[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This makes it sound like you're pitting the mainstream media against conservative viewpoints, which is probably only going to confirm what many Trump supporters want to believe. Conservative news sources are a part of the mainstream media.

I would say that these days the divide between mainstream media and conservative "news" is that one is fact checked but might be skewed by the failure to mention certain aspects or details and the amount of attention that other details get, while the other trawls moronic blogs for "news" so they can report on a report of something they've always wished they could say but would get sued if they said it themselves because they know its a bullshit lie.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The problem is, you have the two confused; the modern MSM is the latter. To say Leftist media is merely "skewed" is hilarious, it's full-on propaganda at this point.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The MSM does a better job than one-sided conservative rags who spew disinformation like it was a bubble machine. Start a new thread for a discussion about FACTS, and the people who are scared of them, who is trying to cover things up, and how we can agree on what is really fact?

The thing that no-one talks about while we are all decrying the lying media, is the lying public. Everyone and his cat has blamed the polls being off on the pollsters but they can only report the answers they are given. Trump supporters are often paranoid lunatics, which causes them to lie about who they were voting for, fed up of being told how dumb they are causing them to lie about who they voted for or just smart enough to be ashamed so lied about who they were voting for.

Then there is the reasons people give. The Brexiters cried "Sovereignty!" when what they meant was "We don't like foreigners!" In one of the other threads CTP just blamed Hillary's failure on her betrayal of Bernie but had she beaten him fairly I've no doubt it would "Her email server", "Benghazi", "Pizzagate", "Her husband is a rapist, pedophile, murderer" or the ever classic "She's just a liar {and for some reason only Republicans are allowed to do that}."

When voters are lying about their motives and their intentions, how the hell is anyone supposed to know what to do to win votes?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The thing that no-one talks about while we are all decrying the lying media, is the lying public. Everyone and his cat has blamed the polls being off on the pollsters but they can only report the answers they are given. Trump supporters are often paranoid lunatics, which causes them to lie about who they were voting for, fed up of being told how dumb they are causing them to lie about who they voted for or just smart enough to be ashamed so lied about who they were voting for.

Blame the victims? Check. When people are attacked they become defensive and refuse to play along. It's a common reaction to PC/identity politics these days.

Then there is the reasons people give. The Brexiters cried "Sovereignty!" when what they meant was "We don't like foreigners!" In one of the other threads CTP just blamed Hillary's failure on her betrayal of Bernie but had she beaten him fairly I've no doubt it would "Her email server", "Benghazi", "Pizzagate", "Her husband is a rapist, pedophile, murderer" or the ever classic "She's just a liar {and for some reason only Republicans are allowed to do that}."

She was a scumbag, ****ed up choice to begin with, the only person out of the whole lot Trump could have beaten, and the only reason she was forced on everyone is because certain people thought a woman was due. Not really a specific woman, just A woman. Again, identity politics.

When voters are lying about their motives and their intentions, how the hell is anyone supposed to know what to do to win votes?

It's easy. Tell them what you plan to do and show your qualifications for doing it. Hillary spent all her time telling us how bad Trump is, not how good she was, while Trump just kept repeating he would "Make America Great Again". Personally, I think the MSM feels guilty for spending every waking moment on Trump and his theatrics, so now they feel they need to take him down, no matter the cost (to them or the country).

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I would say that these days the divide between mainstream media and conservative "news" is that one is fact checked but might be skewed by the failure to mention certain aspects or details and the amount of attention that other details get, while the other trawls moronic blogs for "news" so they can report on a report of something they've always wished they could say but would get sued if they said it themselves because they know its a bullshit lie.

CNN's collusion with Clinton, whether it went any further than one person, pokes holes in the unbiased media theory.

I still think people aren't clear on news vs. rile-up echo chambers vs. fake news.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

CNN's collusion with Clinton, whether it went any further than one person, pokes holes in the unbiased media theory.

I still think people aren't clear on news vs. rile-up echo chambers vs. fake news.

I don't recall offhand if someone in the PWL posted this or if I got it off Twitter. Regardless, I think it is spot on.



OAW

[andi*pandi]

point.

[subego]

Mainstream means minimal partisan bias?

Most of those need to be slid around. Vox is trash.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Mainstream means minimal partisan bias?

In their news pieces? Absolutely. Op-ed pieces and editorial boards are a different matter.

OAW

[subego]

Ehhh...

[subego]

That could have used some more specificity.

All the outfits along the centerline are headquartered in major urban centers in blue states, are run by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, and consumed most by Democrats.

Further analysis will show they walk like a duck, an idea challenged only by those who rather suspiciously also walk like ducks.

[subego]

CNN HQ is in Georgia I guess, but I stand by my point.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

CNN's collusion with Clinton, whether it went any further than one person, pokes holes in the unbiased media theory.

I still think people aren't clear on news vs. rile-up echo chambers vs. fake news.

I didn't say unbiased, I said less biased. The MSM while they obviously favour the Democrats and the left, will usually go after one of them when they do something wrong. This is true of everyone from MSNBC and CNN to Bill Maher. Its not so true on the right. Even after feuding with Trump throughout the election Fox has gone back to GOP mouthpiece mode. Most of the less mainstream RW media will excuse or defend any transgression up until the last possible moment before throwing one of their guys under a bus. Its a really unfair double standard.


Ask yourself what a genuinely unbiased mainstream news network would look like and you should find its way closer to CNN and MSNBC than it is to Fox or Infowars.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

That could have used some more specificity.

All the outfits along the centerline are headquartered in major urban centers in blue states, are run by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, and consumed most by Democrats.

Further analysis will show they walk like a duck, an idea challenged only by those who rather suspiciously also walk like ducks.

So if a Dem says 2 + 2 = 4 is it "biased" because that's where it came from? Case in point. The MSM states Trump has made demonstrably false statements. Like when he insists that his Electoral College victory was a "landslide" when it actually ranked 46th out of 58. Is that biased because it's from the NY Times?

Trump’s Electoral College Victory Ranks 46th in 58 Elections | NYTimes.com

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So if a Dem says 2 + 2 = 4 is it "biased" because that's where it came from?

This is exactly the problem.


One side tells a hundred lies, the other side tells three. "Both sides are liars!" shouts the RW blogosphere and this somehow gives their followers permission to disregard anything the left ever says, even things they can easily confirm themselves, even common sense claims. I'm not sure why it inspires such devotion to their own liars, I guess its just a case of "If they agree with me then we must both be smart" or something like that.

The same thing happened with Brexit. The remain campaign literally told two or three lies while the leavers barely told a single truth but we still hear "Both sides told lies!" and people continue to deny that predictions that are still coming true never did and never will because they didn't happen instantly. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, just like Trump.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So if a Dem says 2 + 2 = 4 is it "biased" because that's where it came from? Case in point. The MSM states Trump has made demonstrably false statements. Like when he insists that his Electoral College victory was a "landslide" when it actually ranked 46th out of 58. Is that biased because it's from the NY Times?

Trump’s Electoral College Victory Ranks 46th in 58 Elections | NYTimes.com

OAW

Some wires are getting crossed here. This story, and 2+2=4, are supposed to represent the complexity and breadth of information the news is tasked to cover?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is exactly the problem.


One side tells a hundred lies, the other side tells three. "Both sides are liars!" shouts the RW blogosphere and this somehow gives their followers permission to disregard anything the left ever says, even things they can easily confirm themselves, even common sense claims. I'm not sure why it inspires such devotion to their own liars, I guess its just a case of "If they agree with me then we must both be smart" or something like that.

The same thing happened with Brexit. The remain campaign literally told two or three lies while the leavers barely told a single truth but we still hear "Both sides told lies!" and people continue to deny that predictions that are still coming true never did and never will because they didn't happen instantly. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, just like Trump.

The thing is, I'm not trying to form an equivalence.

The right wing media can go die in a fire, that doesn't change the MSM's accuracy profile.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Some wires are getting crossed here. This story, and 2+2=4, are supposed to represent the complexity and breadth of information the news is tasked to cover?

Of course not. Hence why I said "case in point". There are countless news stories that one can point to that demonstrate that Trump has an extremely dubious grasp on factual information at best and is utterly laden with outright mendacity at worst. We aren't talking about "one off" situations. This man does this repeatedly. So are we to simply dismiss that on some nebulous "liberal media" charge? WTF does that even mean anyway? Because from where I'm sitting it ultimately seems to mean any media outlet that isn't promoting right-wing ideology for some people. And little things like facts be damned.

Now I certainly can appreciate "nuance" and "complexity" when it comes to political issues. Which is precisely why my posts around here aren't of the "bumper sticker" variety. This is why I posted the infographic above. This thing we call "media bias" can range from what I would characterize as the "implicit bias" we often see in mainstream media outlets where certain patterns in coverage are discernible but are more likely the result of systemic realities than conscious partisanship. To the "skews liberal" or "skews conservative" media outlets where this is exhibited more with the choices made with respect to story selection and tone as opposed to the underlying facts. All the way over to the those "media" outlets on the far left and far right that traffic in conspiracy theories and outright fabrications as long as they serve their ideological narrative. At the end of the day "media bias" to one degree or another is a reality and we would be naive to think otherwise. But that is no excuse to just reflexively reject factual information simply because it does not originate from one's preferred media outlets.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The thing is, I'm not trying to form an equivalence.

The right wing media can go die in a fire, that doesn't change the MSM's accuracy profile.

You are: you are exaggerating the problems of the “MSM”, influenced by the atmosphere that Trump created. Trump not just called the press his enemy, but the enemy of the American people. And you are being influenced by that.

As an aside, I find it hilarious when people associated to “niche” publications with millions and millions of views on, say, Youtube, create their own partisan bubbles where they trash the main stream media — not realizing they are part of it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You are: you are exaggerating the problems of the “MSM”, influenced by the atmosphere that Trump created. Trump not just called the press his enemy, but the enemy of the American people. And you are being influenced by that.

As an aside, I find it hilarious when people associated to “niche” publications with millions and millions of views on, say, Youtube, create their own partisan bubbles where they trash the main stream media — not realizing they are part of it.

What would be the evidence it has influenced my opinion?

As a preview of my defense, it will involve me having made the same argument for close to a decade. I can even refer back to a debate we've had on the subject.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

What would be the evidence it has influenced my opinion?

As a preview of my defense, it will involve me having made the same argument for close to a decade. I can even refer back to a debate we've had on the subject.

It starts with your diction, your use “MSM” or “main stream media”, for instance. And just to be clear: I'm not claiming Trump started this or that this is a recent development, and I should have been more precise in my post. This division between “main stream” or “traditional” and “alternative media” isn't a recent development. Political radio has a long tradition in the US. Fox News has been around since the late 1990s (although in the perception Fox News has drifted from fringe to “main stream”), the Young Turks have been on since the early to mid-2000s, and now you have a bunch second-generation shows like Steven Crowder (who came from Fox News and I remember you mentioning as someone you listen to) or Dave Rubin (formerly of TYT).

Their playbook is all the same, create their own bubble that defines what a “true” [insert political affiliation here] is and bash the “MSM”. Many of them don't actually do any reporting, they just do editorials and opinions, but people mistake that for news. They all talk in broad strokes “the media”, “the Left”, “the Regressive Left”, “the Right”, “Conservatives” and so forth. People lose all nuance and only accept information if it is endorsed from within their bubble. When it comes to media, one false or bad story suffices to start on tirades of a whole profession. These alternative media are horrible at their jobs if what they want to achieve is being “more honest” than the “main stream media”: Anarchists rioting after (every) inauguration (of memory) are falsely depicted as being “typical of the Left” (that was something a few here posted). And all Trump voters are “declared racist or xenophobic”.

Just ask yourself something: for your news, how much do you rely on “alternative” vs. “traditional” media? And how has that changed over the recent years? Where I come from no newspaper or media outlet of a minimal amount of repute would even openly declare allegiance to a party or a political philosophy, that's considered unprofessional — because it is. I wouldn't trust any news source that openly declares to be on one team or another.

[subego]

My diction? What does it say in the graphic?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

My diction? What does it say in the graphic?

It's a problem of American society, it's not just you. Nevertheless, you adopted that language as well.

[subego]

How else am I to refer to the part of the graphic labeled "mainstream"?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

How else am I to refer to the part of the graphic labeled "mainstream"?

Your posts were in regards to an “innate liberal bias of the mainstream media”, and whether “you can trust them”, not about the chart that OAW posted. Even if you want to discuss the chart, the chart makes it clear that in that case mainstream means centrist, relatively balanced. That is not the meaning the “alternative” media imply when they say mainstream.

[Waragainstsleep]

Does it ever occur to conservatives that when the majority of your mainstream media and your Universities are so strongly liberal, its because liberal is the way people should be?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Your posts were in regards to an “innate liberal bias of the mainstream media”, and whether “you can trust them”, not about the chart that OAW posted.

I say in the linked post, "[a]ll the outfits along the centerline".

The centerline I'm referring to being the one in the graphic.

I'm going to assume there is no malice in the misrepresentation of my argument, but my assumption does nothing to make it more tolerable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Does it ever occur to conservatives that when the majority of your mainstream media and your Universities are so strongly liberal, its because liberal is the way people should be?

Are universities and the media the appropriate models upon which to build a country?

Whatever good things that might entail, I think they would ultimately come up wanting.

[subego]

I guess the counter-stick would be whether it ever occurred to liberals they want a world where everyone thinks the same?

Would it not be glorious, comrade?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I guess the counter-stick would be whether it ever occurred to liberals they want a world where everyone thinks the same?

Would it not be glorious, comrade?

Everyone being tolerant of race/religion/sexuality/gender/etc? I'm really not seeing a downside. Still plenty of other stuff people can disagree about.

[subego]

"If we could have everybody think the same, just imagine how tolerant that society would be."

I've got news for ya...

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are universities and the media the appropriate models upon which to build a country?

Universities are where the smart people are. Shouldn't they be good examples for people to follow?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

"If we could have everybody think the same, just imagine how tolerant that society would be."

I've got news for ya...

You say that like there is nothing that is universally agreed upon. Practically no-one believes that murder or theft should be legal for example. Crimes are good examples of this in general. Give it a few more generations (plus an extra couple more thanks to Trump) and discrimination against gay people and transgendered people will be frowned upon just like slavery. Of course there are still Americans who would prefer slavery be brought back but in most civilised countries this isn't the case (or their numbers are negligible). America will get there sooner or later. Everyone will.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Universities are where the smart people are. Shouldn't they be good examples for people to follow?

Smart people? Sally Kohn is a lawyer?
https://mobile.twitter.com/sallykohn...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Straightforward from here:
1. Impeach Trump & Pence
2. Constitutional crisis
3. Call special election
4. Ryan v Clinton
5. President Clinton

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Universities are where the smart people are. Shouldn't they be good examples for people to follow?

No doubt in some cases. That said, it's also where ivory towers are found.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Smart people? Sally Kohn is a lawyer?
https://mobile.twitter.com/sallykohn...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

It doesn't look like she's in a University any more. Regardless, I'll bet her views on acceptance and tolerance put yours to shame so yes, smart people.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It doesn't look like she's in a University any more. Regardless, I'll bet her views on acceptance and tolerance put yours to shame so yes, smart people.

Only having tolerance towards people you agree with doesn't make you tolerant, fam. Same goes for acceptance.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Only having tolerance towards people you agree with doesn't make you tolerant, fam. Same goes for acceptance.

Ah the old "You're being intolerant of my intolerance!" line. A feeble argument for mostly feeble minds.

Virtually everyone agrees that certain things are bad. Murder, rape, theft, famine, cancer. Nobody wants to suffer from any of these, and no-one decent wishes them on anyone else without other reasons being in play. Eventually racism, sexism and homophobia will be on the same list. Its only a matter of time. And education. Even the RCC comes around to the truth eventually, albeit multiple flayings and a couple of centuries late traditionally.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Ah the old "You're being intolerant of my intolerance!" line. A feeble argument for mostly feeble minds.

Worry about your own "feeble mind", since you don't understand what the word tolerance even means. Like Laurie Penny, she's just intolerant of other people's tolerance. A pathetic social justice Marxist if there ever was one.

Virtually everyone agrees that certain things are bad. Murder, rape, theft, famine, cancer. Nobody wants to suffer from any of these, and no-one decent wishes them on anyone else without other reasons being in play.

Decent people don't wish anything like that upon anyone else, period, Mr Tolerance.

Eventually racism, sexism and homophobia will be on the same list. Its only a matter of time. And education. Even the RCC comes around to the truth eventually, albeit multiple flayings and a couple of centuries late traditionally.

Move up to current year, no one outside of Islam is doing anything like that to anyone else, and no, saying you don't approve of someone else's lifestyle doesn't count, FFS.

[Chongo]

Written in 1931 by then Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance-it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”

“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory.

Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”

You can read the entire essay here.
A Plea for Intolerance

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Worry about your own "feeble mind", since you don't understand what the word tolerance even means. Like Laurie Penny, she's just intolerant of other people's tolerance. A pathetic social justice Marxist if there ever was one.

Feels like I've struck a nerve. We tolerate people saying stupid, asinine things. We do not tolerate them legislating hate or discrimination. While saying you support it doesn't mean you'll go ahead and do it, doing it usually means you said you supported it first.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Decent people don't wish anything like that upon anyone else, period, Mr Tolerance.

Hark, the angel Tightpants hath spoken.

I added that disclaimer for your benefit funnily enough. I guess you don't think there are many decent folk around then? In your country that still has the death penalty and where people cheered the news that Bin Laden was dead.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Move up to current year, no one outside of Islam is doing anything like that to anyone else, and no, saying you don't approve of someone else's lifestyle doesn't count, FFS.

Wasn't repealing Roe V Wade one of the biggest promises on Trump's ticket? I don't think his evangelical puppet masters are going to let that one slide either. Plus there are plenty of states implementing laws to allow religious discrimination against business customers and employees. So your assertion is garbage. Shocking, I know.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Feels like I've struck a nerve. We tolerate people saying stupid, asinine things. We do not tolerate them legislating hate or discrimination. While saying you support it doesn't mean you'll go ahead and do it, doing it usually means you said you supported it first.

People being intolerant asses struck a nerve? Really? You don't tolerate a damned thing outside your 4x4 square, and enjoying and/or wishing harm upon political opponents only makes you what you say you're striving against, bucko, automatically sacrificing any high ground your virtue signalling may have gained.

Hark, the angel Tightpants hath spoken.

I added that disclaimer for your benefit funnily enough. I guess you don't think there are many decent folk around then? In your country that still has the death penalty and where people cheered the news that Bin Laden was dead.

You'd be wise to get yourself sorted out, before you become your own worst enemy. Yes, I remember Obama et al celebrating Bin Laden's death, I thought that was pretty tacky. Anyone suffering and/or dying is regrettable, if your moral compass isn't broken.

Wasn't repealing Roe V Wade one of the biggest promises on Trump's ticket? I don't think his evangelical puppet masters are going to let that one slide either. Plus there are plenty of states implementing laws to allow religious discrimination against business customers and employees. So your assertion is garbage. Shocking, I know.

Nope, apparently your source is what's garbage, not surprising since you don't actually listen to what he said, and only read the commentary filtered through your ideology's lens. Kicking the abortion issue back to the states is his position, allowing people of different beliefs in different areas of the country decide on it, and it's a good idea.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Wasn't repealing Roe V Wade one of the biggest promises on Trump's ticket?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Nope, apparently your source is what's garbage, not surprising since you don't actually listen to what he said, and only read the commentary filtered through your ideology's lens. Kicking the abortion issue back to the states is his position

What, exactly, do you think Roe V Wade was all about? How about I tell you? It was taking the issue out of the hands of the individual states.

Overturning Roe V Wade EXACTLY equals kicking the issue back to the states.

[besson3c]

In support of my theories about America's empathy deficiency, another exhibition...

Dexter Fowler, baseball player just signed by the Cardinals. Somebody tweets him about whether the travel ban affected his family - he has an Iranian wife. He called it "unfortunate", and a bunch of Twitter users jump on his balls about this telling him he should stay out of politics and blah blah blah...

How would *anybody* like it if their wife couldn't travel?

Fowler stands behind travel ban comments: 'I didn't say anything wrong' | theScore.com

I know it's just Twitter, and it's just a baseball player, but if CTP gets his own thread featuring neo-progressive rants I hope you'll entertain my rants about lacking empathy

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

What, exactly, do you think Roe V Wade was all about? How about I tell you? It was taking the issue out of the hands of the individual states.

Overturning Roe V Wade EXACTLY equals kicking the issue back to the states.

If I had a more simplistic view of the issue I imagine it would look like yours, I suppose.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

What, exactly, do you think Roe V Wade was all about? How about I tell you? It was taking the issue out of the hands of the individual states.

Overturning Roe V Wade EXACTLY equals kicking the issue back to the states.

Precisely. But expect CTP to make some snide comment suggesting you don't fully understand the issue instead of even attempting to refute your point. Oh wait .... NVM.

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

People being intolerant asses struck a nerve? Really? You don't tolerate a damned thing outside your 4x4 square, and enjoying and/or wishing harm upon political opponents only makes you what you say you're striving against, bucko, automatically sacrificing any high ground your virtue signalling may have gained.

Please explain to us how my bitching about views I don't agree with and the people who hold them is intolerant while those very people who hate gays, women, atheists, muslims, non-christians, non-white people are merely expressing their freedom of speech.
I'm not passing any laws banning anything or campaigning for anyone else to do so, I'm not participating in protest marches or riots. I don't even have the time to write to my MP as often as I'd like for all the good it would do anyway. Go ahead and show me the intolerance.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yes, I remember Obama et al celebrating Bin Laden's death, I thought that was pretty tacky. Anyone suffering and/or dying is regrettable, if your moral compass isn't broken.

Now who's virtue signalling? Not that your hypocrisy surprises me in the slightest any more. I actually thought Obama was quite reserved rather than celebrating Bin Laden's death. He certainly used it as political capital afterwards, but thats not the same as cheering and its not in the same bad taste.
Anyway, its nice to know you place such a high value on human life, even the lives of your country's greatest enemies and even when they practice the most extremist forms of a religion which neither you nor I are remotely fond of. Remind me how big is your gun collection again?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Nope, apparently your source is what's garbage, not surprising since you don't actually listen to what he said, and only read the commentary filtered through your ideology's lens. Kicking the abortion issue back to the states is his position, allowing people of different beliefs in different areas of the country decide on it, and it's a good idea.

I think he said exactly that and he also talked about punishing women for having abortions. Its how he got Pence and the Evangelical voters on board. I don't even know why you would bother arguing this point. Its as plain as day and as Paco has pointed out, Roe V Wade has to be repealed in order to kick the issue back to the states so it seems even you know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it. So much for my idealogical filter.

You think its a good idea, I think its a bad idea. Thats what politics should be though its hard to see where a compromise should lie in such a case. If its simply majority rule, how often should the same question be revisited in case the majority swings the other way?

All it will accomplish is that the poorest women in the reddest states will be even further disadvantaged than they already are. Since you are neither a woman nor poor, it doesn't affect you one iota so I guess we shouldn't expect you to waste your precious time empathising.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Precisely. But expect CTP to make some snide comment suggesting you don't fully understand the issue instead of even attempting to refute your point. Oh wait .... NVM.

Grow a spine and address me directly, Franchesca.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Universities are where the smart people are. Shouldn't they be good examples for people to follow?

And they are producing worthless snowflakes who are afraid of words, and need that safe space.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Universities produced smart people, at one time, now they're giant Marxist echo chambers.