CNN != Fox



  • @approxinfinity Things move fast around here. Who can keep up?!!!



  • @JayHawkFanToo my husband died at a young age and my boys aren’t that old. I can tell you that they would never ever talk to a lady that way. They would never write those sexual terms down anywhere for people to see. If they were under oath they wouldn’t lie about those sexual terms. It seems like the whole world knew those words, 'cept @mayjay and me. They are not rich frat boys that have had everything handed to them. No beach weeks! They are far from perfect, but they respect other people. If there is an investigation we do have lots of witnesses, I hope they talk to them!



  • @mayjay

    You have got ot admit that professor Blasey Ford stretches the limits of credibility to a point where her entire testimony is suspect.

    Her story has changed repeatedly to fit the new information available and no one dares call the proverbial “the emperor has no clothes” for fear of being labeled anti-women or as the hosts from the show The View called anyone that doubts her story a racist…really? racist?

    Just about every detail of her testimony has changed starting from the assertion that it happened in the mid 80s when she was in her late teens to 1982 when she was 15 when she realized Kavanaugh would have been in college at the time. She does not remember how she got there or how she got home and apparently left her best friend with men that allegedly tried to rape her; this defies logic. Back then there were no cell phones and she has no explanation whatsoever. The Bethesday Chevy Chase area is very large and you generally cannot walk from one place to another.

    I don’t know if you are familiar with Bethesda- Chevy Chase area. My family moved to Bethesda in 1971 and stayed there until the late 90s when they sold the house. I personally lived in Bethesda during the early 70s and I am very familiar with the area and the prep school environment having my sister attended Ursuline Academy (now closed) in Bethesda in the late 70s early 80s and my younger brother went to St John’s College HS in Washington DC in the early 80s or right around the time of the alleged incident; all my nephews attended Gonzaga HS in DC and DeMatha HS. While these are very exclusive schools, they don’t even come close to Holton Arms which is the most expensive women’s prep school in the DC area with a tuition of $54K per year and whose famous alumni include Susan Ford, daughter of then President Ford who was famous (or infamous) for being rude to her secret service detail and continuously sent them on fast food runs; it is even more expensive than Sidwell Friends HS (where the Obama kids went). The only prep school more expensive is St. Albans (where Al Gore went) which has a tuition of over $60k per year. So, this is not like she was a girl from the wrong side of the tracks that was groped by a rich kid and could not get justice. If you attend Holton Arms, your parents are loaded and I mean LOADED and extremely well connected otherwise you just don’t get in.

    The polygraph that you cited early is a joke by any standard. She was asked to hand write a statement which she changed several times crossing numbers and fact and replacing with others. The two questions asked were:

    • Did you write that statement?
    • Do you believe it to be true?

    Really? That is it? No probative questions that would determine the veracity or lack thereof of her allegations were asked; she does not even remember if the process was being video taped. The favorable treatment by the rent-a-polygrapher made they referees calling Duke game look like pikers.

    The boyfriend she dated for 6 years indicated she did not have any fear of flying and even flew small propeller planes for travel around the world. He also indicated that she never mentioned any thing about the alleged assault and also indicated she coached a friend on how to pass polygraphs. Se has co-authored a paper on retrieving memories using hypnoses, an area that is highly controversial and known to be extremely unreliable.

    As far as her alleged post traumatic issues, she never had any while finish her last two years in high school and conveniently showed up years later in college. Here therapist notes which she shared with Washington Post but would not share with the Senate show different key details than those in her story. She indicated that in 2012 she wanted to install a second door for security due to her ongoing issues but permit records from her home town showed that the remodeling permit was issued in 2008 and the second door was designed to give separate access to an area of the house she wanted to rent. So much for that.

    Also, her friend that would not corroborate her story was contacted by her attorneys and pressured to change her testimony and the most she did was to indicate that as a friend, she believed that something might have happened to her at some place in time but would still not corroborate the party in question and still denied even knowing Kavanaugh, let alone being in a very small party with him

    Here is a nice summary in USA Today, by no means a conservative publication.

    All the information cited above can be easily verified via google search.

    As an attorney you must be dismayed when now the accuser is to be believed and the accused is presumed to be guilty and it is the job of the accused to prove a negative, something that cannot be done. This is not how it is supposed to work.

    BTW, Blasey Ford has now indicated she is stopping all proceeding and does not want Kavanaugh impeached or removed, WOW.



  • Crimsonorblue22 said:

    @JayHawkFanToo my husband died at a young age and my boys aren’t that old. I can tell you that they would never ever talk to a lady that way. They would never write those sexual terms down anywhere for people to see. If they were under oath they wouldn’t lie about those sexual terms. It seems like the whole world knew those words, 'cept @mayjay and me. They are not rich frat boys that have had everything handed to them. No beach weeks! They are far from perfect, but they respect other people. If there is an investigation we do have lots of witnesses, I hope they talk to them!

    I am sorry about your husband but you missed my point. I was just using an example that could happen to any man in today’s environment.

    Like I said, what do you think you would do if 20 or 30 years from now someone makes allegations about one of you kids when you know they are not capable of that and never have been before…because you know how they were raised. Would you tell them to not defend themselves?

    As far as words on yearbook is nothing more than non-sense. I chose not to be in my HS or College yearbook because a lot of what was written, particularly in HS, was pure nonsensical braggadocio and I found it to be silly and I wanted no part of it.

    People that act that way towards women do not stop and every woman that has worked for him has supported him and indicated they have never see him be anything other than a perfect gentleman. This does not match at all the image of Kavanaugh that they expect us to believe.

    As far as being rich frat boys, read my post to @mayjay. She attended the most exclusive women’s HS in the Washington DC area just like Kavanaugh and as far as having everything handed to him, finishing at the top of his class in HS and College is not something that was handed out to him, it is something that he worked hard to achieve, particularly at a top Ivy League school.

    I just don’t get why people want to destroy somebody’s career and reputation just because he was appointed by Trump. Sotomayor and Kegan are a lot farther to the left than Kavanaugh is to the right and while many republicans did not vote for them, they did it for ideological reasons and did not try to personally destroy them either.

    Look at this video to get a different perspective along the lines of what I was talking.



  • @JayHawkFanToo you missed my point! He lied! My kids wouldn’t under oath! That nonsense you speak of, he lied about, under oath, so stop talking to me about it!



  • Crimsonorblue22 said:

    @JayHawkFanToo you missed my point! He lied! My kids wouldn’t under oath! That nonsense you speak of, he lied about, under oath, so stop talking to me about it!

    With all due respect, that is your opinion and mine is different and what you call non-sense, some of us call it facts. Again, read my post to @mayjay and read the link I provided, she has lied and lied and lied…pardon me…her recollection has changed…when new information became available that did not fit her original or even the modified narrative and yet I don’t hear a peep about it from you. Selective indignation much?



  • @JayHawkFanToo selective? You never say anything about HIS lies, he is the one trying to get a job. You called it nonsense!



  • Crimsonorblue22 said:

    @JayHawkFanToo selective? You never say anything about HIS lies, he is the one trying to get a job. You called it nonsense!

    I am not sure what your HS or college experience was but my friends and I, at both places, had a number of expressions that were unique to our group and unless you were familiar with how the expression originated you would not know what we were talking about. I can give you a number of examples and some of them are something we would not mention in mixed company, only among ourselves. As free spirited as we were in the 70s and 80s we were still respectful of women.

    Here is an example we are all familiar. Jaybate used to post all this empty posts with only the words “back fill” until it was pointed out to him what the slang meaning of the word was. I honestly do not think he intended it that way but it happened.

    So, at least Kavanoaugh seems to have a somewhat plausible explanation for those 3 word that you seem to obsess over; however, you don’t seem at all concerned about all the…shall we say “discrepancies” in her testimony. There is plenty of evidence to prove that she flat out lied in her testimony.

    You seem to think that women are incapable of lying or filing false charges but it happens a lot more often than you think, particularly since the federal government has made extremely difficult for an accuser to defend himself against these allegations in college campuses. Here is a link that provide some details, here is a another.

    Frankly, her whole story has come unglued and in many ways she is as much a victim of the liberals as Kavanaugh was.



  • Crims probably wasn’t from an area with a RAPE CULTURE at parties, I’ll bet that much. :)



  • Lol on plausible explanation! Did you know twice as many rapes were reported last year as the year before on the KU campus. But you are in luck, DeVoss has a new policy that would bolster the rights of students accused of assault, harassment or rape. Feel better, mr always right, no matter how you treat other people? Leave me alone.🙏



  • @JayHawkFanToo Nice fictional account of the process. I will just point out four things:

    First, you are still ignoring Kavanaugh’s 4 friends who swore he lied.

    Second, I do not, in fact, have to reach all those same conclusions you have reached that you say I “must.” And, of the two of us, as I have pointed out before, only one has training and experience as a lawyer or was a judge–and “that warn’t you, Elmer.” So your comments about what I have to realize as a lawyer and judge are pure crap. Frankly, you should stop it because your “legal analyses” are just embarrassing.

    Third, see number 2.

    Fourth, see number 3.



  • JayHawkFanToo said:

    Here is a nice summary in USA Today, by no means a conservative publication.

    All the information cited above can be easily verified via google search.

    Margot Cleveland, Opinion contributor to USA Today.

    Margot Cleveland is a self described conservative Catholic law clerk who also writes for the Washington Examiner and The Federalist.

    This piece is as about as unbridled a conservative opinion piece as you’d find in her other haunts.

    Surprise! Conservative opinion writers are everywhere.



  • @approxinfinity didn’t you cite a NYT article earlier in this thread? Or is it only opionated if a conservative cites something?



  • @Woodrow he was saying that USA Today was “by no means a conservative publication”, presumably to highlight that even liberal media has to admit [insert conservative talking point here], or something to that effect. The point is that this is false logic, as the author of the opinion piece he quoted is deeply embedded in conservative media. We’ve seen this faulty logic before, just keeping it real. Don’t want my conservative buddies blind to how theyre being seduced by their conservative media.



  • @mayjay

    Nice try but no cigar. The article I cited on USA Today summarizes pretty much what I posted…and the article was written by a lawyer, and a woman at that, so, she must not be nearly as smart or knowledgeable as you and likely a woman hater to boot.

    As far as stating that the presumption of inocence which is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system is flawed analysis which I believe is what you said since that was the only legal issue I mentioned, then you must believe the accuser is presumed to be telling the truth and accused is presumed guilty that would true only in totalitarian countries such as Cuba or North Korea or maybe the military system operates that way although I seriously doubt it does. I just don’t know how to answer that.

    I am sure you are familiar with the Blackstone’s formulation which is the principle that:

    “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”,

    …as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

    Historically, the details of the ratio have varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.

    From Wikipedia…

    While compiling his highly influential set of books on English common law, William Blackstone expressed the famous ratio this way:

    “All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.”

    This variation was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century. It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country’s Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.

    Other commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin Franklin stated it as, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”.

    I just find it interesting that you let your bias cloud your judgement and turn it into something personal. I am not going to resort to personal attacks.



  • approxinfinity said:

    Don’t want my conservative buddies blind to how theyre being seduced by their conservative media.

    …and I don’t want my liberal buddies blind on how they are bring played by practically the entire MSM.

    BTW, you forgot to mention that Margot Cleveland is also an adjunct law instructor at Notre Dame. Also, similar analysis by “legal experts” are all over, on all sides of the spectrum. The truth is that with each passing day and now that emotions are down, her testimony looks less and less credible. As I mentioned before, I believe that both Ford and Kavanaugh were used as pawns by politicians and they are both victims.



  • approxinfinity said:

    @DoubleDD Oh I do think he did what he is accused of. And i think the investigation was artificially restricted. But thats not why I think he should be disqualified. I think the bar is even higher than “not having committed sexual assault” as to whether someone should be a justice on the highest court in the Judicial branch. Things like “not a partisan hack” and “not a belligerent d–k” and “not a liar” are the kinds of things I’m looking for.

    We are so quick to judge the accused but we don’t even look at the accuser?



  • @JayHawkFanToo I was not only addressing your USA Today post. I was also referring generally to all of your posts on this subject.

    As to this last vomitus vomitus, your flaw lies in assuming that criminal justice standards should apply to determining whether someone has the character, record, history, intellectual ability, reputation, integrity, and temperament to merit being on the Supreme Court. The issue always is whether the candidate meets the highest standard in each area, not whether any allegations against the candidate require enough proof to dispel any reasonable doubt with a perfunctory 5 day investigation that specifically excludes interviews with either the complainant or the candidate.





  • Crimsonorblue22 said:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/27/gop-senators-outside-ford-questioner-mistake-849246

    It was a bad strategic move to bring in the prosecutor to question Ford, but not allow her to also question Kavanaugh. If this were a criminal proceeding, there would be a question of whether it was fair and appropriate to change who was doing the questioning since the GOP opted to use her to question Ford, but not Kavanaugh.

    Since this wasn’t a criminal proceeding, there’s no violation, but it was bad optics.



  • @justanotherfan When I was a commodity judge, I swore the witnesses all together at the beginning and then conducted my own questioning topic by topic, jumping back and forth between witnesses as necessary to pin down particular points. It was extremely effective in figuring out what happened.

    I was very frustrated watching the hearing, chafing at the bit as I waited for any questions designed to actual uncover facts previously not stated. The Dems totally blew their 50 minutes of available cross-examination of Kav, preferring to posture and speechify. The Repubs’ designated questioner also wasted her flow on unimportant details (who paid for the polygraph? who cares? Any confusion could easily be due to not having gotten a bill yet!) obviously preselected and designed to raise red herrings. She should have focused on what the weaker answers revealed, and shifted to impromtu questions.

    But Senate hearings are not designed to bring out new information. They are used now to posture, preen, and attack.



  • alt text



  • mayjay said:

    @JayHawkFanToo I was not only addressing your USA Today post. I was also referring generally to all of your posts on this subject.

    As to this last vomitus vomitus, your flaw lies in assuming that criminal justice standards should apply to determining whether someone has the character, record, history, intellectual ability, reputation, integrity, and temperament to merit being on the Supreme Court. The issue always is whether the candidate meets the highest standard in each area, not whether any allegations against the candidate require enough proof to dispel any reasonable doubt with a perfunctory 5 day investigation that specifically excludes interviews with either the complainant or the candidate.

    I believe that when possible I have cited sources for my posts and even a cursory Google search can verify the rest. I have not made any legal arguments other than to mention that the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of our legals system; you don’t need to go to law school to learn that. you learn it in middle school civics class.

    More directly to your ad-hominem argument, The ABA unanimously gave Kavanaugh its highest well qualified rating.

    Its published criteria explain what this means for a Supreme Court nominee:

    "A Supreme Court nominee should possess an especially high degree of legal scholarship, academic talent, analytical and writing abilities, and overall excellence. The ability to write clearly and persuasively, to harmonize a body of law, and to give meaningful guidance to trial courts, circuit courts and the bar for future cases are particularly important skills for a Supreme Court nominee. . . . To merit the Committee’s rating of “Well Qualified,” a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The rating of “Well Qualified” is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement."

    …which exactly addresses all the points you raised and he met all the criteria. As you know, there have been a number of studies that have determined a bias by the ABA against Republican nominated candidates for the many positions in which it provides ratings, so an unanimous well qualified rating is even more impressive.

    Maybe you should take up your issue withe the ABA. SMH.

    By the way, if the Democrats wanted a longer investigation, Feinstein should not have waited 6 weeks to release the information just before the vote in a very transparent move to delay the process which we now know was the plan all along. I know you will say that Professor Ford wanted it kept confidential but when she contacted the Washington Post and shared information with them all bets should have been off. You can’t have it both ways, demand privacy while providing information to the press. It is right up there with Corey “I am Spartacus” Booker who made a spectacle of himself by stating that he was risking expulsion by releasing classified documents when he had been informed the night before the documents had already been made public and no longer classified. The Democrats shot themselves on the foot…repeatedly…and have no one to blame but themselves.



  • @JayHawkFanToo Good point on the ABA. Of course, they announced that they were reevaluating the rating in light of the temperament he displayed at the hearing, but they were not going to get that done before the vote. Probably another reason the Committee rushed to completion.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410130-american-bar-association-re-opening-kavanaugh-evaluation-due-to-temperament

    So, the ABA and Justice Stevenns both felt that Kavanaugh’s behavior warranted stepping back to reconsider. Both had previously approved him. And all I have ever said is that the whole mess deserved more extensive investigation and consideration. (If I was on Feinstein’s staff or a Dem member of the committee, I just don’t recall it, so I don’t know why you keep trying to pass their actions off on me.)



  • @mayjay

    In the same letter the ABA indicated that the “original rating stands.”

    There was lot of pressure on the ABA to issue the letter but in the end is just -much ado about nothing- and the rating will stand.

    While many consider his demeanor/temperament not what they expected, an equal or greater number saw it as the sign of an innocent man, wrongly accused and vigorously defending his reputation and good name. Different strokes for different folks.



  • JayHawkFanToo said:

    @mayjay

    In the same letter the ABA indicated that the “original rating stands.”

    There was lot of pressure on the ABA to issue the letter but in the end is just -much ado about nothing- and the rating will stand.

    While many consider his demeanor/temperament not what they expected, an equal or greater number saw it as the sign of an innocent man, wrongly accused and vigorously defending his reputation and good name. Different strokes for different folks.

    As I said before, I can understand where people come from with innocent man wrongly accused being upset.

    However, I struggle with that because I don’t think those same people would give that level of benefit to an actual criminal defendant facing actual prison time if they were to behave that way in an actual court of law.

    That defendant would have a right to a presumption of innocence, but they would not be allowed to yell at the prosecutor and judge. They might get one warning, but more likely, that type of behavior would cause them to be held in contempt of court!

    Kavanaugh is a judge. He knows this. It was, at the very least, poor decorum.

    If you want a comparison, compare Kavanaugh’s behavior to that of Clarence Thomas during his hearings. Thomas maintained his composure. Kavanaugh did not. Simple as that. I doubt many conservatives would argue that Thomas not screaming during his hearing means he wasn’t an innocent man. Instead, it shows that someone can maintain their composure and dignity in that setting, in spite of the allegations facing them.



  • @justanotherfan Thomas did however play the race card, saying he was on the receiving end of a “high tech lynching”. In my mind, that was in the same ballpark of impropriety as Kavanaugh saying it was a “revenge job by the Clintons” though not as bad as Kavanaugh’s threat of “what goes around comes around”, even if Thomas had a bit more composure in his presentation.



  • approxinfinity said:

    @justanotherfan Thomas did however play the race card, saying he was on the receiving end of a “high tech lynching”. In my mind, that was in the same ballpark of impropriety as Kavanaugh saying it was a “revenge job by the Clintons” though not as bad as Kavanaugh’s threat of “what goes around comes around”, even if Thomas had a bit more composure in his presentation.

    I don’t agree with what Thomas said during those hearings. However, he maintained his composure. I don’t agree with Clarence Thomas much, at all, but he at least acted like he understood how to behave in a Senate hearing. It’s a low bar, to be sure.



  • @JayHawkFanToo I know I’ve been on the warpath the last couple weeks. You’ve let me say my piece and tried to rationalize where the other side is coming from. I don’t agree with the rationale, but I appreciate your moderate temperament in the face of several pretty passionate liberal leaning individuals [even if we are justifiably so ;)]



  • Well, here’s where we get to see whether Fox is actually state-run media ( do whatever the President wants) or just practically state run media (driven by ratings, journalistic integrity be damned):

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-will-look-into-fox-news-decision-to-stop-broadcasting-trump-rallies



  • @approxinfinity I agree that CNN has done lots of damage to democrats. They simply took off their mask of objectivity, and revealed they were completely, utterly corrupted in the tank for democrats. No doubts, no semblance, or even hint, or even a whiff of anything remotely suggesting any objectivity on any level. The modern day Pravda. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if the DNC didn’t send them a daily talking points memo to direct them what to report .No doubt CNN has done alot to fire up, and solidify the republican base.

    A little bit like the Federal Reserve is doing with our interest rates. For 7 years of the Obama Administration, the Fed Reserve didn’t raise interest rates 1 time. Now, in Obama’s final year, they did raise interest rates a quarter of a point. Since Trump was elected, the Fed has raised interest rates 7 times. 7 times. Here’s a blurb I found interesting from a deplorable website:

    "CNBC reported in December 2015 that President Obama oversaw “seven years of the most accommodative monetary policy in U.S. history” (from the Fed). The Fed Funds rate was at zero for most of Obama’s time in office. Finally, in December 2015 after the Fed announced its first increase in the Fed Funds rate during the Obama Presidency.

    The only Fed Funds Rate increases since 2015 were after President Trump was elected President. The Fed increased the Fed Funds Rate now seven times.

    The Fed Funds Rate greatly impacts the economy:

    Lower interest rates usually spur the economy by making corporate and consumer borrowing easier. Higher interest rates are intended to slow down the economy by making borrowing harder.

    Increases in the Fed Funds Rate increase the cost of borrowing and the largest borrower in the world is the US government. With $20 trillion in debt, a 2% increase in interest payments equals $400 billion in annual interest payment increases or nearly a half a trillion dollars!

    President Obama benefited from the lowest possible interest rates possible for seven of his eight years and in spite of this, nearly doubled the US Debt from $10 trillion to nearly $20 trillion. With no rate increases in interest rates, President Trump would arguably have a balanced budget to date. (Although the short term implications may not dictate this, the long term implications are clear.)

    President Trump knows this and he previously stated that he is not happy with the Fed raising interest rates and killing the economy. Last week with the DOW reached all-time highs, consumer confidence hit all time highs and unemployment hit its lowest rate in 50 years.

    The Fed then announced they would raise rates some more!

    The Fed’s Jerome Powell said at a meeting in Boston:

    Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said Tuesday he sees no need to drop the central bank’s current gradual approach to raising interest rates.

    Powell said the combination of steady, low inflation and very low unemployment shows the country is going through “extraordinary times.”

    The markets almost immediately responded and in spite of the great news on the stock markets and jobs, the markets declined. Another Trump rally – another Fed interest rate block! Yesterday as the market shed over 800 points, President Trump said the Fed has “Gone Crazy”. He really disagrees with what the Fed is doing.

    The Deep State and the Fed don’t care about the American worker or taxpayer. It’s all about power. If they can tank the economy, decrease American’s 401ks and increase interest payments on the massive Obama debt, then they win. The only thing stopping President Trump from balancing the US Budget and keeping the economy on fire is the Fed’s rising rates. Trump’s right again and again – the Fed’s actions show it favors the left. The Fed has gone crazy!"



  • @approxinfinity You own NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, every newspaper in America, every university, the entire school curriculum( along with the teachers) of every student in America, practically every movie star, every major movie studio, and you are worried over the bias of Fox News? You can’t watch a movie, a sit-com, a rock concert, a sporting event w/o seeing some form of progressive propaganda displayed…and God forbid you try to watch an awards show…and Fox News must be stopped, right? Look, I don’t watch Fox News very much, but this country damn sure needs Fox News just for the fact that it isn’t parroting this nation wide socialist dogma that is shoved down our throats 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week. I’ve been on this earth nearly 58 years, and I’ve never seen anything like it. But the problem we have with America is we have Fox News, right?..I am really sorry, but I just can’t wrap my head around that one, my friend…I try not to wade into this because I’m a reformed conservative, but I just couldn’t help it.



  • @KUSTEVE Jay Powell is a Trump appointee and a Republican. Trump bookends criticism of the Fed with statements about not having direct contact with Powell and having a hands off relationship because he wants to play both sides. He wants people to trust the autonomy of the Fed, but he wants people to feel that the success of the economy was only tempered because the Fed raised interest rates. To suggest that the Fed had a partisan agenda that “favors the left” when Powell is in fact Trump’s man seems to me to be incorrect, and a validition of why Trump is playing you with his fake criticisms of the Fed.

    Regarding Fox News, they are doing a nice job of making you believe theyre a beacon of conservative truth thats fighting not to be snuffed out by the mean nasty liberals all around them. The truth is that they’ve been the number one primetime Network for 28 straight months! The world is progressive and nothing is fair? The problem as I see it is that no conservative news source with more journalistic integrity has made a play in the TV news space and they’ve allowed Fox to dominate.

    Here are the ratings for July by network

    Top 10 for July 2018 – Prime Time

    Fox News (2,406,000)

    MSNBC (1,663,000)

    HGTV (1,360,000)

    USA (1,344,000)

    History (1,115,000)

    Discovery (1,075,000)

    Hallmark Channel (1,024,000)

    Investigation Discovery (1,010,000)

    TBS (999,000)

    CNN (891,000)



  • @approxinfinity ABC News - 10 million

                             CBS NEWS - 10 million
    
                             NBC NEWS - 10 million
    
                             NY TIMES - ?
    
                             Washington Post - ?
    
                             Every paper in the country....????
    
                             Every local tv station in the country
    

    Fox has 3 million…you probably have 300 million in one form or another. How many likes does a Taylor Swift have on her Youtube video? a 100 million? You have Facebook cutting off around 90% of all conservative content. You have Twitter shadow banning every post that doesn’t kowtow to the progressive agenda. You have Google effectively burying all criticism against democrats, and highlighting every critique against conservatives in their search results. You have “fact check” organizations like Politi-fact that reek bias, and are used to advance dubious claims all the time. If someone happens to disagree with Global Warming on YouTube or Facebook, they run a disclaimer underneath the story to attack the veracity. This isn’t trying to eliminate “fake” news, this is fascism.

    You’ve already won…conservatives are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They haven’t taken Trump out yet, so the Fed Reserve is simply going to crash the economy to take him out, which is why they’ve raised interest rates 7 times in the past 2 years. Like I said, you’ve already won. My question to progressives is…do you realize what you’ve won?



  • @KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?



  • @KUSTEVE by “deck chairs”, you mean the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and the Executive branch?



  • @approxinfinity And that’s the most insidious part of it.



  • @KUSTEVE lol seriously? What proof do you have that Jay Powell is deliberately undermining Trump?



  • @KUSTEVE

    You do realize that part of the reason that the Fed did not raise rates during the Obama presidency was that the economy was in recession when Obama took office, and then was in recovery through 2015. Raising interest rates during the recession or recovery period would have spurred another recession, likely tanking the economy again.

    In other words, the conspiracy theory you point out was actually just sound economic policy to aid the recovery. This is not deep state conspiratorial action to hurt the Trump presidency. President Obama took office at the beginning of a recession and oversaw a careful economic policy to end the recession and begin the recovery.

    However, economic policy also states that you cannot keep the rates low forever. At some point they must increase. President Trump has touted the recovery. Now he has to deal with the economic policy that comes with it - rising interest rates.

    President Trump cut taxes last year to jolt the economy. However, he now has to follow that up with sound economy policy to encourage gradual growth. Cutting taxes or cutting interest rates isn’t a forever solution to economic growth because there is a limit to how much you can cut those things.

    Additionally, President Trump may have other motivations for complaining about interest rates. His businesses have hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to various banks. As the interest rate rises, Trump businesses also see their debt servicing rise (the cost they pay on their interest to keep their loans current). Because some of Trump’s debt stems from bankruptcy settlements, he cannot default further without potentially losing his companies and assets to his creditors.

    There are competing interests here. The Fed has to start raising rates because they were as low as they could go during the recession and recovery, and are still lower than they probably should be. Businessman Trump has companies that will see their debt service costs skyrocket as interest rates rise - a quarter point increase on hundreds of millions of dollars in loans gets very expensive very quickly.

    The Fed has to run economic policy for the nation, not for Trump businesses.



  • There still is no reason to raise the rate numerous times in such a short span of time.



  • @approxinfinity

    We all have our opinions and as I have always indicated they cannot be right or wrong because they are just that, opinions. Now, when we have actual facts it is different because they tend to speak for themselves and even then, different people see them differently.



  • approxinfinity said:

    @KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?

    You have to admit that lot of appointments don’t turnout the way it was expected.

    Looking at SCOTUS appointees:

    William Brennan, appointed by Eisenhower as a conservative and left as a veritable liberal icon.

    Harry Blackmun, appointed by Richard Nixon was supposed to be a conservative appointee to reign the Warren Court and became quite the liberal including taking the lead in the Row-V- Wade case.

    Byron White, appointed by Kennedy as a liberal justice ended up being a fairly conservative justice.

    John Paul Stevens, appointed by Ford ended up being quite the liberal justice, same as David Souter appointed by Bush.

    Lewis Powell, appointed by Nixon who had written extensively in favor of business had quite the turnaround.

    Earl Warren, appointed by Eisenhower became the patron saint of the liberal jurisprudential revolution.

    The same is true for lots of others appointed to high positions based on their record only to act quite the opposite. Do you think Trump does not regret appointing Sessions as head of the Department of Justice?

    Just because Trump appointed Powell does not mean he agrees with what he is doing or that he anticipated he would do what he is doing. Trump has stated he does not agree with the actions of the Fed/Powell but as an independent agency there is not much he can do at this time.



  • JayHawkFanToo said:

    approxinfinity said:

    @KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?

    You have to admit that lot of appointments don’t turnout the way it was expected.

    You make an interesting point on SCOTUS appointees not being “what they were expected to be.” The SCOTUS is supposed to evaluate the case before them and rule on that.

    Conservatives often focus on outcomes when they look at a nominee - they want someone to overturn Roe v. Wade or rule against gay marriage, for example.

    Oftentimes, however, cases turn on application of the facts to the law. Roe was decided not because abortion is a fundamental right, but because privacy is a fundamental right. There’s a fundamental right that an individual should be able to make decisions for themselves regarding their body/health, etc. Its right there in the Roe opinion.

    Same applies for gay marriage - the state cannot deny it because of equal protection under the law.

    So when the SCOTUS ruled on those things, they were ruling that you, as a person that is against abortion, cannot be forced to have an abortion by the government just as much as someone that may want an abortion cannot be prevented from getting one by the government because the government cannot invade your privacy. The ruling wasn’t a one way street. It runs both ways. The government cannot force you to do one or the other because you have a right to privacy to choose for yourself.

    The government cannot decide that homosexual couples are not allowed to marry just the same as the government cannot prevent mixed race couples from marrying because that is outside the government’s view. As long as you are of age to enter into a contract, you can legally marry whomever you want, and the government cannot prevent it. Again, its not a one way street.

    If the only outcome you seek is the application of law in a fair and unbiased way, you land on those results every time. If, however, you want a specific outcome (abortion ban, gay marriage ban, etc.) then justice cannot be blind. That’s also a two way street.



  • @justanotherfan

    I did not comment on the merits of lack thereof for any specific case since I did not want to make it a political or any other type of issue, that was your take.

    I simply indicated that oftentimes appointed/nominated individuals turn out to be quite different than expected, with the head of the Fed being one…tha’s all.



  • @justanotherfan pointed out the tax cuts. With those adding 1.5 to 2 trillion to a hyper economy, the Fed could well have had a good reason for a series of rate increases.



  • @JayHawkFanToo

    Fair point.

    I guess my point is that justices shouldn’t be liberal or conservative - they should evaluate the facts of what’s in front of them and rule accordingly, not rule based on a preferred outcome.



  • @approxinfinity for rationality on the Right, it’s simple - there was not one iota of proof that Kavanaugh was ever even at a party with Prof Ford.

    It’s therefore completely rational to completely dismiss the charges as totally baseless and false. It’s so clear, even a liberal like Susan Collins could figure it out.



  • @approxinfinity and how is any of that relevant - I don’t buy the charge that he lied about any of it?

    Move the goal posts much? From rape attempt to serial rapist to "lied about drinking in HS? Is that rational?



  • @Crimsonorblue22 how would you respond to a charge that you were a serial, canaibal mass murderer? Those Dem Senators deserve to be shamed. They were shameful.



  • @justanotherfan

    I agree. Justices, just like any other judge, should follow the Constitution which is the ultimate law of the land. If the people feel the Constitution needs to be updated/changed there is a process that must be followed and cannot be arbitrarily changed by activist judges that choose to interpret it in a manner that fits a political agenda and contrary to that intended explicitly or implicitly.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to KU Buckets was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.