Okay. You're right. He can be a politician. He is a politician. A stinking poor one, but since he is running for public office, he is by definition a "politician."

Doesn't change the fact he is unqualified to be President. He knows nothing. He promotes fear-mongering and encourages violence. He says he will do things as president that are clearly unconstitutional and outside his powers (banning Muslims, changing the libel laws so he can gain financially.) He is thin-skinned.

He has just revoked the press credentials of The Washington Post because he didn't like a front page story. The man doesn't understand the three branches of government plus the fourth estate of a free press.

I'm qualified to disqualify him because I am a thinking American who knows some history. Like Ken Burns. Like Mitt Romney.

Trump is a unifier, all right. For the first time in almost eight years, some Republicans are putting their love of country above partisanship. I've never been more proud of everyone who has the courage to tell the truth about Donald Trump.

He is patently unfit to serve our country. He has never done it before. He isn't interested in doing it now.

Sure, but this wasn't an advocacy to vote video, it was an advocacy to stop using differences as an excuse not to talk to other people, ie. encouraging bi-partisanship.

These guys went to bait a reaction, expecting people to go apeshit over Muslims who were supposedly supporting Trump. They didn't, they were willing to talk, be inclusive etc.

So it's possible to put aside differences when people reach common ground, right? Advocating voting for Trump or Clinton is pointless, or even comparing them, is pointless. Either way, things will not get better.

Thanks for your "very scientific" definition (just like GenjiKilpatrick's "evidence" for global warming, saying "OMG, Global Warming is real because it was 70 degrees in Georgia!")

No, unlike you, I don't confuse partisanship with data... Nor do I look for arbitrary reasons to discount a person's entire argument because the rules of epistemology suddenly no longer apply. On the contrary, I choose to instead examine what the data actually shows before arriving at my own changing thoughts on the matter.

But I guess, for you, the data isn't as important as the source, so long as your pre-cooked distortions of reality aren't disrupted by something as pesky and difficult to conform to one's beliefs as the FACTS... (remember those?)

But, yes, you are absolutely right about fucking yourselves. Perhaps you should spend less time online and save some electricity. (Or maybe it's too much for you to actually Walk The Talk instead of just bloviating online.)

I went to a gas station recently. Lots of people were pumping gas... And none of them seemed to care very much about your ideas of oil company fellatio. They also didn't seem concerned at all about crackpot climate change "theories"... (Go figure.) You should get out there and yell at them for ruining the planet, ChaosEngine. I was also at an airport recently, too. There were lots of planes burning fuel. You're not making a single dent on oil consumption with your tirades... Perhaps you should try another strategy and see if anyone cares.

(Haha.. Of all the fictional "crises" you could choose to be an alarmist about, you've chosen one on which you have zero impact! But, hey, for all I know, you're just addicted to the adrenaline rush of faux outrage. Lucky for you, I'm here to feed it...

Treasonous. That's how I would describe the whole debacle.
Odd, during Bush the Republicans stood firm on the idea that 'partisanship ends at the border', but that idea evaporated in their mind the day Obama was elected.
Funny that they use the 'French president opposing the Iraq war' example, since he would have been 100% correct had he been invited to speak to oppose Bush.

@newtboy
i agree with you but consider a few things:
1.for the first time bob is actually engaging and revealing where his perspective originates.(which came as no shock,to anyone).now we can disagree on his position but understanding how he got to that position gives an opportunity to disseminate the particulars.

this is a good thing.

2.while bob's breakdown of the political spectrum is extremely,overly simplified and his understanding of socialism vs corporatism is staggeringly..wrong..it begs the question ..why does bob have it so wrong?

which he answers by where he gets the majority of his information.i dont necessarily blame bob for this but rather the institutions and media outlets he gives authority.

bob is not the exception but rather the rule.people tend to congregate and gravitate towards those who speak in the language they,themselves,can relate to.this is why FOX is so successful and why every other 24 hr news channel has tried to copy their success.

FOX appeals to the emotional rather than the rational.they pound a message for entire news cycles with little or no actual analysis of very complicated issues.there IS actual news hidden in there but it gets drowned out by the screaming apologists who just seek to perpetuate their own agenda and/or popularity.the hyper-partisanship alone is reason enough to never watch FOX.

most americans do not have the time to do a research paper every night,and the majority never made it past 9th grade civics.so they tune in to 5 minute soundbites that appeal to their own emotionally triggered prejudices.presented by vapid pretty people who are the exact opposite of a journalist.

they ALL do it.every 24hr news channel does it,FOX just does it better.

3.the fact that bob frequents a predominantly secular-left site should be an indicator that he is not as partisan as he appears in many of his comments.he comes here to see what the "lefties" find important and their take on current events.

the problem always arises when people assume that if given all the information,everybody will all come to same conclusion.

which is untrue.

but to come to a rational and reasonable conclusion we must have the information ...all of it...we may still disagree in the end but at least the discussion is founded on even ground and not polluted by propaganda and politics.

the hyper partisanship has got to stop.it only serves those who wish to divide and conquer.

4.the tea party in the beginning was pretty amazing and,ironically,had a very similar message that occupy wall street had.remember what was going on when the tea partiers first exploded on the scene?

the wall street bailout.

now they were eventually co-opted by the very power structure that they originally protested against..ironical..but if you look at the history of mass movements the powered elite were using an old playbook in that regard.

ugh..you got me writing a damn lecture newt!

let me just conclude that i am glad bob is engaging on much more personal level and i hope he continues.
will bob and i still disagree? most likely

All right, so I just went back and read my earlier reply to this, and I think it got a bit too harsh at one point (it was very late, and I was very tired). Sorry about that.

And I'm really sorry about your mom. Seriously. It fucking sucks in so many ways, and nobody should have to go through what you, your mom, and probably many others around you went through due to one horrible sack of shit.

However, it's still only anecdotal. Just like you claimed that the issue shown in this video might individual rather than systemic, and that women as a whole shouldn't be blamed for the actions of one woman.

But that's exactly the kind of judgment you are passing on men.

I mean, conversely, I have my own shitty-ass stories of abuse ...except the villains in all of my stories just happened to be women (no male teacher ever abused me in any way). But I don't necessarily hold that against women as a gender. Sure, I think it might've been exacerbated by the fact that the school system is heavily dominated by women who, when they are pushed into a corner by the incredibly bad system they're stuck with, just have a harder time understanding and relating to young boys than they do young girls. But I don't go on masculinist rants claiming that I was somehow systematically oppressed by women as a group, because that is just crazy-talk (and no, I am not a masculinist, or even MRA (partisanship is for fucking CHUMPS, and I am no chump)).

However, the fact remains that you've brought nothing to this conversations except belligerently stated opinions which you refuse to back up when asked to do so. That's not fair to the people who are talking to you, and it certainly isn't fair to you yourself who is made to look like an idiot because hey; stupid is as stupid does.

If you engage me in a conversation and are able to back your shit up, I will gladly give you the time of day. I may not agree with you - in fact, it's possible that my disagreement will be downright vehement - but I'm going to review your statements and your sources seriously and respond to them (somewhat) seriously.

Unless they are TOO stupid, in which case it is possible that I will point at you and laugh.

If I think your arguments are sound, and believe me when I say that I am fair in this because I push myself hard to stay rational, I will actually tell you that your arguments are sound. And if you actually manage to prove me wrong, I will literally tell you that you proved me wrong. It has been known to happen (exceedingly rarely), and I always manage to stay upfront and honest because the only thing that really matters to me is the truth.

So please don't fucking bail on an argument like that again, because it drives me up the fucking walls.

If the content is accurate, why embrace foolhardy partisanship?

I think it's safe to say, here in the U.S., we know we definitely can't trust the Republican Party, and now we certainly cannot trust the Democratic Party. Luckily there's still the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, which I've no doubt is just as corruptible given a quantifiable time in power. The people need to ultimately learn, in my opinion, not to become fanboys of partisanship.

I know my Middle East history and have no illusions about who is and is not the aggressor. My point is that there is ALWAYS a double standard. That you took this as an attack on Israel's moral standing simply highlights your own double standard.

By the way, the extensive temporary exodus is now 65 years temporary with no talk about right of return, at least not to the people born in pre-Israel Palestine. And any talk of right of return by the Palestinian Authority has been used as grounds for abandoning peace/settlement talks by the Israeli government. Just a little fact check, not a sign of partisanship.

At no time did I say "Lana Lang" here was justified or right in doing what she did. As some of the less-testy lefties here admit, she certainly did not act like someone who was caught deliberately trying to do wrong.

What I am saying is, compared to the vote-rigging schemes by taxocrat elected officials and the illegal "granting" of amnesty by His Majesty, liberals have no solid ground to attack voter suppression, which consists of asking for the SAME FUCKING ID used to buy alcohol.

Oh that's right, we're not allowed to criticize The One's SHIT performance in office, because he's (half) Black.

Liberals will always have a ready-made excuse why obamanomics failed, or why no one is investing in this poisoned business climate, or why millions have been added to food stamps and disability, or why tyrants around the world scoff at His Earness' spinelessness. But it's your right to worship at the feet of this fool.

Regarding partisanship, am I inclined to be a little less harsh towards conservative foolishness than liberal foolishness? Of course. Only now, liberal foolishness means the wholesale ruination of the system.

Seriously, American libs, why are you still here? Canada and Europe ALREADY HAVE free health care and all the PC bullshit already set in stone! If I believed as you do, I'd have moved a long time ago.



>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'll see your one confused girl attacked by a liberal harpie with these clowns and His Earness' amnesty for one million illegals in June.

Behold the hypocrisy of the partisan.. funny how reality flips upside down depending on the color of the offenders T shirt..
Harpies and cuties aside any reasonably impartial fan of democracy would say this shit CANNOT PASS

it's like a child trying to talk at the grownup table. IIRC she was exactly the same in her days on Politically Incorrect. She'd double down on these insane positions, and everyone else would be wtf? you are provably wrong and she'd just continue talking over everyone.

Bill Maher was absolutely correct in last week's show. You cannot have a civil discussion if you cannot agree on basic facts. This was demonstrated in his opening interview with her. The jobs report says that a higher than expected number of jobs were added (still lower than it needs to be, but increasing all the same) which Bill was arguing for, and Christine argues that jobs actually decreased. The report says that unemployment dropped from 8.3 to 8.1 but somehow there are less jobs.

When you have this level of spin and partisanship, you simply cannot have a constructive process. There has to be some fundamental things everyone agrees upon and when you have two political structures disagreeing over even the most trivial things.

When our credit rating got dropped. It had nothing to do with the debt itself, that commission that dropped the rating specifically cited the inability of congress of getting shit done and the level of political bickering and shenanigans.

The president has fuckall to do with that. We keep focusing on the Executive Branch when the real power is in the Legislative.

The nation does not turn on a dime. Like the guy said in the show. This magic metric of "four years" is a completely shitty way of measuring success or failure. Shit at that level does not take effect overnight and lasts for years, if not decades.

>> ^NetRunner:

I could've just as easily have downvoted for the stupidity of your pox upon both their houses view of modern politics though. I don't really get the sense much of anyone on the left is filled with some sort of "zeal" for the "donkey" -- and the disdain for the Republicans largely stems from the way they seem to be functionally identical to the Inner Party members from 1984.
---
The fact that one side, and only one side has fully committed to this level of partisan loyalty should make even the most cynical, above the fray, non-partisan person sit up and take notice.


It seems to me having (effectively) just two parties makes some degree of partisanship mandatory for anyone participating in politics. You yourself talk of sides. A blue vs. red system like that leaves anyone truly independent-minded somewhat disenfranchised.

I was talking with a guy from California not long ago, he was pretty pissed that his tax money was being used to blow people up in other countries. Will Obama stop the killing? Will Romney? Who should someone who really, really doesn't want to have his government blow folks up vote for, the nice guy with blood on his hands or the nice guy who's waiting to get some on his? Or should there actually be some other option?

It's not that Cenk is wrong about voting for McCain, that was just another Pandora's Box to be had at the table. I feel while John would "maybe" try to end this issue, as we've seen his past his stance changes from one way to the other when push comes to shove (gays in the military) he would still end up doing some if not most of the core Republican "threats". Which may mean that if it came down to the wire some sort of "law deal" would be made with house Republicans and they would force John to change his mind. I know John had a law on the books that got railroaded by this Citizens United fiasco--so he may have some actual flesh in the fight. I just need to see him commit/fight first before I believe the words.

But, anyway, you'd have to remember we'd have to deal with the pure drivel of his right hand...The Dumbass From Alaska: Sarah Palin! I'd like to say McCain was OK, he seemed fine circa 2000, but with the state of politics--no offense to Cenk as I think he's a smart guy--but I DON'T trust a damned word coming from ANY of their mouths. They say things TO GET PRESS COVERAGE for hells sake (but, this deserves press coverage)!!! So, yes, I think John is getting a hardy pass to "Go" here when he may not deserve it; John should have already made his move on the issue--if he has done more than introduce his old bill and disagree with the Citizens vs. United, that is all that I know he really did. He passed a law dealing with the subject so I'd assume he has a stake in it somewhere, it just hasn't been made all that clear--it's just talking for now (I'm going to go look for a bit myself as well, to see if I can find more direct maneuvers that he has done either against Citizens United or his bill that was ran over).

Obama talked a great talk, but we knew after two years we didn't get anything remotely close to a revolutionary or visionary president here--let alone progressive (the last progressive probably was Roosevelt to be truthful, I don't think Reagan or Clinton count at all, they just towed in the party lines and left partisanship, unchecked, to take a bigger hold in American politics and they both did a good job for THEIR parties), just a McPresident™ fully endorsed by: [list your 1000 companies here]. Obama is playing his cards close to the middle (not to the far left like oh so many think). I hate the Citizens United Decision and I'm astounded it hasn't been slapped down yet as it LITERALLY allows foreign interests to play with our politics--not funny. Just the business end of it is spooky enough. I hate Obama for a lot of issues, but just because one guy that diametrically opposes everything else he says has one VERY valid point I'm not going to take him on his offer until he commits to the point where his words cannot be swung 180 degrees. I'm betting that even now Sarah Palin thinks the Citizens United decision is either about people getting together to have a party or she thinks it's great; so really she likes it no matter what.

Imagine being in Iran right now, over having Citizens United resolved in the name of 'The People', instead we'd probably get a declaration of a third war instead--we could play this stupid game all day. I'd rather be disappointed in my president and wait for the courts to settle it, if they can--we can all thank Bush Junior for his absolute garbage taste in Justices...

I'm not a fan of John or Obama that much, but I WILL take Obama any-day over a Republican--right now in our current political climate; Republicans are toxic. Personally, I think John's main involvement does go back to the law he passed in 2002 for campaign finance reform. That of course was on the books when Citizens United came about and forced them to take that law into account and the prevailing Justices basically just sneered at it as they seemed to have a malicious view of the other side as their responses gave that away. They were snide and sarcastic in a matter which is neither, except to them--so did they get paid off? I'm thinking, somehow, YES, they did. I'm assuming someone cares at the level of government, it is getting harder to tell every year. Obama certainly doesn't help that issue. I really don't think John would have either, he may have saved us on finance reform for elections--electioneering--but, he would have enacted so many ridiculously TERRIBLE laws in place of the ONE bad law that we'd cry for our country. Plus, we might be in Iran considering the level of vitriolic talk from him and Sarah...

Rolling the dice with World War 3 looming...



That is the one thing that MAY keep John on your side throughout all of this as he did try the first time to try and sway their opinion and he also had an old law on the books that dealt with some of the issues presented.

I sort of agree with TED assertion that the talk wasnt spectacular, and that it relied perhaps too much on truisms, and didnt really contribute with anything new, its basically a rich guy pleading to be taxed more.

That said, I dont understand the accusation that the talk is "Partisan". Clearly its only partisan in the context of current american politics. After all: either its true that tax breaks for the rich are creating jobs, or it isnt. What different political parties think of the matter, is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. For instance, if a global warming denier held a talk, he'd basically be pushing GOP policy, where as if someone from reality held a talk on global warming, some republicans would just accuse them of giving a "liberal hippie treehugger" talk.

As Stephen Colbert so aptly put it; "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

With TEDs logic, you could hardly give a talk on any issue relating to reality without being "partisan" then, especially when one party (Who Shall Not Be Named For Fear Of Partisanship, But Maybe You Can Guess) is half corporate propaganda tool and half superstitious, reality-denying, conspiracy-driven madhouse.

Its a bit like saying "The F-Word" really, you're technically not saying "Fuck" but we all fill in the blanks.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Now if I could just get my relatives to watch this.

It doesn't matter. I showed this to some people I know are conservative and they've all had the same reaction.
I can't understand why people wouldnt' want to just change everything back tax wise to how it was under the Clinton Administration. The economy WORKED back then you know?
It's like, if I'm wearing a size 9 shoe, and then I switch to a size 8 because they didn't have any size 9's and this shoe is REALLY AWESOME so I'm going to try it! After about a year I'm going to be in agony I'd just go back to only buying size 9!
Why does everyone (conservative) want to re-invent the whole wheel?


We've reached that level of divisiveness and partisanship that it doesn't matter how good things were under Clinton, there is always going to be a large amount of mental gymnastics and false rationalization for some people that will allow them to be "convinced" that things were really quite horrible under his administration.

We're already seeing it now. The only way the republicans are going to get the white house is if they convince enough people of the doom and gloom. It doesn't matter how much good he does. He could single handedly bring down North Korea and Iran and the right will still try to argue that he's the worst president ever. All throughout Bush's presidency, all we heard about was Bin Laden this, Bin Laden that. A Democrat Administration gets him, and the first thing we hear is "pshaw....we don't care about him. He's not important." It's completely insane.

We could have time travel and actually witness Obama being born in Hawaii and it just won't matter, the birthers will still find some "rationalization" of their shit.

Speaking of which, I see that the latest "proof" that the birth certificate is fake hasn't gained any traction.

Hell, we had a sift here recently about a group of people who still think the world is flat and it's all just a huge conspiracy that the world is round. It's fucking 2012 and we have people who think the world is flat.

Part of it is the media's fault, they continue to insist that almost every issue could go either way. so that they can sell the conflict and turn it into ratings. It's one thing to have people who honestly believe that Obama wasn't born here, but it's quite another to have a media that gives them legitimacy for the sake of ratings.

The point is, we really gotta stop worrying about the fringe thinks. We live in a era of where we apparently don't care about what the majority wants anymore. We seem to only pay attention to the vocal minorities. Over half the US is ok with Gay Marriage, but yet it's still this wedge issue, 60-some percent were in favor of Medicare for all...yet we still can't make it happen. Most people ARE in favor of higher taxes for the rich...yet it still hasn't materialized yet. Most people have no problem getting along and living and working with people of other ethnicity, yet we still seem to live in a world where race is still an issue. All because we still continue to pay more attention to what the fringes thing than the majority.