It's worth pointing out that, of course, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, yet has no representation or say in what happens. This makes the federal government MORE responsible for their well-being, not less.
Trump is spending the morning claiming the death toll in Puerto Rico is fake and designed to make him look bad. This kind of narcissism is just unfathomable. He is a terrible, terrible person. He is basically claiming it was a false flag operation designed to help Democrats win in the mid-terms. Even for him, this is beyond the pale. He not only ignored the island, but now he is claiming the people who died in the aftermath aren't really dead.
He isn’t saying that. What he is saying is that everyone who died on the island the last year should not be attributed to the hurricane or post hurricane relief. If someone died of old age, they should not have been added to the tally.
As I said, there is some truth to that, however, the minuscule handful who might fall into this category outweighs the thousands of others who do not.
His base sadly will believe him.
He is also right in saying the hurricane didn’t kill these thousands of people. It was his inept government that did and I think people need to start differentiating between the two.
Trump is spending the morning claiming the death toll in Puerto Rico is fake and designed to make him look bad. This kind of narcissism is just unfathomable. He is a terrible, terrible person. He is basically claiming it was a false flag operation designed to help Democrats win in the mid-terms. Even for him, this is beyond the pale. He not only ignored the island, but now he is claiming the people who died in the aftermath aren't really dead.
He isn’t saying that. What he is saying is that everyone who died on the island the last year should not be attributed to the hurricane or post hurricane relief. If someone died of old age, they should not have been added to the tally.
As I said, there is some truth to that, however, the minuscule handful who might fall into this category outweighs the thousands of others who do not.
His base sadly will believe him.
He is also right in saying the hurricane didn’t kill these thousands of people. It was his inept government that did and I think people need to start differentiating between the two.
This country facilitated the Berlin Airlift after WW2. The idea that we couldn't mobilize to save Puerto Rico in the aftermath was always hogwash. It was a matter of will, not ability. A massive military effort was needed. Of course no one was expecting him to prevent deaths as a direct result of the immediate storm. But almost the entirety of the 3000 came as a result of lack of power and resources in the aftermath.
Frankly, this one isn't just on Trump. Blame the American people and the media for ignoring the story at every turn as well.
Trump is spending the morning claiming the death toll in Puerto Rico is fake and designed to make him look bad. This kind of narcissism is just unfathomable. He is a terrible, terrible person. He is basically claiming it was a false flag operation designed to help Democrats win in the mid-terms. Even for him, this is beyond the pale. He not only ignored the island, but now he is claiming the people who died in the aftermath aren't really dead.
He isn’t saying that. What he is saying is that everyone who died on the island the last year should not be attributed to the hurricane or post hurricane relief. If someone died of old age, they should not have been added to the tally.
As I said, there is some truth to that, however, the minuscule handful who might fall into this category outweighs the thousands of others who do not.
His base sadly will believe him.
He is also right in saying the hurricane didn’t kill these thousands of people. It was his inept government that did and I think people need to start differentiating between the two.
I think the amount of truth in what Trump says is about what I've come to expect from him, i.e. pretty much none. He would of course have a point if the 2,975 deaths included everyone who died in the aftermath of the hurricane - but it doesn't. The report is based on an estimate of the additional mortality as a result of the hurricane. Total actual deaths measured from Sept 2017-Feb 2018 were 16,608, compared with predicted deaths of 13,633. While the 2,975 figure is only an estimate, the important point is to recognize that the hurricane caused deaths and misery far greater than Trump stated in its aftermath and it's pretty disgusting that he's still taking the same line now (and using his predictable double-down tactics by claiming this is all a political plot).
Of course given that conditions are clearly still not normal, there will undoubtedly be more deaths after February as a result of the hurricane and those have no chance of being recognized ...
Frankly, this one isn't just on Trump. Blame the American people and the media for ignoring the story at every turn as well.
Yes it is. The media held him accountable for months after and all he did was shrug and moved onto the next shitstorm he created.
The media and public are also not responsible for legislation being passed in a timely manner to make sure aid arrived to them on time. If anything, the uproar from media and the public got that one out dated shipping law voided for at least a short time.
It also wasn’t the media and public refusing aid from other countries willing to offer help and resources.
It is the Federal governments and only the Federal governments responsibility to make sure their citizens are looked after properly.
As I also said, watch the billions of dollars be poured into the Carolinas with right wing media describing it as the best and fastest disaster relief in decades if not ever. It is an election year.
As I also said, watch the billions of dollars be poured into the Carolinas with right wing media describing it as the best and fastest disaster relief in decades if not ever. It is an election year.
I normally don't have strong opinions about statehood for non-state territories, but now that you mention it, we probably would have had a stronger response to the situation in Puerto Rico if U.S. presidents needed Puerto Rican votes for reelection.
Frankly, this one isn't just on Trump. Blame the American people and the media for ignoring the story at every turn as well.
Yes it is. The media held him accountable for months after and all he did was shrug and moved onto the next shitstorm he created.
The media and public are also not responsible for legislation being passed in a timely manner to make sure aid arrived to them on time. If anything, the uproar from media and the public got that one out dated shipping law voided for at least a short time.
It also wasn’t the media and public refusing aid from other countries willing to offer help and resources.
It is the Federal governments and only the Federal governments responsibility to make sure their citizens are looked after properly.
As I also said, watch the billions of dollars be poured into the Carolinas with right wing media describing it as the best and fastest disaster relief in decades if not ever. It is an election year.
Yeah, you're probably correct. I just felt it should have been front and center. It was revealed a few weeks ago to have basically been another 9/11 based on the death total. We went to war with the wrong country over that, still commemorate the occasion each year. No such action or ceremony will ever take place in regards to Puerto Rico. They just don't rate. Like it or not, Trump's attitude about that "inaccessible island" is probably how alot of people feel.
Moreover, Bush was excoriated for the Katrina response. It was part of a complete meltdown politically in his second term. Today is the first time since the immediate aftermath of Maria where Trump has been universally called to account for it. By any objective measure, the response to Maria is WORSE than the Katrina response. Yet I feel and see nothing like the anger directed at Bush.
I certainly feel such anger. I know other Americans do as well. But the Media seems to spend more time covering his general buttassery on Twitter than anything else. Or his other dickish actions, like his double fist pump when he showed up at the 9/11 memorial. And then he went off to tweet some more, and that was a big story here.
It doesn't help that Media is so heavily biased one way or another. Fox News, Breitbart, Red State and one or two others are biased right, and the rest biased left (strongly or not so strongly). While I don't think you can have totally unbiased news because newscasters are people, too, and they will react to what they are reading or writing, but some people are biased against certain news outlets simply because said outlet doesn't support their own, innate biases.
I freely own I watch MSNBC, which many categorize as left to far left leaning. One of its newscasters, Joe Scarborough, used to be Republican, and has left the party over the antics of Trump and his fellow Republicans failing to call Trump out or hold him to account. I watch many of the shows, including Morning Joe (when I'm up for it) to Rachel Maddow to Chuck Todd in Meet the Press. I feel that this channel is (or seems) most informed to me, which is why I watch it. I also sometimes watch David Pakmann, Sam Seder and the Young Turks on Youtube as well.
What is the purpose of this headline except to imply a black man smoking marijuana deserved to be murdered?? How is this relevant to an off-duty officer breaking into his apartment and killing him?? Why is it that every time a cop commits one of these acts, we get a leak from the police department about marijuana, as if possession of this benign drug excuses summary execution. This happens EVERY time.
Frankly, I don't care if the guy was sitting at his kitchen table shooting speedballs of heroin. It would still have NOTHING to do with what took place in this incident, and this factoid shouldn't even be allowed to be admissible at any potential trial.
The NRA recently posted that Botham Jean wouldn't have died if he had a gun. I was like, are they smoking pot? Him having a gun would have given the cop yet another excuse to shoot him! Especially if he was holding it at the time! "I saw he was holding a gun, so I shot him."
And the media would say she was right. You know, black guy, gun in hand... end result, dead black guy.
I certainly feel such anger. I know other Americans do as well. But the Media seems to spend more time covering his general buttassery on Twitter than anything else. Or his other dickish actions, like his double fist pump when he showed up at the 9/11 memorial. And then he went off to tweet some more, and that was a big story here.
It doesn't help that Media is so heavily biased one way or another. Fox News, Breitbart, Red State and one or two others are biased right, and the rest biased left (strongly or not so strongly). While I don't think you can have totally unbiased news because newscasters are people, too, and they will react to what they are reading or writing, but some people are biased against certain news outlets simply because said outlet doesn't support their own, innate biases.
I freely own I watch MSNBC, which many categorize as left to far left leaning. One of its newscasters, Joe Scarborough, used to be Republican, and has left the party over the antics of Trump and his fellow Republicans failing to call Trump out or hold him to account. I watch many of the shows, including Morning Joe (when I'm up for it) to Rachel Maddow to Chuck Todd in Meet the Press. I feel that this channel is (or seems) most informed to me, which is why I watch it. I also sometimes watch David Pakmann, Sam Seder and the Young Turks on Youtube as well.
As an aside to your post here, I WISH MSNBC was a left-wing FOX News, but it simply is not the case. MSNBC leans well to the left in primetime, but from 5am to 6pm it is basically a bastion of centrist Democrats and Republicans and "both sides" nonsense. Frankly, all of cable news is nothing but a puppet show anyway. But Rachel Maddow at least provides great context and information on a regular basis, even if she is unabashedly left-wing. And she does not lie to her audience.
The NRA recently posted that Botham Jean wouldn't have died if he had a gun. I was like, are they smoking pot? Him having a gun would have given the cop yet another excuse to shoot him! Especially if he was holding it at the time! "I saw he was holding a gun, so I shot him."
And the media would say she was right. You know, black guy, gun in hand... end result, dead black guy.
That quote from Dana Loesch was perhaps the most disingenuous thing I have ever seen them put out. The idea that the NRA would have immediately jumped in to support a black man who shot a white police officer under ANY circumstance is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. It took them MONTHS to issue a statement of support for Philando Castillo after he was killed.
What is the purpose of this headline except to imply a black man smoking marijuana deserved to be murdered?? How is this relevant to an off-duty officer breaking into his apartment and killing him?? Why is it that every time a cop commits one of these acts, we get a leak from the police department about marijuana, as if possession of this benign drug excuses summary execution. This happens EVERY time.
Frankly, I don't care if the guy was sitting at his kitchen table shooting speedballs of heroin. It would still have NOTHING to do with what took place in this incident, and this factoid shouldn't even be allowed to be admissible at any potential trial.
Headline: Civil Rights of Dead Black Man Infringed Upon As Search Warrant Was Issued After His Death For No Cause.
Even beyond the racist implications of "oh look the dead black guy had drugs, guess that let's us off the hook", can we examine WHY they seem to think that, of all things, marijuana is the great demon they have chosen to use as a shield?? I've seen many people smoke pot, some on a daily basis, and the one thing I can absolutely with 100% certainty say is I never saw it make anyone violent or aggressive in any way. Because EVERYONE knows that it does the exact opposite. The cops would never leak a story to the press that he had a twelve-pack of beer in his fridge, yet that alcohol would be INFINITELY more likely to cause some kind of dust-up than pot even could. I mean, is this tactic aimed at the aging segment of the population who still thinks "Reefer Madness" is a scientific documentary?? Because the constant use of this basically harmless plant is laughable on it's surface. It seems the only real objective here is to get out to the public as quickly as possible the image of a black man and then to attach the word "drugs" to him in any way possible. Hell, I remember when Tamir Rice was killed, when it was impossible for them to slander a 12-year old child, they started releasing stories about his FATHER, as if somehow the kid was guilty by proxy.
Because, after the repeal of prohibition (in 1930), alcohol was legal. Pot has only recently become legal in some states, and still has the stigma of illegality associated with it in the minds of many people that alcohol does not.
Yes, I know, alcohol is far more addictive and destructive to the human body than pot. But the people who these sorts of "findings" appeal to is not the knowledgeable, its the "low information" people who still think of pot as "ooh, stinky bad!"
Even beyond the racist implications of "oh look the dead black guy had drugs, guess that let's us off the hook", can we examine WHY they seem to think that, of all things, marijuana is the great demon they have chosen to use as a shield??
Because the average age of a Fox viewer is like, 70.
Cable news is all a joke in my view, Twitter is the best news source.
Even beyond the racist implications of "oh look the dead black guy had drugs, guess that let's us off the hook", can we examine WHY they seem to think that, of all things, marijuana is the great demon they have chosen to use as a shield?? I've seen many people smoke pot, some on a daily basis, and the one thing I can absolutely with 100% certainty say is I never saw it make anyone violent or aggressive in any way. Because EVERYONE knows that it does the exact opposite. The cops would never leak a story to the press that he had a twelve-pack of beer in his fridge, yet that alcohol would be INFINITELY more likely to cause some kind of dust-up than pot even could. I mean, is this tactic aimed at the aging segment of the population who still thinks "Reefer Madness" is a scientific documentary?? Because the constant use of this basically harmless plant is laughable on it's surface. It seems the only real objective here is to get out to the public as quickly as possible the image of a black man and then to attach the word "drugs" to him in any way possible. Hell, I remember when Tamir Rice was killed, when it was impossible for them to slander a 12-year old child, they started releasing stories about his FATHER, as if somehow the kid was guilty by proxy.
I agree with the spirit of this and that alcohol is significantly more likely to cause harm than cannabis. As I've said before I think cannabis should be legalized, but I don't think it's a good idea to downplay too far the potential harm it can cause. While violence is not generally associated with cannabis, anxiety and paranoia are relatively common side-effects and that would certainly not help defuse the situation where someone broke into your home.
It's perhaps also worth mentioning that it's only in recent years that the problems of legal opiods have begun to be recognized - for a long period they were generally regarded as safe and benign.
Even beyond the racist implications of "oh look the dead black guy had drugs, guess that let's us off the hook", can we examine WHY they seem to think that, of all things, marijuana is the great demon they have chosen to use as a shield?? I've seen many people smoke pot, some on a daily basis, and the one thing I can absolutely with 100% certainty say is I never saw it make anyone violent or aggressive in any way. Because EVERYONE knows that it does the exact opposite. The cops would never leak a story to the press that he had a twelve-pack of beer in his fridge, yet that alcohol would be INFINITELY more likely to cause some kind of dust-up than pot even could. I mean, is this tactic aimed at the aging segment of the population who still thinks "Reefer Madness" is a scientific documentary?? Because the constant use of this basically harmless plant is laughable on it's surface. It seems the only real objective here is to get out to the public as quickly as possible the image of a black man and then to attach the word "drugs" to him in any way possible. Hell, I remember when Tamir Rice was killed, when it was impossible for them to slander a 12-year old child, they started releasing stories about his FATHER, as if somehow the kid was guilty by proxy.
I agree with the spirit of this and that alcohol is significantly more likely to cause harm than cannabis.
I have yet to find a news outlet that tells me the news instead of telling me how I should feel and react to the news.
Believe it or not, CNN used to be that way years ago. I'd watch it to get away from the major network's spin doctors. My how things change...
I never trusted CNN. Last year I was contacted via Twitter by CNN and asked to come to New York and possibly appear on some segment. I still have no idea why. Knowing it would be nothing but a hit job, I declined, and said I don't talk to fake news.
Had it been any other news network, I probably would have done it.
Conservatives think the media is liberal. What doesn't get talked about nearly enough is that almost all liberals think the media has been browbeaten into submission by 30+ years of being called liberal, and are flat-out fearful of being attacked by conservative media. CNN does almost nothing but panels of pundits for most of the day, who are essentially actors. They are almost all political operatives or op-ed columnists. I hate CNN too, but for completely different reasons. I don't think they are "fake", I think they have dumbed news down to the lowest common denominator. FOX is straight up propaganda to the point they are basically coordinating with the White House on messaging. MSNBC is catnip for liberals who WISH we had something as effective as FOX News. We don't. If we did, I'd be happy to report on it's existence. FOX is brilliant at what they do, and if I viewed them as anything other than destructive to the country, I could almost admire it.
I have yet to find a news outlet that tells me the news instead of telling me how I should feel and react to the news.
NPR is just about the closest thing I can find to an outlet that provides news without much punditry.
As it relates to the major networks, they're all pretty bad - but CNN is probably the closest to the center (Still Center-left, and I agree @jjstraka34 that sometimes their punditry can be atrocious). and typically gets a bit more credit for being accurate in its reporting than the others.
Speaking, that is, of the 24 hour news networks MSNBC, Fox and CNN.
Hard to tell if the biggest news of the day is Manafort potentially flipping or the chance that the nominee for the Supreme Court may be an attempted rapist.
One thing I know for sure is this neverending trend of reporters standing in the middle of a hurricane for their live shots on TV remains one of the stupidest things I have ever seen and gets dumber every storm.
Let me give my thoughts on the Kavanaugh situation today without going totally overboard (or at least I'll try). Is it "fair" that something he is alleged to have done in high school is being brought up?? I would say yes, given the lifetime position he is about to be confirmed for. And look, I was 17 once, and I can safely say that I'm pretty sure that I went to way more alcohol-fueled parties than the obvious prig that Brett Kavanaugh is, and I never attempted to sexually assault a girl with one of my friends. I never knew any behavior like this to happen even once until I got to college, where a girl I sat next to in anthropology class WAS raped by someone I was vaguely familiar with because he lived in the same dorm as I did. Point being, this kind of thing should never wash off if true.
Additionally, it seems that Dianne Feinstein didn't being this up at the hearings because SHE thought it would be unfair, and simply turned what she had over the the authorities. I disagree with her not bringing it up. But she and the Democrats aren't the ones who released this information. Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer of the New Yorker got the story, and I am familiar with the work of both of them, and they are both A+ reporters. Beyond that, there is this ridiculous letter that 65 women who knew Kavanaugh back in his youth apparently signed vouching for his character. First of all, it is OBVIOUS Republicans knew this skeleton was in his closet for weeks if they have this document, because it would be impossible to get those signatures in 24 hours. Moreover, who the hell is close friends with 65 girls in high school?? I didn't even KNOW 65 girls in high school (and that was between 3 towns that were fairly close together), much less would be close enough to them to have them vouch for my character 30 years later.
Lastly is this issue of potential victims not coming forward until years later, or until the spotlight is on their abusers. This is not all that surprising if you understand the dynamics of abuse. I firmly believe that the idea of people like Trump or Kavanaugh being handed almost limitless power probably causes every fiber of their being to finally stand-up despite all the horrible memories and emotions and say "Enough!". And even then, they are terrified to have their name revealed.
Did this happen?? Of course we have no way of knowing for sure, but given that the vast majority of sexual assault claims ARE real and accurate, chances are this one is too. Not a guarantee, but a high likelihood. Can it be proven?? Probably not. Will it stop his confirmation. Almost certainly that answer is no. But I find it very interesting that the judge who will have THE ultimate say on what women can do with their own bodies is now accused of literally forcing himself upon a woman's body. And that is a narrative that is impossible to ignore. What the New Yorker article describes is not just sexual assault, but attempted rape. The idea that his confirmation should go forward without addressing this is absurd.
Let me give my thoughts on the Kavanaugh situation today without going totally overboard (or at least I'll try). Is it "fair" that something he is alleged to have done in high school is being brought up?? I would say yes, given the lifetime position he is about to be confirmed for. And look, I was 17 once, and I can safely say that I'm pretty sure that I went to way more alcohol-fueled parties than the obvious prig that Brett Kavanaugh is, and I never attempted to sexually assault a girl with one of my friends. I never knew any behavior like this to happen even once until I got to college, where a girl I sat next to in anthropology class WAS raped by someone I was vaguely familiar with because he lived in the same dorm as I did. Point being, this kind of thing should never wash off if true.
Additionally, it seems that Dianne Feinstein didn't being this up at the hearings because SHE thought it would be unfair, and simply turned what she had over the the authorities. I disagree with her not bringing it up. But she and the Democrats aren't the ones who released this information. Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer of the New Yorker got the story, and I am familiar with the work of both of them, and they are both A+ reporters. Beyond that, there is this ridiculous letter that 65 women who knew Kavanaugh back in his youth apparently signed vouching for his character. First of all, it is OBVIOUS Republicans knew this skeleton was in his closet for weeks if they have this document, because it would be impossible to get those signatures in 24 hours. Moreover, who the hell is close friends with 65 girls in high school?? I didn't even KNOW 65 girls in high school (and that was between 3 towns that were fairly close together), much less would be close enough to them to have them vouch for my character 30 years later.
Lastly is this issue of potential victims not coming forward until years later, or until the spotlight is on their abusers. This is not all that surprising if you understand the dynamics of abuse. I firmly believe that the idea of people like Trump or Kavanaugh being handed almost limitless power probably causes every fiber of their being to finally stand-up despite all the horrible memories and emotions and say "Enough!". And even then, they are terrified to have their name revealed.
Did this happen?? Of course we have no way of knowing for sure, but given that the vast majority of sexual assault claims ARE real and accurate, chances are this one is too. Not a guarantee, but a high likelihood. Can it be proven?? Probably not. Will it stop his confirmation. Almost certainly that answer is no. But I find it very interesting that the judge who will have THE ultimate say on what women can do with their own bodies is now accused of literally forcing himself upon a woman's body. And that is a narrative that is impossible to ignore. What the New Yorker article describes is not just sexual assault, but attempted rape. The idea that his confirmation should go forward without addressing this is absurd.
So somebody comes forward and says something happened. Wow, throw the book at him...
Well, I think my take on it is far more nuanced than that, and I also make it pretty clear that I'm 99% sure that nothing will happen to him whatsoever other than bad press. I'm just as concerned that it has been made pretty damn clear he blatantly lied under oath in previous confirmation hearings. But like I said, this will not make any difference. Again, we are a country that operates under the Cosby rule. Anything less than 30 accusers, and it isn't taken seriously.
Well, I think my take on it is far more nuanced than that, and I also make it pretty clear that I'm 99% sure that nothing will happen to him whatsoever other than bad press. I'm just as concerned that it has been made pretty damn clear he blatantly lied under oath in previous confirmation hearings. But like I said, this will not make any difference. Again, we are a country that operates under the Cosby rule. Anything less than 30 accusers, and it isn't taken seriously.
I'm really not buying it. It smacks of desperation to me. Even CNN buried their article about this in the politics section. I scanned the front page section from top to bottom and nary a mention. Of course, how could the appointment of one of the most powerful people in America compete with a live hurricane with big waves, blowing wind and potential for reporters who shouldn't even be there getting hit by flying debris?
Comments
As I said, there is some truth to that, however, the minuscule handful who might fall into this category outweighs the thousands of others who do not.
His base sadly will believe him.
He is also right in saying the hurricane didn’t kill these thousands of people. It was his inept government that did and I think people need to start differentiating between the two.
Frankly, this one isn't just on Trump. Blame the American people and the media for ignoring the story at every turn as well.
Of course given that conditions are clearly still not normal, there will undoubtedly be more deaths after February as a result of the hurricane and those have no chance of being recognized ...
The media and public are also not responsible for legislation being passed in a timely manner to make sure aid arrived to them on time. If anything, the uproar from media and the public got that one out dated shipping law voided for at least a short time.
It also wasn’t the media and public refusing aid from other countries willing to offer help and resources.
It is the Federal governments and only the Federal governments responsibility to make sure their citizens are looked after properly.
As I also said, watch the billions of dollars be poured into the Carolinas with right wing media describing it as the best and fastest disaster relief in decades if not ever. It is an election year.
Moreover, Bush was excoriated for the Katrina response. It was part of a complete meltdown politically in his second term. Today is the first time since the immediate aftermath of Maria where Trump has been universally called to account for it. By any objective measure, the response to Maria is WORSE than the Katrina response. Yet I feel and see nothing like the anger directed at Bush.
It doesn't help that Media is so heavily biased one way or another. Fox News, Breitbart, Red State and one or two others are biased right, and the rest biased left (strongly or not so strongly). While I don't think you can have totally unbiased news because newscasters are people, too, and they will react to what they are reading or writing, but some people are biased against certain news outlets simply because said outlet doesn't support their own, innate biases.
I freely own I watch MSNBC, which many categorize as left to far left leaning. One of its newscasters, Joe Scarborough, used to be Republican, and has left the party over the antics of Trump and his fellow Republicans failing to call Trump out or hold him to account. I watch many of the shows, including Morning Joe (when I'm up for it) to Rachel Maddow to Chuck Todd in Meet the Press. I feel that this channel is (or seems) most informed to me, which is why I watch it. I also sometimes watch David Pakmann, Sam Seder and the Young Turks on Youtube as well.
https://www.allsides.com/topics/media-bias-media-watch
What is the purpose of this headline except to imply a black man smoking marijuana deserved to be murdered?? How is this relevant to an off-duty officer breaking into his apartment and killing him?? Why is it that every time a cop commits one of these acts, we get a leak from the police department about marijuana, as if possession of this benign drug excuses summary execution. This happens EVERY time.
Frankly, I don't care if the guy was sitting at his kitchen table shooting speedballs of heroin. It would still have NOTHING to do with what took place in this incident, and this factoid shouldn't even be allowed to be admissible at any potential trial.
And the media would say she was right. You know, black guy, gun in hand... end result, dead black guy.
A little long, but let’s run with that.
Yes, I know, alcohol is far more addictive and destructive to the human body than pot. But the people who these sorts of "findings" appeal to is not the knowledgeable, its the "low information" people who still think of pot as "ooh, stinky bad!"
Cable news is all a joke in my view, Twitter is the best news source.
It's perhaps also worth mentioning that it's only in recent years that the problems of legal opiods have begun to be recognized - for a long period they were generally regarded as safe and benign.
Had it been any other news network, I probably would have done it.
As it relates to the major networks, they're all pretty bad - but CNN is probably the closest to the center (Still Center-left, and I agree @jjstraka34 that sometimes their punditry can be atrocious). and typically gets a bit more credit for being accurate in its reporting than the others.
Speaking, that is, of the 24 hour news networks MSNBC, Fox and CNN.
One thing I know for sure is this neverending trend of reporters standing in the middle of a hurricane for their live shots on TV remains one of the stupidest things I have ever seen and gets dumber every storm.
Additionally, it seems that Dianne Feinstein didn't being this up at the hearings because SHE thought it would be unfair, and simply turned what she had over the the authorities. I disagree with her not bringing it up. But she and the Democrats aren't the ones who released this information. Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer of the New Yorker got the story, and I am familiar with the work of both of them, and they are both A+ reporters. Beyond that, there is this ridiculous letter that 65 women who knew Kavanaugh back in his youth apparently signed vouching for his character. First of all, it is OBVIOUS Republicans knew this skeleton was in his closet for weeks if they have this document, because it would be impossible to get those signatures in 24 hours. Moreover, who the hell is close friends with 65 girls in high school?? I didn't even KNOW 65 girls in high school (and that was between 3 towns that were fairly close together), much less would be close enough to them to have them vouch for my character 30 years later.
Lastly is this issue of potential victims not coming forward until years later, or until the spotlight is on their abusers. This is not all that surprising if you understand the dynamics of abuse. I firmly believe that the idea of people like Trump or Kavanaugh being handed almost limitless power probably causes every fiber of their being to finally stand-up despite all the horrible memories and emotions and say "Enough!". And even then, they are terrified to have their name revealed.
Did this happen?? Of course we have no way of knowing for sure, but given that the vast majority of sexual assault claims ARE real and accurate, chances are this one is too. Not a guarantee, but a high likelihood. Can it be proven?? Probably not. Will it stop his confirmation. Almost certainly that answer is no. But I find it very interesting that the judge who will have THE ultimate say on what women can do with their own bodies is now accused of literally forcing himself upon a woman's body. And that is a narrative that is impossible to ignore. What the New Yorker article describes is not just sexual assault, but attempted rape. The idea that his confirmation should go forward without addressing this is absurd.