Azalin

I prefer to look at it as giving Booker the ability to be two different losers at the same time.

Yep. I do believe I just became a purple.

I've always considered them to be disabled journalists.

I should have guessed that Project Veritas was behind that video. I didn't realize that they were infiltrating campaign staffs.

So, this footage was recorded by a Beto insider? A plant? It would seem to me that this would have to come either from a trusted insider who had their recordings (there is obviously several conversations edited together on that video) hacked or stolen, or a spy. If it was the latter, then I would imagine that their cover is blown big time. Or am I missing something? Yes. When foreign border-jumping asylum seekers try bringing the wrath of the US Constitution onto our president, then they have indeed lost their motherf$#&ing minds.

I've seen you arguing for this before, and I doubt I have any new perspective to offer that might change your mind, except maybe that there are so many in the federal government with whom the biased media are in lockstep with that I wouldn't ever trust the feds to take a truly non-biased position in regulating internet content.

I see your point but I'd have to know more about the specifics before I could say how I'd feel. I would rather err on the side of allowing such companies to do as they see fit than allow the government that kind of regulatory control.

Should we regulate the ***** out of newspapers, web outlets, or TV news for their biased tendencies? Should we fine them as well? Do you really want to open the Pandora's box of handing control of the internet to the feds?

That seems more like a general reminder to the public that she was removed from the program, not so much like they're actually interviewing her. It's almost as if they want to remind everyone that she might have been passed over based on race.

You beat me to it.

Yikes, he looks hideous. Is that a recent photo? Or is that too soon?

Yep. Petty, but typical.

Because when there's no validity to your point, all you can do is repeat it over and over until it becomes a mantra.

While I've never cared for Hannity, it's very telling to me that you would positively compare Stewart to the likes of Shapiro. Thanks for indulging me.

Perhaps I could have been a bit more specific, because I was focusing more on the word "hacks" than I was "partisan". For what it's worth, Libertarians are by definition partisans, as are Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc. Also, there's a lot of overlap in philosophy between Republicans and Libertarians, especially with regard to personal responsibility, individual liberty, and fiscal conservatism. Of course, those are generalizations, but they do exist. I'm just trying to get a better read before I decide if you're simply dismissing all conservatives as "hacks", or if there are any heavy-hitters among conservative Americans who you actually respect.

Do you believe that there are any active, partisan pundits or speakers that aren't simply partisan hacks? If so, could you name any?

Really? Mozart? You?! I never would have thought you had it in you. I'm impressed! A personal favorite of mine: Anyone remember WZIR, Gary Storm, and Oil Of Dog?

No, the party establishment was against him because he wasn't one of them. Do you really believe that if any of the other republicans had won against Hillary (which they almost assuredly would not have) that they would be doing the same as Trump? He defies convention at every turn. He hasn't won over the 'never Trump' republicans, they just know to shut the hell up because the voters prefer what Trump is selling to the standard GOP (or democrat for that matter) fare. I personally think you'll have to stretch it to paint Trump as a typical party-line republican in any area except for tax cuts and judicial appointments, but I'm willing to stand corrected.

I couldn't disagree more. In my view, the only thing Trump has in common with your standard run of the mill, 20th/21st century republican presidential candidates is party affiliation. The entire party was aligned against him from the very beginning, and he picked off an entire field of viable candidates one at a time. McCain was a maverick?! No, Trump is the maverick. I remember well your original arguments against Trump, and I give you, LA, and others credit for being intellectually honest and walking your opinions back. Many of us have done so, but not a lot of people will admit a change of heart. Cheers!

I was going to say something like 'totally agree, who could possibly disagree with that?' but then I kept reading.....

I was just going to suggest that - have someone record you calling him an idiot.

My first thought upon seeing this photo was that it's too bad you don't see more people with her, but then remembered that there is a massive segment of the population - latino, black, white, and asian - that support Trump and are opposed to the democrats' agenda. There are even plenty of democrats, or former democrats who feel the same way. It's just that anyone who openly supports Trump or the republicans opens themselves up to a world of crap from modern leftists. It's ridiculous - I've never seen the left so out of control, so purely emotional, so full of vitriol, spite, and sheer hatred. Not a single person I know who opposes Trump is willing to discuss anything about it - neither family or friends, coworkers, whatever. I'm not going to make any predictions on the midterms, other than to say that I have no reason to believe the polls are going to be any more accurate this time around as they were in 2016. If the democrats fail to take the house or the senate, the screaming helplessly at the sky will be as deafening as it will be amusing. If Trump wins a 2nd term, the left will be completely out of control. Severely marginalized, but totally out of control.