Trump picks Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court

The difference is that you have been given the direct opportunity to condemn them them, on multiple occasions, and refused. It’s not that you haven’t condemned them of your own accord, or started a thread about it, or anything like that. It’s that you’ve been given DIRECT opportunities by me and others to call out Fox, and you tried to deflect away from it and would not condemn it.

I’m not pulling a Glenn Beck style “well, he’s never said he didn’t beat his wife, so he must be a wife beater.” You’ve been directly given chances and asked to condemn Fox for their bias, and you would not do so.


the “fake news” media def is

And Trump considers CNN part of the “fake news” media, so what exactly is your problem with Acosta’s question? It was based on a statement Trump actually made.

And you’ve directly refused to answer for Fox’s media bias when pressed. You deflected away, just like Trump tries to do and hope we won’t remember.

It’s OK to just say “I’m OK with right-wing media bias since I agree with it.” There would be more integrity in you admitting that than playing these games with it.

if you wouldnt have taken such a reductive approach to my positions on other “news” networks from the start i might admit to more than you think

and acosta’s a total ■■■■■■■. total out and out hater. no class. big mouth. people at the damn pressers turn around and “shush” him for cry sakes.

the furthest thing from a true journalist

he embodies CNN

any other networks act this way toward Obama?

i’ll give you time to PM your fellow lefty posters to help you research.

What on earth are you babbling about? You refuse to ever talk about the bias of Fox-that’s not reductive. That’s a query regarding consistency, of which you clearly have none, and you prefer it that way.

You still haven’t made a relevant point with it. He asked a question based on a statement the president made. And?

If the bold is a serious question, then you continue to prove my point. You’ve been given examples of such nonsense from Fox toward Democrats, and you refused to engage. You bleated “that’s not what this thread is about. That’s not what I want to talk about. blah blah blah.”

That you’re even questioning whether other networks acted this way toward Obama proves my point.

You don’t care about media bias-just left-wing bias. Just say the words so we can move on.

and everything you are saying is still your own opinion about my opinion

because no proof is not proof of your point

Not by all accounts. He is the guy the dems should have the least objection too.

Everything I’m saying is completely back by your actions on both this and the old forum. The proof is your REFUSAL to EVER engage on Fox. That says all anyone ever needs to know. You can stop trolling now.

1 Like

and again, lack of evidence is not evidence

There’s not a lack of evidence. You REFUSING and DEFLECTING away from ever engaging on the topic of Fox’s bias proves it. It’s not that you have never condemned Fox-it’s just that none of us have ever seen it because every time we try to get you to comment on examples of Fox media bias, you deflect and tell us you will not comment on it.

The reason is obvious.

i dont need to address things you want me to

and not doing so proves nothing

so give up the “we gave you the chance to say ‘x’ but you didn’t so you believe ‘y’” nonsense

You’ll have to point to the Article that compels Congress to confirm or reject every appointee.

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution says:

“…and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,…”

Notice it calls for the advice and consent of the “Senate”, not the Senate leadership, it is the Senate as a body that provides or with holds consent - the the Majority leader making an arbitrary decision leaving the seat vacant for over a year not based on the qualifications of the nominee, but based on the fact the President was from another party.

Speaking as a Republican I’m ashamed of McConnell’s dereliction of duty.

JMHO of course.


That’s the delegation of duty. I don’t see how it compels a vote on every nominee.

Personally, I didn’t like it, either. I’m not a fan of political parlor tricks, since they are ultimately short-sighted. That said, the Constitution provides no time frame for giving consent, neither does it compel a vote on every nominee.

Of course you don’t NEED to but…

It’s not just “not doing it.” It’s REFUSING and DEFLECTING when given the opportunity. Refusal and deflection are all that is needed given that it’s you.

Here’s your chance. Condemn Fox’s bias. I’m teeing the ball up for you. Tell us your feelings on Fox’s bias.

when i want to complain about their bias if any i will

but i sure as hell wont just because you want me to

besides it’s time i stop entertaining your massive hijack of the thread

youll probably get a bonus in your pay for this

Which is never.

I certainly don’t expect you to do it because I asked. I would expect you to do it if I thought you actually cared about media bias, but I know that’s not the case.

What pay? I find the left-wing media as biased as the right-wing media. Neither side would pay me. That’s quite contrary to you, however, who only carries one side’s water.


Who decides how the Senate advises and consents?


CNN is saying Kavanaugh’s hearing will start Sept 4th.