just do not understand. You're an idiot.
2) You are an uninformed tool of the political machine.
3) You don't care about the Constitution, freedom or liberty.
4) You are corrupt, bought and paid for, a shill for the status quo or some other powerful, mythical, nefarious entity.

These lines of thought are pure bile. The idea that a person can be decent, well educated, intelligent, have a sophisticated gift of analysis, be a clear thinker, and reject Ron Paul is totally incomprehensible to his supporters.

Newt Gingrich? Is that you?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.
To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?
I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries, contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention. That was his clearly and publicly stated methodology at the beginning of the campaign, and is one more thing about Paul that was either barely or completely not reported on so few know, and fewer understand.
Hits on Google news are NOT the same as 'media coverage'...on broadcast/print media, Paul is almost completely ignored, is removed from polls AND primary result reporting repeatedly (even when he's close second or even first in polls), and when he is mentioned it's nearly always with derision and mockery. The most Paul reporting I've seen on broadcast was about the voting irregularities that put Romney in first in some states where Paul was somehow completely omitted before results had been reported from precincts, and the like. Again, fuel for conspiracy theorists if not actual conspiracy.
As for Santorum and Gingrich, they are NOT candidates, but are still mentioned (usually with a semblance of respect) on broadcast 'news' infinitely more than Paul, and he is at worst running second (out of 2 candidates left). It is the consistency of the omission and derision of his name in broadcast/print news that creates the APPEARANCE of conspiracy, especially when you consider he's one of two remaining candidates.

Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.

To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?

I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is everything a grand conspiracy in the eyes of a Ron Paul supporter? For a group of people so interested in 'personal responsibility' they don't seem very interested in taking responsibility for their own failings. Don't blame the media. Ron Paul is a terrible candidate who does a perfectly fine job of marginalizing himself.


Your statement implies that the other Retardican candidates did not marginalize themselves... but each and every one of them has, (including the front runner) yet they all continue to get air time. At the same time Ron Paul won some primaries (no air time) did exceedingly well in others (ignored), and MAY actually have the most delegates at the convention (his supporters stayed and voted for the delegates, so he may actually be ahead in numbers, people). The media has consistently ignored the Ron Paul campaign from the beginning of the campaign, except when they were taking the time to denigrate and downgrade it.
Why? I have no idea, but they certainly have been singling out Paul to ignore. I still hear them speaking about Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, even Bachman on national news, daily. Talk about marginalized candidates, they are all out of the race completely but are still getting tons of air time. Paul is still running, maybe even winning (probably not, but there's no real way of knowing right now), but never gets mentioned, even when he wins primaries. You can try to make the argument it's because he isn't a winning candidate, but you have to ignore ALL the facts to try to make that argument stick.
If, as you imply, Paul is a terrible candidate, why does he not get the air time that all the other terrible candidates got? Please, I'm looking for a real answer if there is one, not another meaningless, denigrating quip about Paul's inadequacy.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That article makes a good point about Obama dragging this into partisan politics.>> ^RedSky:

Mostly agree with this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/obama-endors
es
It seems pretty calculated to me. These kinds of decisions just aren't made off cuff. The speed and sequence of events just feels too convenient in an attempt to make it look spontaneous.
Politically it's a huge boon. Romney wants to sell the the tested business-person image. Santorum and to a lesser extent Gingrich have already done damage by derailing the debate to the culture wars. The Republican base which doesn't trust him will need to see him defend 'traditional' marriage virulently to turn out to vote. It'll be out of his comfort zone & strengths and gut any chances he had left.

Mostly agree with this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/obama-endorses

It seems pretty calculated to me. These kinds of decisions just aren't made off cuff. The speed and sequence of events just feels too convenient in an attempt to make it look spontaneous.

Politically it's a huge boon. Romney wants to sell the the tested business-person image. Santorum and to a lesser extent Gingrich have already done damage by derailing the debate to the culture wars. The Republican base which doesn't trust him will need to see him defend 'traditional' marriage virulently to turn out to vote. It'll be out of his comfort zone & strengths and gut any chances he had left.

I liked his comment after Gingrich's speech.