Since there's no way to know whether he was lying or not, what difference does it make?
Only a dozy cunt reveals their real name and personal details on JPP.
As you should know...
Biden calls for more 'economic intercourse' around the world
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
Since there's no way to know whether he was lying or not, what difference does it make?
Only a dozy cunt reveals their real name and personal details on JPP.
As you should know...
Again, for the mentally retarded left; no one uses a term "economic intercourse". It's moronic. #moron
Here's the problem:
We're losing this war against COVID because our nation neglected to prepare for contingencies. It's cut taxes so much that it can't pay the regular budget every year. This year was a $1T deficit, a record. Now, because of COVID-19, Trump and Congress are printing another $3T with more to come. This is insane and completely irresponsible way to run the nation.
Increase taxes to 1990s levels, balance the budget to have a plan to balance it in 5 years. Pass the balanced budget amendment with a requirement for money to be saved for contingencies such as natural disasters or war.
Because our national leaders failed in their duties for the past several years, the nation can't stay shut down without going broke and families financially ruined with no way or time to get it back. The nation needs to return to "Business as usual" even if it means losing 3M to 9M Americans to COVID-19. That's our only option in the present situation but the pain of this disaster can be used to force our government to change the way they do things in the future. Their failures are going to needlessly cost the lives of millions of Americans. American citizens should never forget what our government failed to do.
We, the People, should spend the next few elections correcting that problem.
Should he have said "Covfefe"? "unpresidented act"? "Honered to serve"?
It's not Legion's mind that is in the gutter. It's the sexual predator, senile old Uncle Joe, whose mind is in the gutter...and yours, Snowflake.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
But when you say you're "pretty good at reading between the lines", what you're really saying is that you're pretty good at purposely misinterpreting things to fit your biased, preconceived notions.
BFD.
We already knew that.
Read between these lines....
Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up
"Three years ago, the #MeToo movement was everywhere, with powerful men facing public reckonings seemingly on a weekly basis. Two years ago, when Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, wall-to-wall media coverage kept the allegations in the headlines for nearly a month. With the media showing little interest in the assault allegation against Joe Biden, has #MeToo’s media moment ended? Or are other forces at work?
The data provide some insights. The aftermath of Donald Trump’s election saw the birth of both the Women’s March and #MeToo as a rallying cry against male sexual harassment and assault. Despite considerable initial enthusiasm, the Women’s March has dropped off the media radar, all but disappearing by February 2019. Since November 2016, Fox News has mentioned it 1,108 times, MSNBC 1,028 times and CNN just 612 times.
Similarly, the #MeToo movement received steady media coverage from its October 2017 emergence through November 2018, but has largely vanished from CNN and MSNBC since then. Fox News continued to cover it through June 2019 and to date has mentioned it 762 times to MSNBC’s 423 and CNN’s 310, with Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle” and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” together accounting for nearly 13% of all mentions across the three channels.
In September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh captivated the media’s attention, with CNN mentioning her name 1,898 times, MSNBC 1,878 times and Fox News just 1,066 times.
In contrast, over the past month, mentions of Tara Reade’s name on cable news have been almost nonexistent. Fox News has mentioned her 57 times to CNN’s nine times, while MSNBC has mentioned her name just once the past month. Google searches for Reade’s name are just a tenth of those for Blasey Ford’s. Broadening the search to any mention of “allegations” against Biden still yields just 158 mentions on Fox, 15 on CNN and 10 on MSNBC.
Similarly, online news coverage has mentioned Reade’s allegations less than 1% as often as it did Blasey Ford’s claims.
It isn’t just the TV news media that have covered the allegations so differently. A closer look at Biden’s and Kavanaugh’s Wikipedia pages and the discussion on the “Talk” pages for their entries (where contributors and editors discuss disagreements about what should be included in an article) shows their differing treatments.
Wikipedia has emerged over the past decade or more as a go-to source of “truth,” with search engines and social media platforms directing users to its entries for authoritative information on any given subject. Yet beneath its veneer of community consensus lie editorial decisions about what narratives should be told.
Take the Wikipedia entry for Brett Kavanaugh. Nearly a third of the total text in the opening summary of his article details the allegations against him and a large portion of the entry about his confirmation hearings focuses on those allegations. Discussions on the “Talk” page for his entry emphasize precedent for prominently mentioning such allegations, while discussions at the time of his confirmation largely revolved around wording choices and citations rather than whether the allegations should be included at all.
In contrast, Joe Biden’s Wikipedia entry includes only a single mention of the Tara Reade allegations near the bottom of his entry, with three sentences describing the allegations and three sentences denying them, one from the Biden campaign and two from a New York Times article. Discussion on the entry’s “Talk” page emphasizes whether the allegations should be mentioned at all and whether they should be seen as credible.
In the end, the media’s near-total silence on the allegations against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stands in stark contrast to the wall-to-wall coverage given to such claims against Kavanaugh. As #MeToo fades from the media landscape and the voices that loudly supported it for three years fall silent, it remains to be seen if the movement has simply fizzled out, or if political leanings underpin the distinction."
realclearpolitics,com
"Three years ago, the #MeToo movement was everywhere, with powerful men facing public reckonings seemingly on a weekly basis. Two years ago, when Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, wall-to-wall media coverage kept the allegations in the headlines for nearly a month. With the media showing little interest in the assault allegation against Joe Biden, has #MeToo’s media moment ended? Or are other forces at work?
The data provide some insights. The aftermath of Donald Trump’s election saw the birth of both the Women’s March and #MeToo as a rallying cry against male sexual harassment and assault. Despite considerable initial enthusiasm, the Women’s March has dropped off the media radar, all but disappearing by February 2019. Since November 2016, Fox News has mentioned it 1,108 times, MSNBC 1,028 times and CNN just 612 times.
Similarly, the #MeToo movement received steady media coverage from its October 2017 emergence through November 2018, but has largely vanished from CNN and MSNBC since then. Fox News continued to cover it through June 2019 and to date has mentioned it 762 times to MSNBC’s 423 and CNN’s 310, with Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle” and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” together accounting for nearly 13% of all mentions across the three channels.
In September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh captivated the media’s attention, with CNN mentioning her name 1,898 times, MSNBC 1,878 times and Fox News just 1,066 times.
In contrast, over the past month, mentions of Tara Reade’s name on cable news have been almost nonexistent. Fox News has mentioned her 57 times to CNN’s nine times, while MSNBC has mentioned her name just once the past month. Google searches for Reade’s name are just a tenth of those for Blasey Ford’s. Broadening the search to any mention of “allegations” against Biden still yields just 158 mentions on Fox, 15 on CNN and 10 on MSNBC.
Similarly, online news coverage has mentioned Reade’s allegations less than 1% as often as it did Blasey Ford’s claims.
It isn’t just the TV news media that have covered the allegations so differently. A closer look at Biden’s and Kavanaugh’s Wikipedia pages and the discussion on the “Talk” pages for their entries (where contributors and editors discuss disagreements about what should be included in an article) shows their differing treatments.
Wikipedia has emerged over the past decade or more as a go-to source of “truth,” with search engines and social media platforms directing users to its entries for authoritative information on any given subject. Yet beneath its veneer of community consensus lie editorial decisions about what narratives should be told.
Take the Wikipedia entry for Brett Kavanaugh. Nearly a third of the total text in the opening summary of his article details the allegations against him and a large portion of the entry about his confirmation hearings focuses on those allegations. Discussions on the “Talk” page for his entry emphasize precedent for prominently mentioning such allegations, while discussions at the time of his confirmation largely revolved around wording choices and citations rather than whether the allegations should be included at all.
In contrast, Joe Biden’s Wikipedia entry includes only a single mention of the Tara Reade allegations near the bottom of his entry, with three sentences describing the allegations and three sentences denying them, one from the Biden campaign and two from a New York Times article. Discussion on the entry’s “Talk” page emphasizes whether the allegations should be mentioned at all and whether they should be seen as credible.
In the end, the media’s near-total silence on the allegations against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stands in stark contrast to the wall-to-wall coverage given to such claims against Kavanaugh. As #MeToo fades from the media landscape and the voices that loudly supported it for three years fall silent, it remains to be seen if the movement has simply fizzled out, or if political leanings underpin the distinction."
realclearpolitics,com
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Why don't you just go meet him at the usual motel you two hook up at.
You're obviously in some kind of heat for him.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up
TL/DR
Indeed.
we are not going to willingly lose 3+million to Covid
Congress is not going to vote to limit it's spending authority
Says the ignorant, amateur, armchair policy "expert". #STFU moron
Bad looking dude...needs a bath and a shave.
Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up
"Three years ago, the #MeToo movement was everywhere, with powerful men facing public reckonings seemingly on a weekly basis. Two years ago, when Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, wall-to-wall media coverage kept the allegations in the headlines for nearly a month. With the media showing little interest in the assault allegation against Joe Biden, has #MeToo’s media moment ended? Or are other forces at work?
The data provide some insights. The aftermath of Donald Trump’s election saw the birth of both the Women’s March and #MeToo as a rallying cry against male sexual harassment and assault. Despite considerable initial enthusiasm, the Women’s March has dropped off the media radar, all but disappearing by February 2019. Since November 2016, Fox News has mentioned it 1,108 times, MSNBC 1,028 times and CNN just 612 times.
Similarly, the #MeToo movement received steady media coverage from its October 2017 emergence through November 2018, but has largely vanished from CNN and MSNBC since then. Fox News continued to cover it through June 2019 and to date has mentioned it 762 times to MSNBC’s 423 and CNN’s 310, with Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle” and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” together accounting for nearly 13% of all mentions across the three channels.
In September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh captivated the media’s attention, with CNN mentioning her name 1,898 times, MSNBC 1,878 times and Fox News just 1,066 times.
In contrast, over the past month, mentions of Tara Reade’s name on cable news have been almost nonexistent. Fox News has mentioned her 57 times to CNN’s nine times, while MSNBC has mentioned her name just once the past month. Google searches for Reade’s name are just a tenth of those for Blasey Ford’s. Broadening the search to any mention of “allegations” against Biden still yields just 158 mentions on Fox, 15 on CNN and 10 on MSNBC.
Similarly, online news coverage has mentioned Reade’s allegations less than 1% as often as it did Blasey Ford’s claims.
It isn’t just the TV news media that have covered the allegations so differently. A closer look at Biden’s and Kavanaugh’s Wikipedia pages and the discussion on the “Talk” pages for their entries (where contributors and editors discuss disagreements about what should be included in an article) shows their differing treatments.
Wikipedia has emerged over the past decade or more as a go-to source of “truth,” with search engines and social media platforms directing users to its entries for authoritative information on any given subject. Yet beneath its veneer of community consensus lie editorial decisions about what narratives should be told.
Take the Wikipedia entry for Brett Kavanaugh. Nearly a third of the total text in the opening summary of his article details the allegations against him and a large portion of the entry about his confirmation hearings focuses on those allegations. Discussions on the “Talk” page for his entry emphasize precedent for prominently mentioning such allegations, while discussions at the time of his confirmation largely revolved around wording choices and citations rather than whether the allegations should be included at all.
In contrast, Joe Biden’s Wikipedia entry includes only a single mention of the Tara Reade allegations near the bottom of his entry, with three sentences describing the allegations and three sentences denying them, one from the Biden campaign and two from a New York Times article. Discussion on the entry’s “Talk” page emphasizes whether the allegations should be mentioned at all and whether they should be seen as credible.
In the end, the media’s near-total silence on the allegations against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stands in stark contrast to the wall-to-wall coverage given to such claims against Kavanaugh. As #MeToo fades from the media landscape and the voices that loudly supported it for three years fall silent, it remains to be seen if the movement has simply fizzled out, or if political leanings underpin the distinction."
realclearpolitics,com
"Three years ago, the #MeToo movement was everywhere, with powerful men facing public reckonings seemingly on a weekly basis. Two years ago, when Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, wall-to-wall media coverage kept the allegations in the headlines for nearly a month. With the media showing little interest in the assault allegation against Joe Biden, has #MeToo’s media moment ended? Or are other forces at work?
The data provide some insights. The aftermath of Donald Trump’s election saw the birth of both the Women’s March and #MeToo as a rallying cry against male sexual harassment and assault. Despite considerable initial enthusiasm, the Women’s March has dropped off the media radar, all but disappearing by February 2019. Since November 2016, Fox News has mentioned it 1,108 times, MSNBC 1,028 times and CNN just 612 times.
Similarly, the #MeToo movement received steady media coverage from its October 2017 emergence through November 2018, but has largely vanished from CNN and MSNBC since then. Fox News continued to cover it through June 2019 and to date has mentioned it 762 times to MSNBC’s 423 and CNN’s 310, with Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle” and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” together accounting for nearly 13% of all mentions across the three channels.
In September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh captivated the media’s attention, with CNN mentioning her name 1,898 times, MSNBC 1,878 times and Fox News just 1,066 times.
In contrast, over the past month, mentions of Tara Reade’s name on cable news have been almost nonexistent. Fox News has mentioned her 57 times to CNN’s nine times, while MSNBC has mentioned her name just once the past month. Google searches for Reade’s name are just a tenth of those for Blasey Ford’s. Broadening the search to any mention of “allegations” against Biden still yields just 158 mentions on Fox, 15 on CNN and 10 on MSNBC.
Similarly, online news coverage has mentioned Reade’s allegations less than 1% as often as it did Blasey Ford’s claims.
It isn’t just the TV news media that have covered the allegations so differently. A closer look at Biden’s and Kavanaugh’s Wikipedia pages and the discussion on the “Talk” pages for their entries (where contributors and editors discuss disagreements about what should be included in an article) shows their differing treatments.
Wikipedia has emerged over the past decade or more as a go-to source of “truth,” with search engines and social media platforms directing users to its entries for authoritative information on any given subject. Yet beneath its veneer of community consensus lie editorial decisions about what narratives should be told.
Take the Wikipedia entry for Brett Kavanaugh. Nearly a third of the total text in the opening summary of his article details the allegations against him and a large portion of the entry about his confirmation hearings focuses on those allegations. Discussions on the “Talk” page for his entry emphasize precedent for prominently mentioning such allegations, while discussions at the time of his confirmation largely revolved around wording choices and citations rather than whether the allegations should be included at all.
In contrast, Joe Biden’s Wikipedia entry includes only a single mention of the Tara Reade allegations near the bottom of his entry, with three sentences describing the allegations and three sentences denying them, one from the Biden campaign and two from a New York Times article. Discussion on the entry’s “Talk” page emphasizes whether the allegations should be mentioned at all and whether they should be seen as credible.
In the end, the media’s near-total silence on the allegations against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee stands in stark contrast to the wall-to-wall coverage given to such claims against Kavanaugh. As #MeToo fades from the media landscape and the voices that loudly supported it for three years fall silent, it remains to be seen if the movement has simply fizzled out, or if political leanings underpin the distinction."
realclearpolitics,com
Still bloviating that asinine lie. It appears you are stuck on asshole.
Most people know you are insane and, therefore, are not responsible for your actions or your grip on reality just like most people know that Trump and Congress signed a budget with a $1T deficit and now have just tacked on an additional $2.8T debt. The US national debt is well over the national GDP. Our nation is spending money it doesn't have.
I do not expect you to understand this, TD, due to your mental condition, but I expect most intelligent and sane Americans recognize the problem for what it is.
Time will tell. Regardless if the losses are 10%, 3% or 1%, the country can't stay shut down. We, the People, are going to have to bite the bullet, take our losses and move forward.
Have you done the math on 58,000 dead vs 1M cases?
Agreed on Congress albeit "voluntarily". Americans need to scream at Congress en masse in order to force Congress to change.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
I know. You only care about rape accusations when it's someone without the Magic R. You're even ascribing Trump's quotes to Biden in order to shift the focus.
Please dont bring Vietnam war into this it's specious.
I was front line anti-war protestor. that meatgrinder war was a war of choice -this is not
Liars always lie. I never take his word for anything.