You can’t plea bargain a third party guilty. It has no meaning except for the person taking the plea.
Good thing DOLOOP didn’t say that.
You could I suppose. But it is exponentially more challenging to reverse course on something that so dramatically changes the fundamental structure of the federal government.
At the time, no I did not oppose it. But in hindsight, I regret my support for it, even though I still stand by my original beliefs as to why I supported it in the first place. I did not think well enough ahead to see the long term ramifications of the decision. How it continued the dramatic divide between what is essentially an Oligarch class and the peasants, when it comes to who really controls the government and decisions made therein.
So the liberal media is brainwashing Americans into becoming liberal socialists with their vast reach…but at the same time no one in America knows about Bob Woodward and his book.
I love how the media is either all powerful or impotent, depending on what a right-winger needs it to be at any particular moment.
It is a luxury they get to maintain when they develop “opinions” that are not supported by facts, evidence, or logic. Yet some will continue to wax poetically about how all opinions are created equal. The intellectual laziness that is on display when it comes to their confirmation biases is quite astounding. It would be interesting to see some of these folks take a logic course, with serious intent at learning, and then see them have that light-bulb moment when they realize how silly they have sounded in the past.
But isn’t you that characterize those who oppose Trump as “frothing at the mouth”…and only you?
That’s your strawman.
The Trump-hating narrative is that because a judge accepted the prosecution’s plea deal, that somehow implicates Trump. It doesn’t.
There is serious frothing at the mouth. I see it every day in this forum, and in the MSM, and amongst the LW pundits, and amongst the LW legislators, and…………………….
I really don’t care if she doesn’t want to know about Woodward or not. If she doesn’t want to be informed, her choice. It’s just a good movie even if you don’t like politics - the way the story plays out. I like (some) horror movies too. I am still curious though on how knowing who Woodward is would change her.
Knowledge is kryptonite to some right wingers.
Actually that’s exactly what it means.
It’s the alternate universe they’ve created boosted by some allies in the media. The “logic” they’ve created.
If there’s any frothing going on, it’s by those who are in total denial of facts such as convictions, jail sentences and fun stuff like that. More frothy froth froth, as I’ve seen on this board.
Yep. What blows my mind is that they completely buy in to this fictional reality they believe exists. It’s very odd to witness such a disconnect from actual reality.
Good commentary from Byron York about Woodward’s troubling habit of using quotation marks to give the impression he was the “fly on the wall” to conversations he describes.
The moonie times. ok.
I don’t trust anyone who believes lawyers or the new media.
Isn’t that the truth!
It’s a legitimate journalistic question of when to use quotation marks. Virtually any professional journalist would say unless you’ve talked to the source and gotten his or her exact language, you don’t use quotes. Seems like a simple rule yet Woodward believes he is justified in using quotes even when a conversation has been recounted to him by someone else, and he hasn’t confirmed the words with the source. Doing this no doubt makes his books more readable but at the expense of having the persons quoted issue denials they said any such thing as did Gens Kelly and Mattis. It also allows critics to dismiss his books as falsehoods or half truths.
Got mine two days ago…starting to read it now…