+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: A SCOTUS Opening (/Thread-A-SCOTUS-Opening)
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - masonbengals fan - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 02:52 PM)jj22 Wrote: The backlash from American voters would have been deafening. They don't play when it comes to Dems.
You are just trolling now. No way you actually believe that.
They have repeatedly proven they will say or do anything to get back in power
& the Republicans would also.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - jj22 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 02:57 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Lets all have a pity party for those poor mistreated souls.
You are just trolling now. No way you actually believe that.
They have repeatedly proven they will say or do anything to get back in power
& the Republicans would also.
It's well known Americans hold Dems at higher standards. This isn't a new phenomenon.
It doesn't sound important to you, but the hypocrisy shouldn't just be waved off as a pity party from those who don't reap the benefits and can't play by equal rules (you are highlighting exactly my point by referring to the ideal that Dems highlighting inequality are just throwing a pity party). We should all be trying to do better, and establish better and equal standards.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Dill - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 12:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I disagree. The impeachment was about getting rid of Trump and not because he did "bad things" but because he was Trump and Democrats hate that he was elected.
Maybe if Democrats decided not to discuss impeachment or how to remove Trump from the White House from the moment he was elected, you could argue the impeachment was about the "bad things" Trump had done.
Thanks for the response, Phil.
When the Dems wrote up the charges of impeachment, they could not list "because Trump" and "we hate that he was elected."
They had to have evidence of abuse of power, such as obstruction of an investigation into his own conduct, and an attempt to use foreign aid to Ukraine in a quid pro quo. Those are "bad things."
The Senate decided not to impeach "because Trump"--because Trump was their guy, and their base did not care if Trump did what he was accused of. I.e., they did not care if Trump did "bad things." Or they said what Trump did was not bad things.
Once free of impeachment, Trump picked up where he left off. He fired whistleblowers and even an uninvolved family member in Vindeman's case. He set about intervening in friends' court cases and sentences. He continued to attack the press for doing its job--most especially when they were "biased against power." He continues to intervene in any government agency he can to punish those who don't support him and to maximize his chances of re-election. His interventions in the CDC and the Post Office have been especially concerning. His DOJ is replacing prosecutors investigating trump financial dealings.
I ask you why these manifest actions--all on record--should be dismissed because some Democrats wanted to impeach Trump early on?
This is what I mean by agreeing about "bad things." If they occur, then we have to be in a position to decide whether the bad things are caused by people, and if so then which people and to what degree. The country is broken now because not enough people can agree on what bad things are.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - PhilHos - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 02:56 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I mean, the will of the voters was never a topic at hand, because the will of the voters would have made Hillary president.
Touche. Got me there.
(09-23-2020, 02:56 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: And wanting to remove someone and actually attempting to remove them are different things. People wanted Trump removed because of his obvious lack of ability to do the job, but they didn't impeach him until he demonstrated that lack of ability.
You know what I mean?
I do. I still think it wrong to want to remove someone from office simply because you don't like him or her.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - masonbengals fan - 09-23-2020
Nothing I can say will sway your opinion. Not that I'm trying to sway you into anything.
I edited /removed the 1st sentence of my post about pity party. No reason for me to write that childish line at all.
But I don't believe for a minute that the Dems are held to a higher standard than the Rep.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Belsnickel - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 02:57 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: You are just trolling now. No way you actually believe that.
They have repeatedly proven they will say or do anything to get back in power
& the Republicans would also.
It's actually a pretty common thing to see that Democratic voters tend to hold their people accountable more than Republicans do. Some of the talking heads discuss this being a big liability for the part on a regular basis. This is what he was getting at, I think. In general, Democratic politicians face both Republicans and their own voters holding them accountable whereas Republicans are given a pass by their voters more often.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Dill - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 12:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is definitely true. So, how do we change that? Me personally, I think if we could get the vast majority of media to be unbiased, or at the very least, to biased AGAINST those in power all the time, we might be able to start to get on the right track.
How is "the media" supposed to respond to the Trump actions referenced in #183 above? When MSM report what Trump is actually doing, the right wing media call them biased--especially if they say pardoning friends and punishing enemies is wrong or question the wisdom of slowing down the Post Office when states are about to use mail in ballots.
I frankly don't see why the MSM shouldn't be biased against abuses of power, and condemn them. That is the role of a free press in a liberal democracy.
But the right wing media says the only "bad things" occurring are media bias and Trump hate. Trump is not doing bad things at all. They cannot deny what Trump is doing in plain site. They just deny that it is bad, or bad enough to concern us. They shift from what Trump does to Dem motivation, making that the real issue. Dems hate Trump. THAT's why they complain when Trump launders a pay off to a porn star through his campaign or leaves his own intel agencies on their own to fight off Russian intervention in our election. The standards were there when Hillary was running for office. Suddenly they are gone.
In the news market of a capitalist society, we cannot get "the media" to be unbiased* if there is public demand for biased media. And that type of media creates and expands its own demand.
In my view, there needs to be a separate public discussion about the principles of government and standards of conduct we expect from those elected to office--but also the sort of conduct that should be expected from voters if the country is going to work. Integral to that should also be a discussion of the role of the free press--the history of the free press, especially the history of countries whose voters supported a popular leaders attack on the press. Perhaps a dose of critical media literacy would help as well.
*I normally don't use the term "bias," but I am using it here to signify media who uphold already existing journalistic standards.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - jj22 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:04 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I'm done. Nothing I can say will sway your opinion. Not that I'm trying to sway you into anything.
I edited /removed the 1st sentence of my post about pity party. No reason to write that childish line at all.
I didn't see any issue with your post. It highlights what I've been saying.
People calling for fairness and against the overt hypocrisy (bringing up stealing SCOTUS seats and highlighting the hypocrisy coming from those in charge) in this America are laughed at by those reaping the benefits and shouted down as throwing a pity party.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - jj22 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's actually a pretty common thing to see that Democratic voters tend to hold their people accountable more than Republicans do. Some of the talking heads discuss this being a big liability for the part on a regular basis. This is what he was getting at, I think. In general, Democratic politicians face both Republicans and their own voters holding them accountable whereas Republicans are given a pass by their voters more often.
This is why Biden will likely lose. Dems want a fight. A fighter that can go bang for bang against Trump. Get on his level and beat his a**.
The problem is Americans would never allow this and Biden knows it so he has to sit there and deny the idea of expanding SCOTUS seats, and all the other retaliation measures the Democratic base is calling for.
Dems just can't play these games and win and Biden knows it. The problem is Biden isn't going to get the base up and voting with his inability to give them what they want (a fight).
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - masonbengals fan - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's actually a pretty common thing to see that Democratic voters tend to hold their people accountable more than Republicans do. Some of the talking heads discuss this being a big liability for the part on a regular basis. This is what he was getting at, I think. In general, Democratic politicians face both Republicans and their own voters holding them accountable whereas Republicans are given a pass by their voters more often.
I think members of both parties turn a blind eye to the actions of their own leaders.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - jj22 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:12 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I think members of both parties turn a blind eye to the actions of their own leaders.
Take the sexual assault allegations for example. Dems are forced to step down, Republicans aren't.
The list goes on and on and have been discussed.
Now I do claim it's Americans but the truth is there is an argument that it's the issue of Dem supporters being the ones holding Democrats to higher standards. That is legit.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:12 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I think members of both parties turn a blind eye to the actions of their own leaders.
IDK, when Biden slurred a whole race the Libs required a "I shouldn't have been so caviler" apology before it was OK
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - masonbengals fan - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:07 PM)jj22 Wrote: I didn't see any issue with your post. It highlights what I've been saying.
People calling for fairness and against the overt hypocrisy (bringing up stealing SCOTUS seats and highlighting the hypocrisy coming from those in charge) in this America are laughed at by those reaping the benefits and shouted down as throwing a pity party.
I took issue with my own post. I'm not a child and therefore shouldn't post such things.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Belsnickel - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:12 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I think members of both parties turn a blind eye to the actions of their own leaders.
All I have to go on is anecdotal for this, but I'm going to see if anyone has done research on it. I'm genuinely curious and almost certain that there has been a journal article or research paper done on this topic.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Dill - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:12 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I think members of both parties turn a blind eye to the actions of their own leaders.
Al Franken says "No way!"
Or maybe there are actions and then there are "actions."
I don't see Dems turning a blind eye to Biden laundering hush money to a porn star through his campaign and using the DOJ to block investigations into his finances. I don't seem them turning a blind eye to rape accusations, nor to a "couldn't-have-because-she-was-too-ugly" defense.
I DEFINITELY don't see them turning a blind eye to Biden's actions if those include ignoring Russian intervention in our election or the recommendation of epidemiologists during a pandemic killing thousands of Americans, or comments about Mexican "rapists" and "shithole countries."
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - PhilHos - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:05 PM)Dill Wrote: When MSM report what Trump is actually doing, the right wing media call them biased--especially if they say pardoning friends and punishing enemies is wrong or question the wisdom of slowing down the Post Office when states are about to use mail in ballots.That's why I said the VAST MAJORITY. There should be no "right wing media", IMO. There should just be "the media" which should be unbiased and objective.
(09-23-2020, 03:05 PM)Dill Wrote: I frankly don't see why the MSM shouldn't be biased against abuses of power, and condemn them. That is the role of a free press in a liberal democracy.They should be. But when they defend one president from criticism (even legitimate criticism) while attacking the next president (and not always truthfully attacking) it's kind of hard to believe whatever they're reporting.
(09-23-2020, 03:05 PM)Dill Wrote: In the news market of a capitalist society, we cannot get "the media" to be unbiased* if there is public demand for biased media. And that type of media creates and expands its own demand.This is true. But, just because the public demands it doesn't make it right.
(09-23-2020, 03:05 PM)Dill Wrote: In my view, there needs to be a separate public discussion about the principles of government and standards of conduct we expect from those elected to office--but also the sort of conduct that should be expected from voters if the country is going to work. s.
I don't disagree, but be careful. This kind of talk generally gets one labelled as a racist. Just sayin'.
(09-23-2020, 03:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Integral to that should also be a discussion of the role of the free press--the history of the free press, especially the history of countries whose voters supported a popular leaders attack on the press. Perhaps a dose of critical media literacy would help as well.
I just feel like the media should NOT be the friend or defender of any politician. They don't necessarily need to be the criticizer but I'd take that over the biased nonsense we have nowadays. Think about how nice it would be to read a story about a presidential candidate and not have to check other sources to divine the truth of what's being reported.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Al Franken says "No way!"
Or maybe there are actions and then there are "actions."
I don't see Dems turning a blind eye to Biden laundering hush money to a porn star through his campaign and using the DOJ to block investigations into his finances. I don't seem them turning a blind eye to rape accusations, nor to a "couldn't-have-because-she-was-too-ugly" defense.
I DEFINITELY don't see them turning a blind eye to Biden's actions if those include ignoring Russian intervention in our election or the recommendation of epidemiologists during a pandemic killing thousands of Americans, or comments about Mexican "rapists" and "shithole countries."
Can you think of any difference between the Al Franken case and that other other recent accusations?
I mean other than him been a "held to a higher standard" Dem.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - PhilHos - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Al Franken says "No way!"
Or maybe there are actions and then there are "actions."
I don't see Dems turning a blind eye to Biden laundering hush money to a porn star through his campaign and using the DOJ to block investigations into his finances. I don't seem them turning a blind eye to rape accusations, nor to a "couldn't-have-because-she-was-too-ugly" defense.
I DEFINITELY don't see them turning a blind eye to Biden's actions if those include ignoring Russian intervention in our election or the recommendation of epidemiologists during a pandemic killing thousands of Americans, or comments about Mexican "rapists" and "shithole countries."
Just out of curiosity, what are Dems saying about the Hunter Biden allegations?
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - masonbengals fan - 09-23-2020
Remember when Al Franken was funny ?
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - jj22 - 09-23-2020
There's no need for Dems to comment on Hunter Biden since the Republican inquiry cleared him..
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/biden-inquiry-republicans-johnson.html
But him making 1 million should have been questioned. Too bad the Trump kids are allowed to make hundreds of millions off of their Dad's presidency to no backlash.