Senate The US Politics discussion

And what is your source indicating that Obama did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terror?

I found this and looks like a silly issue to go after Snopes for, if indeed Snopes did say "act of terror".

"Act of terror" vs "act of terrorism" and I'm supposed to disbelief Snopes now?

ETA:

This and this are all I found on Snopes at all about Benghazi.

 

Great article here from Forbes--which is not exactly Huffington Post as far as the politics of its opinion pieces--about the claims about "media bias against Trump."

Trump is getting killed in the media but not because of bias

 

You're right, I don't believe you, because you haven't provided evidence that Obama "waffled due to the crowd" or any of the other claims you've made.

Calling it "terrorism" instead of "terrorist" is not a gaffe, it's three letters.

The media has talked plenty about the travel ban, and you are in no position to speak for "most of us." And no, "Trump won the election" is not an argument that you are in a position to speak for "most of us."

If the media is talking about innocent people getting stuck in airports due to the travel ban, the media is doing its job.

If the media is talking about demanding people's phone passwords (and NO ONE gets mine, not even family members) and asking travelers' political views at the border...the media is doing its job.

The media also reports on people who get caught in midair with bombs in their shoes. There is no reason why it should stay silent on the negative consequences of the travel ban just because some of you like the travel ban.

 

Because Obama, of course.

 

Is there anyone with professional legal expertise here who can state the consequences of Flynn taking the Fifth?

 

obviously photoshopped by the lib'ral german maydia

 

J-Rod Two questions will tell me what I need to know. Do you believe in Evolution or Creationism? And how old is the earth?

 

Very few people are doubting that Clinton ****ed up regarding her overall campaign and her outreach to working class voters in the American heartland. Blaming the press for that is ridiculous though. Blame the Clinton campaign.

I'm pretty sure I posted this before: in 2008 I campaigned for Obama in both the general and in the primary against Clinton, and I was appalled at that time by her refusal to even acknowledge states that would not give her a big win in the Electoral College. In our campaign we were working on outreach everywhere, and we were working on margins--if we were winning by a slim margin, we wanted to make that margin wider.

And the Clinton campaign ignoring states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania simply because Obama won them in the general was idiotic.

The "basket of deplorables" was Clinton's comment, and why anyone who is not racist, sexist or homophobic took that personally is beyond me. I don't know if half of Trump supporters belong in that category, that was her percentage and the number is irrevelant to me, I call out racism, sexism and homophobia on an individual basis. And there are easy ways to avoid it: don't stereotype people by their gender, ethnic group, native language, nationality or sexual orientation.

If a press commentator in an opinion piece or editorial is condemning or calling out racism, sexism, homophobia and ethnocentrism...there is no reason for a press commentator to stay silent because someone might be uncomfortable with the idea that it is no longer socially acceptable to stereotype people.

 

You *literally* have no idea how wrong you are about this.

 

Thank you.

 

Simple definition:

If you negatively (or even positively) stereotype a group of people by race, you are racist.

If you stereotype women by their gender or try to pigeonhole them, you are sexist.

If you stereotype people by their sexual orientation or insist that same-sex couples should be treated differently in any way than heterosexual couples, you are homophobic.

If you stereotype people by nationality or insist that your specific nationality is the best, not at some things, but at everything, you are xenophobic.

None of this is complicated, and yes, I become suspicious of people who try to "b...bu...but" their way around these very straightforward definitions. There is no "b...bu...but." It is not difficult to form a viewpoint of people based on personality and interactions rather than ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

MrMojoRisin, a majority disagreement, even harsh disagreement, with social conservative viewpoints is not a lack of tolerance.

If your definition of "tolerance" is a nod and a smile and "I find your opinion perfectly valid and just another belief system," then yeah, you might find a "lack of tolerance" here.

But that's not what tolerance is, and Merk is 100 percent correct.