You just can’t help yourself, can ya?

The World Tribune is a website and side project of the Washington Times. As in, the hard-right paper owned by the wack-job Reverend Moon. The editor and publisher is Robert Morton, a Moonie himself.

Please try to find legit sources.

wv wrote:

I think its tonight isn’t it?

I might watch a few minutes of it, but i doubt it.

The sight of mainstream-celebrity-weasels
asking questions to the millionaire-weasel and the billionaire-weasel,
is probably more than i can stomach.

The only thing worse than the ‘debate’ itself, is the post-debate yapping, posturing, spinning, and weaseling by the usual celebrity-dems, celebrity-reps and celebrity-pundits.

Think i might watch an old episode of the Walking Dead
instead.

w
v

That pretty much sums it up.

;>)

I’m going to record it and may skim through it later.

The bar is set so low for Trump, if he doesn’t poop on the stage and throw it at the audience, those celebrity pundits will likely say he “won.”

ZN,

I stand by that quote, too. If I rushed to judgment, I apologize. It may well be bnw just wanted to let me know of an alternative kind of car. That kind of exchange is more than welcome.

That said, I also wanted to correct the record. I’m not an advocate for an all-electric fleet, etc. etc. I actually want us to go to all solar cars, that bypass the need for any kind of “charging” via electric outlet. To me, that should be our goal.

Solar and wind are literally “renewable” in ways that other alternatives simply can’t be. The use of water, for instance, even if done in a “green” manner, is going to have some negative impact on the environment and deplete a precious resource. I’d much rather we focus on sources that can’t be depleted and don’t have to be extracted, etc. etc.

bnw,

Seriously. The record of the far right — Trump’s base — when it comes to their umpteen faux “scandals,” is soooo abysmal, so absurd, so steeped in abject paranoia and fear, they’ve discredited themselves for generations to come. Sandy Hook as a supposed “false flag” does that all by itself.

They haven’t come close to “the truth” in centuries. Literally.

Again, your best bet, when it comes to accurate, honest critique of the Dems and Clinton, is to find leftist sources. Chomsky is a great place to start, and someone who has perhaps the best Rolodex of critics available, anywhere. WV has been championing him for years and years, against the odds, and rightly so.

If truth matters to you, bnw, I guarantee you this: You will never, ever find it on the right.

bnw wrote:

The issue is the sham investigation by the FBI. Even Obama lied about his knowledge of the private email server. Those are facts. Facts are facts regardless of who writes or publishes. Can’t wait for Trump to select a non-Clinton/Wall Street crime syndicate affiliated U.S. Attorney General and FBI Director.

Bnw, this is really frustrating for me. I detest both parties. I don’t want either party to be anywhere near power. I can’t stand the Clintons, and they deserve a ton of criticism. A ton. Leftists have done amazing work, as far as investigative journalism regarding the Democrats, Clinton and BOTH parties.

That said, nothing you have ever posted on this board, as a criticism of Clinton, is factual. It’s all right-wing fringe, paranoid nonsense.

The right doesn’t offer facts. It offers fear, lies and delusion. For decades and decades, they’ve lied and smeared and slandered their opponents, destroyed lives, destroyed activists for the people, and the Alt-Right is latest iteration of this. If you are serious about finding good, honest, accurate critique of the Clintons, look to voices to the left of the mainstream. You won’t find any honest, accurate, objective voices on the hard right.

Emailgate? It’s manufactured nonsense. If the GOP didn’t see Clinton as a future candidate, they never would have bothered relentlessly investigating her. Same goes with the other nothingburger, Benghazi. Same goes with all of the phony scandals they whipped up to try to bring Obama down. Tragically, the Dems, along with Obama and Clinton, actually have engaged in horrific actions. Trouble is, the GOP was and is complicit in all of it. They’ve always supported capitalism and its violent export, colonialism, imperialism, empire, war after war after war, the mass surveillance state, etc. etc. They’re actually even more aggressive about these things than the Dems.

And Trump? He is too. He’s every bit the authoritarian piece of garbage that seems to pervade both parties. That you actually think he will be your champion is beyond baffling. He won’t. He’s always been for no one but himself.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Soros is the right’s bogeyman. They’ve locked onto him like they locked onto Alinsky, being entirely clueless about both of them.

No one was extreme paranoia and tin-foil-hat nonsense like the right.

Soros the Nazi collaborator.

Soros the Jew, who was all of 13 when the Nazis occupied Hungary. Come on. Glenn Beck was taken to the woodshed by the ADL for trying to turn him into a collaborator.

I’m not a fan of his business dealings at all, and there is much to be critical of the way he accrued his fortune. But the right has consistently smeared him and lied about him and his philanthropy, trying to turn donations to mainstream causes into something sinister.

The right is drowning in the deepest paranoia and you shouldn’t fall for their nonsense.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Debate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left

BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016

Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.

Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.

Your sources ARE partisan. Now explain to me why we need TV “journalists” to ask questions of the candidates when the media’s approval rating with the public is at 6%?

I will be happy to do that if you’ll admit that your sources don’t tell us anything about the political leanings of the moderators. They just tell us about the political leanings of the Op Ed authors you cite.

What do you want from the moderators, a confession? All that can be done is hold them to their questions and statements in the past. Their bias is obvious.

Again, you post an opinion piece, from a discredited source, and you accept that opinion without questioning it. You assume they’re telling you the truth, even though Shapiro doesn’t provide any video or audio to support his contention, and his analyses of the comments he does paraphrase are bizarre. It’s all too similar to the Breitbart opinion piece on Clinton’s racism, which basically did this:

Trump was accused of being a racist for saying X
Clinton said X
Therefore Clinton is a racist.

Problem is, the premise is BS. No one accused Trump of racism for X. He was accused of racism for doing and saying other things entirely. So Breitbart — and now Shapiro — start with bogus premises, without video or audio proof, and make subjective judgments on top of those bogus premises.

Don’t fall for it, bnw.

Don’t obfuscate, BT.

I’m not. I’m being as clear as can be. You should really stop posting right-wing opinion pieces as if they were “proof.” At least if you want to persuade anyone here.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Debate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left

BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016

Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.

Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.

Your sources ARE partisan. Now explain to me why we need TV “journalists” to ask questions of the candidates when the media’s approval rating with the public is at 6%?

I will be happy to do that if you’ll admit that your sources don’t tell us anything about the political leanings of the moderators. They just tell us about the political leanings of the Op Ed authors you cite.

What do you want from the moderators, a confession? All that can be done is hold them to their questions and statements in the past. Their bias is obvious.

Again, you post an opinion piece, from a discredited source, and you accept that opinion without questioning it. You assume they’re telling you the truth, even though Shapiro doesn’t provide any video or audio to support his contention, and his analyses of the comments he does paraphrase are bizarre. It’s all too similar to the Breitbart opinion piece on Clinton’s racism, which basically did this:

Trump was accused of being a racist for saying X
Clinton said X
Therefore Clinton is a racist.

Problem is, the premise is BS. No one accused Trump of racism for X. He was accused of racism for doing and saying other things entirely. So Breitbart — and now Shapiro — start with bogus premises, without video or audio proof, and make subjective judgments on top of those bogus premises.

Don’t fall for it, bnw.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Debate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left

BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016

Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.

Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.

Your sources ARE partisan. Now explain to me why we need TV “journalists” to ask questions of the candidates when the media’s approval rating with the public is at 6%?

I will be happy to do that if you’ll admit that your sources don’t tell us anything about the political leanings of the moderators. They just tell us about the political leanings of the Op Ed authors you cite.

bnw wrote:

Debate Moderators Released: They All Lean Left

BY: BEN SHAPIRO SEPTEMBER 2, 2016

Why do you always do this? Find Op Eds from far-right sources and post them as if they’re “proof.” Ben Shapiro used to run Breitbart before he started dailywire. He’s a far-right hack and serial liar, and nothing in his opinion piece is factual.

Sheesh. Please try to find at least half-way non-partisan sources.

NewMexicoRam wrote:

zn wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Seems to me it’s the BLM who hates the government the most and are most dependent on the government financially, not the Tea Party folks. Tea Party people don’t hate the government. They are in favor of limited government, which was the general thought of the Constitutional fathers. And I am not a Tea Party member.

BLM has never expressed “hatred for the government.” That’s only the fuzzy false picture you get of them if all you know is what detractors say about them and don’t know what they themselves actually say. And the idea that those associated with BLM are more government dependent does not bear much close scrutiny.

We don’t listen to the constitutional fathers, who were very skeptical about letting corporate power dominate democracy. Basically that’s what we ended up with. If we had listened to them we would not have ended up with that. Interestingly part of the reason we suffer a system that limits democracy (because of the power the corporate world and the wealthy exercise over it) is because those forces used the “limit government” mantra to manipulate people. That just gave more power to them.

…

_________________________________________________________________

Allow me to re-phrase that.
The founding fathers were in favor of limited

federal

government, for the most part.

As far as state government, very few had problems with wide reaching government.

But, again, if you look at the Constitution, they weren’t in favor of a “limited” federal government, either. We would have just stayed with the Articles of Confederation if that were the case. Remember, the anti-federalists lost the debate.

And, they did impose limits on the states, and established the supremacy clause.

Look at Section 10 for those state limits, and Section 8, especially, for massive powers granted to the Federal government:

Article One of the United States Constitution

bnw wrote:

Trump and Clinton will not address each other, only answering questions from the moderators. This will allow Clinton to memorize her answers since the moderators have only donated to one candidate, that being Clinton. Also prevents her from any risk of having to think on her feet. Despite scheduling it opposite MNF it should shatter viewership records.

It will also be the most time (90 minutes) that she will be witnessed as on her feet. Since it is against the rules to leave the stage her wire in her ear will have to stay put to keep her reaching for her ear at a minimum. Also I wonder what type of disruptions she has planned for the event in order to get around not leaving the stage? Protest in audience? Power outage? Fire alarm? The report of an active shooter nearby? Moderator falling ill? Bomb scare? The lies and deceit of Clinton are too numerous to count.

bnw, seriously. You need to stop listening to those fringe nutcases like Alex Jones and Breitbart in general. There is no proof that she wore an ear piece. I showed you the photos. And as for the moderators, Lester Holt is a Republican. And they all work for conservatives. All of our MSM are owned by multinationals with seriously conservative agendas. It’s always been bogus to assume that because a majority of reporters lean Dem, they’re actually setting the news agenda. They do as they’re told by their bosses — right-wingers — or they lose their jobs.

Come on, you can do better than the above GOP talking points.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

You’re disconnected from a great majority of americans who you should be listening to rather than disparaging them, aka The Deplorables.

Also, not sure if you’re trying to say that a “great majority of Americans” support Trump, but if you are, you should take a look at the numbers. Total registered voters in America is roughly in the 176 million range. Dems garner roughly 29%, the GOP roughly 26%, and when we add the much larger contingent of independents, the Dems increase their advantage slightly. But we’re still talking about roughly half of all Americans, for all parties put together, and Trump has support from well under half of that half.

To be really, really generous, he’s in the 23% range. Clinton’s only slightly higher. So when she made her comment about “basket of deplorables, she was talking about half of that half of that half. Give or take, 12% of the country, roughly. Her “basket of deplorables” referred to just about 12% of Americans.

You will see how far off your numbers are in November. With all the usual democrat vote fraud Trump will have to win by a huge margin just to supposedly squeak by with a win.

Oh, come on, bnw. There is no such thing as voter fraud, beyond a few rare cases. Bush launched a crusade to find it, and came up with roughly a dozen cases out of tens of millions of votes. You want to talk about BS? The entire voter fraud fantasy is BS, designed to add political cover for GOP voter suppression efforts. No one has ever proven that it exists beyond a dozen cases or so per election — and, again, those examples come from right-wing officials bound and determined to find it, and they couldn’t.

bnw wrote:

You’re disconnected from a great majority of americans who you should be listening to rather than disparaging them, aka The Deplorables.

Also, not sure if you’re trying to say that a “great majority of Americans” support Trump, but if you are, you should take a look at the numbers. Total registered voters in America is roughly in the 176 million range. Dems garner roughly 29%, the GOP roughly 26%, and when we add the much larger contingent of independents, the Dems increase their advantage slightly. But we’re still talking about roughly half of all Americans, for all parties put together, and Trump has support from well under half of that half.

To be really, really generous, he’s in the 23% range. Clinton’s only slightly higher. So when she made her comment about “basket of deplorables, she was talking about half of that half of that half. Give or take, 12% of the country, roughly. Her “basket of deplorables” referred to just about 12% of Americans.

bnw wrote:

Trump will win by beating the establishment on a national level. So astsin context of the 50 states it is more than theory. I live in Trump country. For literally hundreds of miles in all directions this is Trump country. People are tired of voting on issues only to see their vote overturned by the court on issues that are a state concern. The economy here is generally shit and has been for the last few decades. The trade deals have decimated our economy in flyover country but the establishment only gives a shit about the coasts. We’re supposed to just put up with it? Really? How do you think that is going to work in the long run?

Trump IS the establishment. He was born into it, and has always used his wealth and power to gain more wealth and power for himself. He has never shown one ounce of concern for “the people.” I honestly can’t for the life of me see why anyone thinks Trump would champion your interests, if you’re not in the 0.1% or some Russian oligarch or Chinese businessperson he owes money to.

Doesn’t it bother you that he plans to slash his OWN taxes? Doesn’t it bother you that he plans to eliminate all the estate taxes his heirs would normally pay? Doesn’t it bother you that he’s gone bankrupt six times, received six deferments to avoid military service, used his own charity foundation to pay off at least $258,000 in legal fees that we know about, and bribed Pam Bondi NOT to pursue an indictment in Florida regarding Trump University?

He has NO plan to help you, your family, your neighbors, your friends. Just empty slogans and empty words. And, no, he’s not going to fix our trade agreements to help you. And we know this because he won’t acknowledge the reason they DO hurt American workers: They enable American billionaires like Trump to ship jobs overseas, produce products there and sell them back here. They make capital king, and crush workers and the environment. Trump outsources ALL of his manufacturing overseas, and he tries to blame OTHER countries for what he and his fat cat peers do routinely, and he wants to destroy regulations that protect the environment.

Seriously, why on earth do you support him, given your concerns? And I’m not saying Clinton is the answer. She’s just not as horrible for workers and the environment as Trump and the Republicans will be.

I’m scratching my head on this one, bnw. It doesn’t make ANY sense for anyone in the working class to vote for him.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.