If they were 50% fair it would be worse for Trump, but even two years in they still can't believe everything he says is a lie, so they keep reporting it like it means something besides the ramblings of an Alzheimer's patient.
Even he would say your numbers are wrong, he thinks it's far more than 27/7/365, more like 32/12/427, or even 39/15/720

Poll numbers steady? Well, rock bottom is a stabilizer.

Meaga? Make Everywhere but America Great Again? Are you having a stroke?

Yeah, any type of cherry picking in studies irks me badly. For instance, I recently got into an internet argument with one of the people who try to claim we didn't land on the moon.

They were using the results of a single study that tentatively said the Van Allen radiation outside of LEO possibly causes higher rates of cardio-vascular disease in astronauts. I then read the study and found out they picked 7 out of the 13 deceased astronauts vs a sample of 100 LEO astronauts, plus the general public's rates of CVD. That set off my alarm bells, so I then looked at the ages the people died at and their actual cause of death on the internet.

Three of the astronauts died at 56, 61, and 61. So basically about a decade early. The other 4 died in their 80's, basically a decade later than average. Out of those 4, they were suffering other conditions and illnesses that might have influenced the final cardiac failure. Sadly no one in the scientific community seems willing to challenge the study, so it stays valid, and the news media posted great big headlines about it when it came out.

Like I told the person I was arguing with, the median age of death of lunar astronauts is 87, even including the three that died early. Even if Van Allen radiation increases CVD likelihood, living to 80 something is pretty damn spectacular, so it really doesn't matter if you die from CVD, cancer, or a stroke.

Lol.
I do get to say what constitutes American values in my opinion, an opinion informed by civics class, something it seems most people were deprived of. Those values are honesty, fairness, and equality under the law.....honoring one's word/agreements, helping the needy, standing up for right not just maximum profit internationally. These are historically the values America held dear....but no longer, at least not officially.

Fox does not honor those values, it rarely gives them lip service and never more.

Well, the boy cried wolf 1000 times this year, and twice there were wolves, you go ahead and drop everything and keep running, pitchfork in hand every time he cries out, I quit listening to him the second time there was no wolf, only a boy laughing at us. Call me emotional and dismissive, I disagree but that's fine. You don't want to know what I think about you and that boy.

Good reporters would not associate with those zealous, hyper biased, hypocritical blatant propagandists, so no, there aren't good reporters there. Maybe some who occasionally tell some truths, that's not enough by far to be "good", and as a network they've squandered any chance they had for redemption as a legitimate news organization with zeal and glee repeatedly.

Yeah.....you know me so well. I don't watch any Trump bashing sessions, they were boring before he was elected. I haven't had my tv on CNN in years, not that they're solely Trump bashing sessions, but they do host some.
You seem to think any news not stroking his ego is a bashing session, quoting him, out of bounds bashing, discussing his new policies, out of bounds emotionality, discussing his recent court losses, out of bounds schadenfreude, pointing out constant stream of blatant self serving lies, out of bounds emotional garbage. Only positive spin is real news...Fox is real news with real reporters, not >80% hyper biased hosts spouting opinion as fact. No thanks....Homie don't play dat.

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

Stroke?

"Maps" doesn't adequately describe the extent of information that things like these convey. They are more like "animated visualizations".

I took a computer graphics class in college where we learned about data visualization. One of the most famous examples in that field is Charles Joseph Minard's map/visualization of Napolean's march into Russia in 1812. On the surface, it is a 2D map. However, the width of the line showing the path of advancement conveys troop numbers, the color denotes whether they were advancing or retreating, and a connected chart below shows the air temperatures that the soldiers were exposed to, etc.

Basically, at a glance you can easily see the broad strokes of the advance and retreat, and you can get much more depth of information if you look a little closer. These kinds of animated visualizations are definitely continuing on in that same vein -- packing a lot of information into a presentation method that is easy to pick up and also very deep with some more inspection.

Wikipedia article about Minard showing that famous Napolean march visualization if anyone is interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Minard

Thanks for the video reminding me of why (and how much) I like Bernie Sanders.

I liked what he had to say, but on the other hand I really think Maher was asking the right questions and I don't know that Bernie had great answers.

Shattering Trump's cult of personality is necessary. Maybe Trump will do that himself by just continuing to dodge and not follow through on anything, but we can't take that for granted because A) it is possible that he will put forth enough token effort into his campaign promises (wall, etc.) that he can simply blame lack of completion on "Democrat obstruction", and B) even if he does *nothing*, it has totally worked for him so far with regards to approval ratings in his base.

"Make America Great Again" was a stroke of genius, whether he happened on it by dumb luck or not. Obviously a good thing at face value, yet vague enough that anyone can attach their own baggage to it and feel like Trump is totally in sync with them. What do Democrats have to counter that? All of Bernie's offerings are campaign-promise-speak that can't happen unless there's a D in the White House and a majority in Congress. And no sure thing even then.

Like I said, I don't know that I think Bernie had great answers to those questions. I don't know that anybody else has better answers right now. I certainly don't. But I DO think that those questions are the right ones to be pondering over the next two years.

Elizabeth Taylor was a beautiful woman right up until the end, but in her twenties, I think she might have had trouble dating with all the men who saw her dying of stroke when the blood rushed elsewhere.

Damn.

Because that's what lightning usually does. Actually it goes both ways. A weaker charge goes cloud to ground and ionizes a pathway for a much larger charge to go up. Both the up and down stroke happen so fast your eyes usually perceive only the brighter upstroke. This video has been slowed down.

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.
As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

That's certainly not how I read....
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven," that is clearly not meaning "until I die and resurrect, then you can just forget those laws and go by some new ones to be determined later."
I don't know about heaven, but earth has definitely not yet passed away. That means you jumped the gun on abandoning the Law, and are now considered the least in heaven as you've told others to do so as well. It's 100% clear, no mental gymnastics or labyrinthian decryption needed to understand it.

Your second answer is hard to follow....he didn't say 'treat others as I would', it's 'as you would have them treat you'. Because most people fail to live up to it has no bearing on the instruction, neither does our moral imperfection. I would have them try to treat me fairly, honestly, and civilly, so I try to do the same, and not because Jesus said to, but because that's the best way to get others to treat me that way.

To answer your question...Aesop.

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.
If old testament morality and laws were out the window, then everything is permitted because new testament essentially says Jesus made sin obsolete....but he also said clearly that ALL previous religious laws stand and anyone telling you different is an evil liar.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Sure sounds clear to me, wear blended fabrics, get stoned to death as an infidel, refuse to stone them, your an infidel too, now you get stoned.

You need me to tell you why slavery and murder are wrong? I guess so, since your moral guide says they are proper, even required.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.
Do you want to be raped, sold into slavery, stoned to death, or even just told constantly that you're immoral, evil, and going to hell? If not, stop doing it, and definitely stop pretending that not what the bible commands of you.
That covers it, and covers why trying to impose your narrow idea of religious morality on others is wrong, according to your own moral code.

LOL -- even if I somewhat agree with @ant, too.

Lucas maybe doesn't get enough credit for being a genius, Tolkien-esque "world creator".

Sure seems like he was at his best when he took that creative genius and paired it up with other people (NOT yes-men) to cover screenwriting duties (anything beyond broad-strokes, particularly dialog), directing, and probably casting etc. also. Given that, I breathed a sigh of relief when he sold to Disney. Star Wars wasn't going anywhere but down with him at the helm, but I like what Disney has done with it.

Then again, what do I know? His franchise to do with as he pleased. Just so happened that *I'm* also pleased with the net result...

While I agree with the broad strokes of your argument, positing that life is soooo much better in Japan completely overlooks the sky-high suicide rate there (consistently one of the top countries in the world).

Life may be less desperate, but obviously there are serious underlying issues.

The US government's blind support of massive corporations certainly is a factor. Allowing them to triple the cost of insulin over the past decade or so in spite of the fact that manufacturing costs are stable or even falling is part of what causes patients like the above to ration their supply.

I also found out recently that all financially motivated crime in the US (theft, auto crime, robbery etc.) as a total cost is less than half of the wage theft practiced by big corporations (short-changing vacation time and paychecks mostly). In fact the #1 type of wage theft is underpaying minimum-wage workers, which alone accounts for more than all of the typical "crimes" combined.

If that doesn't lead to homicidal rage, I don't know what does.