Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The closer they get to him, the more paranoid he gets. The more paranoid he gets, the more he wants to announce. The more he wants to announce, the more they beg him not to. The more they beg him not to, the crazier he becomes. The crazier he becomes, the closer they get to him. via Twitter, @duty2warn
The closer they get to him, the more paranoid he gets. The more paranoid he gets, the more he wants to announce. The more he wants to announce, the more they beg him not to. The more they beg him not to, the crazier he becomes. The crazier he becomes, the closer they get to him. via Twitter, @duty2warn
Again, more assumptions. You have no idea how because Trump feels and you’re assuming they’re going to get him.
But still, you have to laugh when they resort to Twitter news from some far left nutjob as their proof.
When there’s no proof, just accusations and assumptions, they’ll do anything to deflect elsewhere. Been happening for 6 years. The obsession grows stronger everyday. Can you imagine being glued to following someone’s moves in hopes to get them 24/7/365 everyday for 6 years. Many are spending their golden years on this. Yikes
I haven't watched much of the hearings for one simple reason. We already know what went down on January 6, it was obvious from the beginning that Trump attempted to overthrow an election and didn't succeed (not to say that he or his successor won't succeed the next time).
Maybe for some, they will see or learn something new or surprising, like the fact that the Secret Service attempted to destroy evidence; but even that isn't really surprising. We expected Trump to subvert the police forces at his command, and the SS would be a logical place to start.
There have been some incredible speeches and statements by Cheney and others on the committee but in the end, other than documenting what happened before, during and after January 6th, they won't matter much. The committee is effectively toothless. And we all know that if Trump puppets control Congress after the fall election, they will immediately move to shut it down.
The only thing that matters is what the DOJ decides to do. When they start handing out indictments, then I will start paying more attention.
I spend at least a little time watching all of the news networks. Even Fox. You should try it. You'll be better informed.
I do this too. It's especially enlightening when there is a breaking story being covered differently by the various networks. I don't consider myself informed about anything until after I've explored how the story is being covered on at least Fox, CNN, WaPo and NYT. Following the trails to primary sources can be very educational too.
Also, re "anonymous sources" -- I don't know if it's necessary to mention that these sources are not anonymous to the media outlet. An anonymous source is one whose identity is being protected, not one whose identity is not known.
Any media outlet claiming to do real journalism will always 1) verify its stories independently with multiple sources (even if their identities are protected); or 2) disclose that it has not been able to. It will also update its stories with new information as they are available and disclose/correct any errors it has made. These are the yardsticks by which I judge my sources of news.
I do this too. It's especially enlightening when there is a breaking story being covered differently by the various networks. I don't consider myself informed about anything until after I've explored how the story is being covered on at least Fox, CNN, WaPo and NYT. Following the trails to primary sources can be very educational too.
Also, re "anonymous sources" -- I don't know if it's necessary to mention that these sources are not anonymous to the media outlet. An anonymous source is one whose identity is being protected, not one whose identity is not known.
Any media outlet claiming to do real journalism will always 1) verify its stories independently with multiple sources (even if their identities are protected); or 2) disclose that it has not been able to. It will also update its stories with new information as they are available and disclose/correct any errors it has made. These are the yardsticks by which I judge my sources of news.
If you have it on your cable network, I've been watching more and more of the fairly new news channel News Nation. Their goal is to be an unbiased news source in a politically polarized media landscape. Dan Abrams to me seems to pick on Dems more than R's, but they call both sides out on hypocrisy and biased reporting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
