https://apnews.com/article/girl-12-killed-houston-arrest-31b535cc2d1a27fc972c6f83c3d33e8a
What bit of pertinent information do you think the AP might have left out?
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/andrew-cuomo-says-alvin-braggs-trump-prosecution-was-politically-motivated/
Who has more credibility on this topic? Former NY governor Cuomo, or Dan the random internet guy from a smallish city in the south?
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2024/06/20/ricky-thompson-iii-round-rock-juneteenth-shooting-update-arrest-old-settlers-park-aggravated-assault/74154345007/
I can't help but wonder why this mass shooting hasn't gotten big notional coverage in the MSM.
https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/1802024438772514897?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
One wonders exactly how much influence she has.
https://x.com/i/status/1799280609774203233
Take a look at the embedded video from CNN, you know CNN the trusted source for real journalism.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-64-million-mystery-anonymous-donations-2024-presidential-campaign/
For years the left has been whining about getting big money out of politics, yet one single anonymous donor managed to donate $64,000,000 through various "dark money" PACs to directly benefit Biden in 2020. I know, I know, CBS news is a "right wing" extremist organization and has absolutely no real journalist who work there.
12 comments:
Two bits says the murderers of the 12-year old are here illegally.
It’s obvious to any sane and unbiased person that Trump’s prosecution (persecution) was politically motivated—that’s what communists do to their rivals.
The Juneteenth massacre was by blacks, so we can’t have that in the MSM because it doesn’t agree with their narative.
CNN exposing the lies of Biden?!?!?!
Yeah, get money out of politics unless it’s for Demokrats.
I'm impressed by your clairvoyance. Somehow the fact that criminals are here illegally seems to not get reported by the MSM.
I agree that the NY prosecution was one of the more blatantly politically driven prosecutions of Trump, it's refreshing to see someone in the DFL admit that fact.
Heaven forbid the MSM give people the whole story, when they're advancing an agenda.
It's shocking when someplace like CNN does expose Biden, but I suspect that they "have to" in order to retain some tiny shred of credibility.
Because a mystery $64,000,000 to Biden couldn't possibly be bad, right?
Going one by one:
1. At this point, it's already known these two are illegals. No doubt they were fleeing oppression from their native land after authorities sought to punish them for raping and murdering young girls there.
2. Too little, too late. Many of us were well aware this, like each of the other trials Trump endured and still must, are politically motivated. The idea that leftists are concerned about justice and the state of the nation while ignoring more egregiously serious problems...such as the rape and murder of our women and girls by illegal invaders, as well as other threats given the many criminals and terrorists seeking entry (as just one example of where leftist attention should be rather than on the unjust persecution of their political opponents)...is just as obvious and is these trials being politically motivated.
3. Oh, this happens all the time at Trump rallies and the like! No wait...!
The article says they're unaware of the 17 yr old having any gang affiliation. But are 17 yr olds allowed to carry handguns in Texas? Does he live in a gang rich environment? How does he just happen to be carrying that day? Does he always? And surely by now, they must have some idea of whether or not he can prove he has legal possession of a handgun, if that's possible for a 17 yr old.
4. I hope she has plenty of influence, though it's not uncommon for one to be "influenced" by those who already share the same points of view. As a former leftist, I would suppose she'll lose tons of influence among lefties.
5. Like Cuomo above, this is way too little, too late and more heinous given their job description. At the time, there were two truth claims by two candidates. What did these hacks do to verify either of them? Answer: nothing.
In other news, Squad member Jamaal Bowman is out. He's replaced by one who seems to be a far less unhinged Democrat...one less crappy. Less crappy is good.
1. Yeah, but the fact that AP left that tidbit out doesn't make them look objective.
2. Better late than never.
3. Because it's the "right wing extremists" that pose the greatest danger to the US.
4. One can only hope that her hundred thousand+ followers will follow her down this path.
5. It might be too late for 2020, but it should be in play this time around. If I was Trump, I'd hammer this is the debate(s).
I saw that, even the unhinged antic of AOC couldn't save him. Less crappy is less bad, not good.
1. As if they've demonstrated that concern much in recent years. Buyer beware.
2. Not really. The time to speak against abuses is while they're occurring (if not before assuming it was known that abuses would take place), not after someone was screwed by them, when it's already been clearly obvious to honest people.
3. I have my white privilege card in my wallet! (I actually have one...a satirical thing. I'll try to post an image here or on FB.)
4. Indeed. Sometimes it takes only one to get the ball rolling.
5. Most fears about Trump in this debate center on not what he says, but how he says it. It think it doesn't work well for anyone to try to present themselves in an unnatural manner. This debate is likely to be the least impactful as regards voter perception of either candidate, and less so on their understanding of policy proposal. The greatest impact will be should Biden have a total shutdown in some way.
Less crappy is good when the choice is between it and crappy. Getting punched in the face every Tuesday is less crappy than getting punched in the face every day. Thus, getting punched in the face only on Tuesday is a good thing by comparison. It's a matter of relativity. Evil is always bad. The lesser of two evils will always be the good choice.
1. No not many of the MSM have, why should they they've got people fooled.
2. Generally we as a country tend to not speak against, or punish people for things they haven't done. In the case of the Trump trails, it's important to remember that most of them are falling apart, and the NY trial hasn't gotten appealed yet.
5. There's absolutely no reason why Trump shouldn't bring this up multiple times in debates and ads. It goes against everything the DFL claims to be for, and it's totally fair game.
In a relative sense, sure. But less crappy is still crappy. FYI, crappy when it comes to the federal government tends to be cumulative, so less crappy in 2024 is likely to be more crappy than 2020.
The lesser of two evils might always be the better choice, but evil will never be good.
We can only deal in crappy in the present, and I'm referring to our choices as voters. We may choose the less crappy and down the road the crap is a bigger pile than it was when we made our choice. But it still must compared to the other choice and the likelihood that that crap will be bigger still.
The lesser of two evils is good be because it's not as evil as the greater. That's not to say it isn't evil also, but we're talking about our choice. The good choice is obviously the lesser of two evils. Can't believe this must be explained. Why would anyone believe I favor evil at all? But when there are two from which to choose, clearly the good choice is the one which brings about the least evil. I get it. You don't like evil. I don't evil and I don't promote it, celebrate it or hope that it continues. I speak only of our choices as voters and people obligated to be a part of this government of the people.
The crap will be bigger still no matter who we elect in November. It's just a question of how much bigger.
The lesser of two evils is only that, lesser. Evil is not good. The lesser evil is just somewhat less bad.
Because you keep insisting that the "lesser evil" is good. Just be accurate and acknowledge that no evil is "good", and that you are advocating voting for (by your own admission) evil. Just a lesser evil.
I'm not suggesting that it's impossible to vote for Trump as the only option against Biden. I'm merely suggesting that the lesser evil is not "good" it's still evil. It might be better, but that's a relative term that is also subjective.
I thought I responded to this, and if I have and you just missed it, but intend to post it, you can delete this one. But I just wanted to highlight my point about the lesser of two evils. Nothing in my comments suggests, hints or even accidentally implies that evil is ever good...and certainly not that I believe such a thing. But between two such choices, one can be the good choice because less evil results. Seems obvious. If you're about to be punched in the face, but you have a choice between being punched by Mike Tyson or Don Knotts, choosing Knotts is a good choice. You're still getting punched in the face, but the damage...the evil...is clearly far less than the other choice. That's what makes the choice "good". It doesn't make getting punched in the face "good", and choosing the lesser of two evils is "good" in the same way.
"The lesser of two evils is good be because it's not as evil as the greater. That's not to say it isn't evil also, but we're talking about our choice."
I could be wrong, but that pretty much says what you claim you didn't even hint at.
Again, choosing the lesser of two evils might be better, but that doesn't make it good.
I know that you're trying to suggest that the decision to choose the "lesser evil" is a "good" decision, while the "lesser evil" is still "evil", which might have a small amount of merit. However, your actual words make it clear that you believe "The lesser of two evils is good".
You're free to try to dig out of the hole you made, but unless you simply acknowledge that you misspoke in the above quote, I'm not sure what good it'll do.
Post a Comment