jakee

Is she just an idiot or on the payroll?

Does that mean he can’t be a state rep anymore either?

Which ones would be left?

Brilliant story from the UK this morning of an MP embezzling campaign funds to pay off ‘some bad people’. Story goes: MP meets man on dating app, goes to man’s flat for a party. MP meets second man at party, moves on to his flat. MP is seen coming a mile off by man’s flat mates, who accuse him of throwing up all over the place and hold him captive until he pays them £6.5k for the ‘damage’. MP doesn’t have the money, and decides that getting his campaign manager to steal it from the office would be a much better solution than calling the police. Genius. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/17/tory-mp-loses-whip-after-claims-he-used-party-funds-to-pay-bad-people

That is categorically a lie. You said it, and have been defending it ever since. Also he is an editor at NPR and all 88 editors at NPR are Democrats Dude - I just told you that was the point you could have been making this whole time instead of refusing to back down from the thing you obviously got wrong. You were so hell bent on defending your corner that you failed to wrap your brain around the implication of your numbers. Problem is, it just goes straight back to the point I made earlier - your own source says that it was Donald Trump who changed everything. Since 2016, how many conservatives would want to work for an organisation that would ask them to cover Trump in an unbiased manner? Unfortunately there appear to be very few around, they'd all rather win the White House than save their party.

You have said you understand that people exist who are neither registered republicans nor registered democrats... yet you still insist that the sum of all people must equal republicans plus democrats only.

If english is your first language then what's your excuse? You keep posting the same statement over and over again as if it will suddenly become convincing through sheer weight of numbers. It says there are 87 democrats. It says there are 0 republicans. It doesn't say there are 0 independents. It doesn't say there are 87 editorial staff and they are all democrats. The funny thing is I don't know what it gains you to die on this hill. You could easily say you simply misread it but still, 87 to zero is pretty damn bad anyway. But you can't do that, you can't give an inch no matter what. Although I suppose it is still a good distraction so you won't have to talk about NPRs lack of coverage of Trump White House corruption and influence peddling.

No, that's what I said last time you simply made something up that wasn't in your source. Remember you were saying Uri's letter stated that NPR called the Hunter laptop a Russian hoax? That was a lie. Yes, there are 87 registered Democrats. Where does it say there are a total of 87 editors?

I think there both a mischaracterisation and overstatement going on there. British intelligence also got predictions of Russian invasion spot on and were publicising them beforehand, and I'd be surprised if many other Russia experts in other western agencies didn't have the same conclusions. The problem is, what did it matter? The British government appeared to simply refuse to believe it was true, and the US government seemed to think that "we know what you're doing" and a few token extra arms deliveries would be enough to deter Putin from following through. If the purpose of an intelligence agency is simply to know what's happening, then ok, great. But without being able to convince the decision makers of anything, what's the point? The other thing that US and other intel agency's did get wrong was drastic underestimation of Zelensky and Ukraine's will and ability to resist, which really, really slowed down the level of support in the early days. I'm pretty sure there was a general feeling that any really expensive high tech weaponry given to Ukraine was simply going to get captured by the Russians when Kyiv was overrun. The ramifications of those delays are huge.

No you haven't, you're just lying again. It's pretty obvious, if you think about it for a moment. Given that independents exist, why do you think the total number of people involved must be the number of Democrats plus the number of Republicans?

There are some fairly major events in the last twenty some years that have made the US less eager to spark new middle eastern conflicts.

Then answer. Where did you read that every member of editorial staff was a registered Democrat? Is everyone in DC either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican?

Why did you make the claim when you don't want to answer?

The claim from your source is that there are 87 registered democrats on the editorial staff. Your claim is that this is all of the editorial staff. How do you know?

Do you have anything to support your claim that there are 87? Is everyone lives in DC either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican?

How many editorial staff are there?

How could I miss it when that's the first time you've posted it? That's fine, it's all you had to show. Instead you made claims about every single NPR editor being a Democrat that you refused to back up. Anyway, back to the bias of NPR and how much they covered the actual corruption, nepotism and influence peddling that went on in the White House... under Trump.

Exactly - the entirety of your evidence for your adamant claim that NPR covered up the laptop story by calling it a Russia hoax was a book review, which did not mention Russia, which they corrected within 24h of publication to remove any reference to misinformation. What the heck do you think that proves? Now there is another claim, which as far as I can tell you have completely made up, that you refuse to provide a single source for despite claiming that sources for it are everywhere. If you are right you could have proved it in less time than it took you to write your rambling PA. The fact that you did that instead strongly suggests that you are not correct and cannot find any sources. Since you're doing all of that to avoid answering the question of whether you think NPR gave sufficient coverage to nepotism, corruption and influence peddling that really occured in the White House - that involving the Trump/Kushner family - shows how deep your own Trump Derangement Syndrome goes.

Careful now. Sounds like you’re just trying to tear the guy down without committing to any opinion of your own. That would be bad, wouldn’t it?

This is the party of DeSantis - a man who introduced a tax incentive to persuade people to buy gas stoves… because they are more dangerous than the alternative.

Because it’s so perfect for you. When you’re so desperate to criticise that you have to claim to own words in order to do so you have to admit there’s something wrong, don’t you? How often do you think anyone is confused about where I stand on an issue? Whereas have you made a single on topic post in this thread? Do you have any point to make or are you just indulging your desire to rip into people? If only you meant it.

Who claimed it? Give one example of it being reported. I don’t know what the guys voting record is, he didn’t say. You claim to know what it is, and so far have only offered as evidence something he didn’t say. So you do need to provide some evidence that what you’re saying is actually true. But again, good work on distracting from the issues you said you wanted to talk about. How much coverage did NPR give to Jared and Ivanka’s corruption and influence peddling inside the White House? Anywhere near the amount the rest of the media ecosystem have to Hunter?

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of context would say it means his background - because that's all he mentioned. I'm not sure why you think he would suddenly start talking in code to describe his voting habits. Who says all editors at NPR are Democrats?

A similar thing is happening here, after privatisation. Royal Mail was privatised, with the company getting all the regulatory advantages and privileges that the state owned entity had - and in return having the mandatory responsibility for maintaining next day, every day letter deliveries anywhere in the country. What they did instead was split off the profitable services like parcel deliveries and data sales from the letter service, fail to invest in it and allow standards to fall below the mandatory levels, then complain it'd be far too expensive for them to be expected to rebuild an unprofitable service so can't they just scrap the one thing that was the whole point of Royal Mail being a public service in the first place and just keep the profitable stuff that any other private delivery company can do?

Then why can't you let go? What is it about you that means you just have to keep picking?