Congrats Democrats! You won the Alabama Senate Election. Say Good-bye to Al Franken.

[HereIStand]

Basis?

It depends on how you define "media." But I think of it more as pre-packaged ideas (especially in electronic format) designed to elicit a response. The books that I mentioned are all part of a broad tradition of ideas and argument. While they make a definite point, people might reach different conclusion about their meaning. They're not really intended to provoke people to change their minds or take a course of action in the way that a newspaper editorial is.

 

[PeachyKeane]

It depends on how you define "media." But I think of it more as pre-packaged ideas (especially in electronic format) designed to elicit a response. The books that I mentioned are all part of a broad tradition of ideas and argument. While they make a definite point, people might reach different conclusion about their meaning. They're not really intended to provoke people to change their minds or take a course of action in the way that a newspaper editorial is.

Media is the plural of medium, and a medium is a form of communication between two or more people.

Where are you getting your definition from?

 

[HereIStand]

Media is the plural of medium, and a medium is a form of communication between two or more people.

Where are you getting your definition from?

Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like you disagree. Have a good day.

 

[vincejohnson]

I assumed the citizens of Alabama had a moral backbone. Now I do not have to assume it; I know it

 

[Go Braves]

But what you said was. "Well I wish the Republicans would have the same level of accountability & no tolerance on sexual misconduct instead of fully endorsing it."

Two things. First, they endorsed moore, not tolerence of sexual misconduct. Second, there has been no proof nor conviction of sexual misconduct. Unless I personally know a man,

i.e. your statement was a straw man.

I'm well aware of what I said, & you can just go right ahead & call it a straw man as much as it pleases yourself, but it's not.

They endorsed Moore, when there was evidence that he committed sexual misconduct against minors.

I can not take seriously any "he said, she said" claims against him that are vehemently denied. They need solid evidence and a conviction or they didn't happen. That is called justice.

Here's the funny thing. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has tried to claim that folks decided that Trump wasn't guilty of sexual misconduct on account of how he won the election. That's pretty dang stupid for her say for a lot of reasons, one of which is that millions more people voted for his opponent than for him, and millions just sat on their butts on election day. But to her, the election win = him being found not guilty in the court of public opinion. It's the same faulty thinking as what you're giving, just with a different outcome. In the election yesterday, the candidate with the most votes won, and that candidate was not the one the RNC & Trump supported.

Now, when we're talking about punishments, locking folks up for a sentence that's been handed down, yes sir there needs to be a conviction first. But folks can view the evidence of things, make their own minds up without there needing to be a trial first. That's what they did yesterday.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like you disagree. Have a good day.

And you have no interest in why I disagree?

 

[HereIStand]

And you have no interest in why I disagree?

I do. I'm just not sure that we are progressing. If you like though, send me a PM and we'll discuss it further.

 

[rambot]

But what you said was. "Well I wish the Republicans would have the same level of accountability & no tolerance on sexual misconduct instead of fully endorsing it."

Two things. First, they endorsed moore, not tolerence of sexual misconduct. Second, there has been no proof nor conviction of sexual misconduct. Unless I personally know a man, I can not take seriously any "he said, she said" claims against him that are vehemently denied. They need solid evidence and a conviction or they didn't happen. That is called justice.

That is called "legal justice". You will note that the conviction rate for sexual assault is "low". Now one could use a crescent wrench as a hammer and say "Well, clearly all these victims are lying" and that puts everything into a nice tight little bow. But then for SOME reason, you DO feel righteously justified in calling someone a LIAR instead of suggesting that perhaps this dude raped someone.

As for the "he said, she said". I can only assume that you find Bill Clinton to be a fine upstanding man of principled and high character. I mean, I can understand why, all his allegation were from untrustworthy "Double X"ers....

But, let's take a quick break and revisit the rather objectionable human that is "Brock Turner". We can say "a strong court system is what America needs" and yet this is what rape victims are put through because of sociopathic mysogynists: Brock Turner, convicted of sexual assault, asks for new trial - CNN

Forget the embarrassingly short sentence. Forget his guilt for FULL ON raping a girl. Forget his TOTAL lack of empathy. Instead, he wants to clean his record because he raped a girl "in the wide open" and NOT "behind a dumpster". Because the latter reflects ""implied moral depravity, callousness and culpability on the appellant's part because of the inherent connotations of filth, garbage, detritus and criminal activity frequently associated with dumpsters," the document states.". The mental health issues that this girl will be burdened with for the remainder of her life, I am INCREDIBLY curious to hear, what you feel would be appropriate punishment for him.

It's a fallacy to believe that sexual violence, with its INCREDIBLY high bar for proof, provides a fair opportunity for victims (male or female) to truly get their day in court.

 

[Veritas]

Well, they almost did in 2004 until the third recount.

Only a 100+ votes I think seperated Rossi from Gregoire. Lots of voter fraud discovered later on. So I'm not sure Gregoire was legit.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Only a 100+ votes I think seperated Rossi from Gregoire. Lots of voter fraud discovered later on. So I'm not sure Gregoire was legit.

It was funny how the election results were in question until the third count and Gregoire was on top. Then somehow it became legit. I hated hearing her talk on my Ferry ride every day. “Hi, I’m Chris Gregoire…” it made me want to puke.

 

[MoonlessNight]

It was funny how the election results were in question until the third count and Gregoire was on top. Then somehow it became legit. I hated hearing her talk on my Ferry ride every day. “Hi, I’m Chris Gregoire…” it made me want to puke.

The right needs to win every battle, but the left only needs to win once. The same thing was actually key to how Al Franken stole his election in the first place.

It's the way of things, enforced by the Republican establishment. Part of why they hate President Trump and those like him so much is that they are willing to fight fights which were supposed to have been conceded permanently to the Democrats. The establishment hates that, because it means that conservatives might actually end up conserving something, rather than just "nobly losing" in perpetuity.

 

[miamited]

My comment was directed towards media manipulation of the public. It's not about reading to understand the psyche of Trump or anyone else. Unlike time-tested books, information in the mass media is often pre-packaged and designed to elicit a planned reaction. Ideally, in reading material cut-off from the media, a person would form his own conclusions. There isn't any one book that explores all this, but the book that I mentioned earlier is a good start.

Hi HIS,

Well, I'd agree somewhat that a lot of mass media is pre-packaged to some extent. A lot of sources piggyback off of other sources, but...

I'm not so much in agreement that it's written to elicit some 'planned reaction'. I still believe that by and large news reporters, esp. those with the major news sources, take their responsibility seriously. Are the sources sometimes tainted? Maybe. One can only trust sources up to a point and I would imagine that if there's any 'seeking to elicit some planned response', that would likely be an agenda of the source and not the reporter.

I think the one most often seeking to 'elicit some planned response' is Donald Trump in declaring that all news that doesn't seem to agree with his reality is 'fake news'. But that's only because I believe he's quite the story teller.

But each one believes what they believe.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[mark46]

????

The DEMOCRAT's destroyed their party leadership? ROFL.

It was not the Democrats whose leaders couldn't figure out whether to back the party nominee. It was the Democratic senate leader who opposed his president and continued to attack their candidate. It wasn't the Democratic senate committee that refused to back their candidate. It wasn't the Democratic senior senator who wrote in someone other than the party's candidate.

But you are correct, it took a lot to defeat the CHOSEN candidate of the Republican Party of Alabama, Bannon and Trump.

You proved that with the combined help of the national party, the national news media, Republican fratricide and a smear campaign based on unsubstantiated allegations of untoward behavior occurring 40 years ago you could win an election in Alabama. Winning at any cost, you destroyed your own party leadership in the process, you destroyed what little credibility the national news media had left, you destroyed due process and you destroyed the legacies of your best presidents of the last half century. Altogether, quite the impressive feat.

You have the next two years, until the 2020 election to try to hang on to that seat. Good luck.

 

[miamited]

Which words did you not understand? I’ll see if I can be of assistance.

Hi hislegacy,

Well, let's start with 'informed'. The dictionary definition is:
in·formed
inˈfôrmd/
adjective

1. having or showing knowledge of a particular subject or situation.
   "an informed readership"
   synonyms: knowledgeable, enlightened, literate, educated; More
   
   
   • (of a decision or judgment) based on an understanding of the facts of the situation.
     "twenty-six young adults participated after giving informed consent"

Your definition doesn't seem to match with this one, so you'll have to provide your definition when you use words that you aren't defining as the common dictionary defines. Your definition, quite honestly, seems to be more in line with one being 'misinformed'. I'm using that with the common dictionary definition.

You seem to believe that if people use news sources as their way of being informed that such is somehow not the right way to be informed. I disagree. There is a certain segment of our society that agrees with Donald Trump that news reports about him that aren't in keeping with his view of reality are 'fake' news sources. I disagree.

I believe that most journalists with the major news sources do check their source material and verify. Yes, there have been a very few cases where that doesn't seem to have been followed, but it isn't nearly on the scale that some would have us or want us to believe.

Donald Trump is doing his best to destroy our confidence in our news sources and that is ultimately going to be a bad thing. We need a free press that is able to ask and search for answers to questions and events. If we don't have such a thing, that's when people lose their ability to be informed.

But, I readily agree and admit that each one may establish their own basis of truth.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Belk]

The right needs to win every battle, but the left only needs to win once. The same thing was actually key to how Al Franken stole his election in the first place.

It's the way of things, enforced by the Republican establishment. Part of why they hate President Trump and those like him so much is that they are willing to fight fights which were supposed to have been conceded permanently to the Democrats. The establishment hates that, because it means that conservatives might actually end up conserving something, rather than just "nobly losing" in perpetuity.

Republicans control the house, the senate, and the presidency. They currently occupy 34 of the 50 seats for state governor. In my lifetime they have been 6 of the 9 presidents. Exactly where are they "losing in perpetuity"?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Republicans control the house, the senate, and the presidency. They currently occupy 34 of the 50 seats for state governor. In my lifetime they have been 6 of the 9 presidents. Exactly where are they "losing in perpetuity"?

Name one issue of importance to the average Republican voter where Republicans have made any sort of progress whatsoever. I'm not talking about keeping the status quo or merely doing something less bad than the Democrats would have; I want actual progress.

As far as I can see, whether you look at defense of life, tradition, family, the average worker, the border, etc. it's all been a series of losses.

This is largely because even when establishment Republicans win elections, their voters still lose. You see, all the promises they made might interfere with their ability to win in the next election. This isn't the hill to die on and all that.

 

[Belk]

Name one issue of importance to the average Republican voter where Republicans have made any sort of progress whatsoever. I'm not talking about keeping the status quo or merely doing something less bad than the Democrats would have; I want actual progress.

As far as I can see, whether you look at defense of life, tradition, family, the average worker, the border, etc. it's all been a series of losses.

This is largely because even when establishment Republicans win elections, their voters still lose. You see, all the promises they made might interfere with their ability to win in the next election. This isn't the hill to die on and all that.

Ah! You were not talking of winning elections, you meant winning as in actually enacting conservative legislation? Apologies. I misunderstood your point. I think you are likely correct. The republicans talk about being conservative but they are actually a party of oligarchs who simply spout conservative rhetoric.

 

[hislegacy]

Hi hislegacy,

Well, let's start with 'informed'. The dictionary definition is:
in·formed
inˈfôrmd/
adjective

1. having or showing knowledge of a particular subject or situation.
   "an informed readership"
   synonyms: knowledgeable, enlightened, literate, educated; More
   
   • (of a decision or judgment) based on an understanding of the facts of the situation.
     "twenty-six young adults participated after giving informed consent"

Your definition doesn't seem to match with this one, so you'll have to provide your definition when you use words that you aren't defining as the common dictionary defines. Your definition, quite honestly, seems to be more in line with one being 'misinformed'. I'm using that with the common dictionary definition.

You seem to believe that if people use news sources as their way of being informed that such is somehow not the right way to be informed. I disagree. There is a certain segment of our society that agrees with Donald Trump that news reports about him that aren't in keeping with his view of reality are 'fake' news sources. I disagree.

I believe that most journalists with the major news sources do check their source material and verify. Yes, there have been a very few cases where that doesn't seem to have been followed, but it isn't nearly on the scale that some would have us or want us to believe.

Donald Trump is doing his best to destroy our confidence in our news sources and that is ultimately going to be a bad thing. We need a free press that is able to ask and search for answers to questions and events. If we don't have such a thing, that's when people lose their ability to be informed.

But, I readily agree and admit that each one may establish their own basis of truth.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Hi Theodore, you are the most amazing poster I have ever met in my life! You got all that from

Which words did you not understand? I’ll see if I can be of assistance.

That is amazing!

 

[ViaCrucis]

You proved that with the combined help of the national party, the national news media, Republican fratricide and a smear campaign based on unsubstantiated allegations of untoward behavior occurring 40 years ago you could win an election in Alabama. Winning at any cost, you destroyed your own party leadership in the process, you destroyed what little credibility the national news media had left, you destroyed due process and you destroyed the legacies of your best presidents of the last half century. Altogether, quite the impressive feat.

You have the next two years, until the 2020 election to try to hang on to that seat. Good luck.

I believe the expression is "you lost, get over it"?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bhsmte]

You left out the part where the denial of Roy Moore has hastened the Apocalypse. If you're going to complain, go whole hog.

For the life of me, I don't see how God let that happen.