As usual, you have it all wrong.
The left wanted Comey fired for making false statements designed both in tenor and timing to harm Clinton's chances.
They are up in arms because it's blatantly obvious that Trump didn't fire him for his statements last June or July, they thought him their hero in November and said so clearly right up until yesterday when he moved to expand the investigation into Trump's campaign. If he was going to be fired for his actions last summer, that would have happened in January, not yesterday.
Trump IS under investigation. First, the only evidence he isn't under investigation is Trump's unsolicited self serving claim that he said that, second, do you think the investigator tells the target they're being investigated? Not unless they are colluding, like the house committee did.

The FBI and house committee both said there is clear, undeniable evidence, but it's classified so far. Trump could fix that today, but he won't, he's too busy having closed door meetings with the very Russian diplomats he's accused of colluding with. (Edit:and they just released in house photos of the meeting, no press was allowed, showing smiling and laughing Trump and the diplomats arm in arm clearly having a great time, a pretty stark contrast to his meetings with allied presidents and diplomats that were often decidedly unfriendly and standoffish) That's not snark, it's fact.

If the investigations were a witch hunt, Trump would want them publicly investigated thoroughly so the evidence would prove it....not stymie them at every opportunity and repeatedly fire the investigators while clearly being caught lying about the investigation and why he fired them all when he did.

Your video, Colbert on Meet the Press, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Sudden 180° turn on a highly contentious issue..?
Say anything. Do anything. To get elected.

It's the American way!


Actually, Obama was pro-same-sex-equality before his presidency.

Biden's unplanned statement on Meet the Press, plus the NC amendment pushed him to make this (also unplanned) statement that the White House said was haphazardly put together, and may actually endanger his standing with some African American and Latino constituents.

>> ^Trancecoach:

@davidraine, @NetRunner: Please read the article, then we can have a discussion.


Done. That was a very entitled and misogynistic read, and the arguments sounded exactly like the ones the Republican on Meet The Press presented. The $40k/$47k line was used specifically -- except that it's a figure that's now eleven years old, so who knows how valid it is anymore. In any event, I claim that based on this sample of his work, the book represents a very misogynistic viewpoint. Not everything in the book is going to be anti-woman, but there's enough there to form a clear pattern.

"Give women ways of earning more rather than suing more." / "Give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more."

Both of these statements stem from the belief that women think they are a privileged class and should get more rights and protections then men. It further states that the playing field is already level, and if women were just a little smarter they'd figure out how to earn more and wouldn't need the courts to fight their battles for them. This is misogynistic on its face -- It is a belief that women aren't as bright as men and need special training to "earn more", and a belief that women aren't already doing the same work men are. It also assumes that the playing field is actually level, which it is not.

"At this moment in history, gender-specific research is funded with a consciousness toward making women in the workplace look equally engaged but unequally paid."

This espouses a belief that there is an agenda behind equal-pay studies and that the researchers were biased and cannot be trusted. It's a form of "projecting" -- Modern Republicans (among others) love this tactic and truly believe in it because their studies have an agenda and are biased, so all studies must be the same way. The fact is that biased studies don't hold up to scrutiny (peer review), and research methodologies are published to help verify the quality of a study. It's also the same argument that you used in an earlier post: "The statistics can be shown to prove anything, so I can raise a counterargument without supporting it with data."

"From the Jobs Rated Almanac’s worst-job list: We often hear that women are segregated into lower-paying jobs. What is probably true is that women are more likely to take lower paid jobs precisely to avoid these worst jobs." / "The fields with the highest paid workers bias toward engineering, computers and the hard sciences while the lowest paid are doing work that almost any adult can do—therefore there is no end to the supply of available people."

The fact that this is still used as an argument means that those using it are being deliberately misleading. This misses the point and always has. If unequal pay was a function of occupation choice, then a man and a woman in the same job at the same company would make the same amount of money. This is provably false.

"Men’s Weakness As Their Façade Of Strength; Women’s Strength as Their Façade Of Weakness" / "In most fields with higher pay, you can’t psychologically check out at the end of the day (corporate attorney vs. librarian)"

These comments espouse a belief in seriously outdated gender roles. Assuming women should be shrinking violets that do their work behind the scenes and do amazing things that surprise the men she is working under is not the way it works anymore, and thank goodness because that was a bunch of crap when it was expected (which was what, five decades ago?). The concept that women can't handle the stress of not leaving work behind when you leave work is equally misogynistic.

"People Who Get Higher Pay..."

This is the last one I'll tackle, and I'm going to repeat myself here, because it bears repeating. This is the heart of what's wrong with the "equal-pay is a myth" counterargument. The whole chapter and the next is predicated on the belief that women make less because they're making the wrong choices, not risking as much as their male counterparts, and are working less than the men even though they're in the same position. Therefore women *should* earn less because women are *doing* less.

Except that women *aren't* doing less. They don't just occupy the same positions, they do the same work. In some cases they do more work, and are still stiffed and passed over for promotion. Women are willing and able to do exactly what men do for their jobs, and yet they make considerably less for no reason other than their gender. There isn't an "effort gap" or "reverse sexism" or "societal factors" in play here -- Those have been modeled and they don't explain the disparity. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It's literally the only explanation left over.

9/11 Commission Report puts Cheney arriving at the PEOC at 9:58am
Cheney says on Meet the Press he arrived at the PEOC at 9:38am
Mineta's testimony (omitted from 9/11 Commission Report) puts Cheney already at the PEOC when Mineta arrived which was 9:20am

*backup=[]

Sort of a dupe of http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-on-Meet-The-Press but it's a part 1/2, 2/2 deal so I dunno.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by gwiz665. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-on-Meet-The-Press

This seems to be the only way the DC press ever "challenges" Republicans anymore. Ask a simple question like "what policies will you enact if elected", press for an actual answer, and let the Repub flounder.

Good on Gregory for not letting him dodge, but it's an almost accidental thing -- Meet the Press is basically a second hour of Fox News Sunday under his stewardship.

But even Chris Wallace nails Republicans from time to time with this same "hard hitting" journalistic method. At least when someone like Chris Matthews does it, he really drives home the rank incompetence of the empty suit he's interviewing for being unable to answer the question.

*news

Hey Thanks man!
>> ^kulpims:
promote revolution

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Had to change embed to a TYT clip, because I couldn't find the raw clip anywhere anymore.

What a blast from the past though. A year ago she was a sometimes-panelist on David Gregory's Race for the White House, and Tim Russert was both alive and hosting Meet the Press.

Race for the White House became 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. after the election, Gregory got to replace Russert on Meet the Press. David Shuster became the host of 1600, and Rachel Maddow now has her own show which for a while was beating the pants off everyone in the ratings.

And today, 1600 is dead and gone, and Ed Shultz starts his new show in that timeslot (another progressive talk-radio personality).

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by lucky760.

Sorry fh2k, *dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Colin-Powell-Endorses-Barack-Obama-on-Meet-The-Press starting at about 4:35.

^ Obviously I have no love for Fox, but all of the Sunday Talk shows, when they touched on this topic, had representation from Israel only. Meet the Press, and I believe Face the Nation also interviewed Tzipi Livni.

No Hamas, sorta obviously since they're supposedly "terrorists", but also no other Palestinian representative on any show.

No pundit even hypothetically put forth a pro-Palestinian point of view that I recall, either. Most of it was musing about how Palestinians brought this on themselves, and how else should they expect Israel to respond?

They also all wanted to talk about it in terms of internal Israeli politics. That may be a valid topic to discuss, but it sure seems like they're just jonesing for another crazy election to cover, and having trouble breaking out of that frame of mind now that our crazy election is (mostly) over.

Not every country starts wars to influence internal elections like we seem to.