Slightly off topic, I'm tempted to make a thread about progressive vs conservative values, but I kinda think that'd turn in an apocalyptic sh*tstorm real quick.
To me, little of column A, little of column B is the best way to go, but sadly most people want to pick a side and villify everything the other side has to say. Thats a whole different argument all together, but looking at the site the guy is definitely pretty far right wing and thus a biased source. Well, there is an argument to be had that Comey cost Hillary the election as after the letter came out, her poll numbers went from like 9 points over Trump to 3 points over Trump (which ended up essentially being tbe final popular result). Comey got hated by literally everyone when he did something they didnt like (when he choose not to recommend charges against Clinton for example). However, to fire him on the flimsiest of excuses, without warning without a replacement lined up, and while he was investigating Trump for Russia ties does scream "knee-jerk reaction'.
Did you not see the links I posted earlier? Trump told them to come up with a reason, they did, and then he fired Comey
I hadn't seen them. Now I kinda wanna see some kind of confirmation either way, because in this political and media climate, mysterious unnamed sources don't cut it anymore.
And there in lies the problem. Trump hates leakers, and theres no way he'll officially renouce his argument. On top of that, in the case of reputable sources they do know the source, their name, and where they are in the government, but dont report it so they dont get in trouble.
He's not right wing. He's a constitutionalist. He doesn't care for the right or left if they aren't doing their job right. He calls out both sides. He's bashed Trump more than a few times. Most recently on the replacement for the Affordable Care Act and the failure to get a budget done. You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover.
I have been busy as of late, hence the lack of replies and more in-depth research. However, these latest events do confirm what I have said previously. Furthermore, the "greater evil" getting back into power in itself highlights the bankruptcy of the "lesser evil" approach. As for the bias of right-wing sources, I feel the argument would be stronger if the focus were put on the methodical errors employed by authors, speakers, etc. of such sources. Mainstream sources aren't any less biased than they are, even though their research and methodology are typically stronger (granted, this doesn't get around the issue of typically liberal-leaning mainstream sources having methodical errors and telling outright lies). Mainstream sources are not without errors, and they are propaganda outlets. That being said, I do not believe that is an excuse for sources further to the right to go off the "deep end".
Trump's EPA, "What could possibly go wrong?" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/health/pesticides-epa-chlorpyrifos-scott-pruitt.html?_r=0 One month later... http://www.motherjones.com/environm...ot-poisoned-nasty-pesticide-greenlghted-trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos Regulations, who needs em? Right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX Im...just going to leave this here as there's not much more to add.
Honestly, I'd like the US to have better relations with Russia. Both countries would better off as allies than as rivals.
You...Do realize that isnt the point? He gave classified information to a russian foriegn minister, giving so much information that transcripts of the meeting are going to be small quotes rather than a full transcript.
As a wise man once said, "Instead of trying to reason with you, or goad you into responding, I'm just gonna start posting replies as meaningless and repetitive as and you work so hard to be."
What I mean is that he doesn't have a horse in this race. Also, he didn't give me any kind of actual intelligent response to reply to.
