This is a terrific graphic. It ranks states by support for Trump, and the length of each link correlated to the number of electoral votes. I didn’t realize California is THAT blue.
I like it, although the proportions look a little off. For example, Illinois (20 EVs) should be almost twice as big as Washington (12 EVs), but it only looks about 25 or 30% bigger. OTOH, PA should only be twice as big as Wisconsin, but looks bigger than that.
Well, no she's not. For one, she's an actual Democrat. For another, she holds elective office. Now, if she drops out of the primary and makes a third party run in 2020..., then a comparison with Stein is apt.
Yeah, Howard Schultz appears to want to play the Jill Stein role this time, although why anyone would aspire to that is beyond me.
Thanks. I was trying to remember his name for my post, then my brain went, "really? You actually want us to devote space to that guy? I mean, we could find it, but it's in deep storage. . . ".
There are many ways to play a role that Russia approves. I really don’t know much about her, but since she decided to sit for an interview with GRUeenwald, I have little doubt that she’ll try to mess up with the Democratic primaries. And yeah she has that “smart but crazy” air that Stein projects so fine.
I didn't watch her Greenwald interview but I did listen to her second Joe Rogan podcast. She doesn't didn't trust the Clinton wing of the party, to be sure, but her disdain for that wing of her party pales in comparison to her contempt for Trump. I 'd be surprised if she does anything to sabotage the nominee. And as a veteran, she can put it out there that we need to lay off our tendency for military interventions without triggering the "Democrats are weak on defense" attack from Republicans.
Just a guy sporting a Confederate flag patch getting some shine on the field pregame in Cincinnati. pic.twitter.com/NQ1drGf9Id— Jorge Castillo (@jorgecastillo) May 18, 2019 Thin blue line too.
Sure he will, "As the greatest President ever." Pence brings the evangelicals. Not likely he will be dropped.
In many cases, yes. But not with FoxNews, which has a documented history of not being interested in anything on the left, and has even made a farce trying to say it was "fair and balanced" (see Hanity and Combs). And when they do make a "mistake," they never (as far as I have seen) make a retraction or correction. I don't disagree that they were good, but the problem is that for me Fox needs to do more than have town hall or 3 or 5. They need to show they are going to report the news fairly and with integrity. There is very little to show that they do that on their own. I know you are not including me in that. This is not about a Dem candidate not talking to conservatives, this is a Dem candidate not using Fox to talk to conservatives. And I think you have that confused. Fox lacks integrity across the board. They have not shown an interest in fairly reporting the news, and there are serious questions as to the change in mentality that was promoted by Ailes behind the scenes. A conservative voice is healthy, but Fox is not the voice (or platform) where Dems should look to reach conservatives. The primaries are one thing, and they are partisan. There is no way that a Dem candidate should go to Fox at this point. I would prefer never, but as you said, their job is to win, so sometimes they have to do what I don't like. But not until they become the nominee.
Jill Stein was advocating for a Green New Deal before AOC was even a thing. If you weren't on board then and still aren't now you're essentially an accessory to mass murder at this point. But hey no let's incrementalise our way to Atlantis v2... wait did someone mention Putin.
When do liberal networks make retractions? https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20...-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/ Tucker Carlson has done more for instance to promote the anti-regime change message than anyone on MSM. They are not fair and balanced but they at least have the occasional lefty on. The others are wall to wall liberal propaganda.
While appearing on Fox News, @PeteButtigieg takes aim at Fox News anchors Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. pic.twitter.com/WyLSeLJxTq— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) May 19, 2019 I think Mayor Pete has it right.
Yes, please link us to more Glenn Greenwald articles about the inability to issue retractions. Your post is like the Viet Cong cutting off vaccinated arms in Apocalypse Now.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/29/nyt-finally-retracts-russia-gate-canard/ Did any of the major networks ever retract this HRC perpetuated falsehood?
Why would they? The director of National Intelligence, who speaks for all 17 various agencies endorsed it... all ng with the CIA, FBI, and NSA.. You know, the agencies most likely to know the validity of the claim along with the guy that heads them. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...elligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
Look, it's a liberal virtue signalling. Can't have any of that nasty name calling can we. Roughly how many brown people do you think have been murdered by Democrats that you voted for?
Endorsed LMAO. It's a dishonest embellishment and you know it. MSM attempts to crush reasonable scepticism of Russiagate has been downright disgraceful. HRC runs an incompetent campaign and as a consequence we run the risk of nuclear Armageddon. YEY Democrats and their liberal media.
HRC ran an incompetent campaign for sure, but what’s there to be skeptical about with the Russian interference? Seriously, the difference between “17 intelligence agencies” and “the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the DNI” is immaterial...
You were the guy who invoked that wee nazi Carlson - to come back with an accusation of virtue signalling is pretty weak sauce
I just read article. The answer to your question is in your link. The "liberal networks" issued retractions when they got the story wrong. It's a bit hard to find because the article is pretty unreadable because of graphics designed for shock rather than discourse, but you can see "liberal networks" pursuing the stories eventually came around to a more measured, likely accurate version of what happened. You're a very stupid troll. Now I remember why I put you on ignore.