Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[boost]

[BananaStand]

I wasn't even using the word rapist in direct description of BK.
You are.

What? Where?

You mean when I said "barely attempted rape"

That was me paraphrasing Dr Ford's description.

try to keep up

[Poopadoop]

Fine, it's complete bullshit I made up. I'll admit that even though I don't believe it. I'm not interested in being 13-0 if I'm going to be 12-1 if we just move this shit along.

#1 is a boldface partisan lie being spread by racist lizard people who want use eminent domain to conquer women's wombs.

What's your take on #2?

Great. And I'll admit #2 is wholly pertinent or something, even though I didn't read it and am about 99% sure it's uninterpretable as well.

Wanna hear what I think of 3-13 now?

[Poopadoop]

Ruh Roh!

[BananaStand]

Wanna hear what I think of 3-13 now?

Desperately.

[BananaStand]

Ruh Roh!

LOL, she sure has a lot of shit-talk about BK, but when it comes to specific incidents of impropriety, BK was just "around"....maybe

Even if she's being 100% truthful, there's nothing action-able in her story at all. It's just another sketchy delay tactic

[Poopadoop]

They're not done.

[BananaStand]

They're not done.

Who's not done?

Stop filtering your news through CNN. Go and READ her sworn affidavit. Exactly which passage do you believe credibly spells trouble for BK.

Notice no democrats are saying "ZOMG, this guy could be a gang-rapist!"

no, they're just saying "We need to delay, we need more time, let's get the FBI involved......"

It's so blatantly transparent that I seriously worry about the mental well-being of anyone who thinks the democrats are doing anything sensible.

[boost]

[BananaStand]

The point I think @boost is trying to make is that there are ways to de-rail a court nomination without destroying someone's life

[Poopadoop]

Who's not done?

Stop filtering your news through CNN. Go and READ her sworn affidavit. Exactly which passage do you believe credibly spells trouble for BK.

Notice no democrats are saying "ZOMG, this guy could be a gang-rapist!"

no, they're just saying "We need to delay, we need more time, let's get the FBI involved......"

It's so blatantly transparent that I seriously worry about the mental well-being of anyone who thinks the democrats are doing anything sensible.

I guess you missed the news that Avenatti has basically accused Kavanaugh and his blackout drunk friend Judge of running a rapey knockout drug sex ring in college. It's not explicit in that video I linked and obviously it's not getting airtime on Fox, so it's understandable it's gone by you.

That's what 'they're not done' means.

[Poopadoop]

The point I think @boost is trying to make is that there are ways to de-rail a court nomination without destroying someone's life

I think the point is more like what goes around comes around.

[Poopadoop]

Interesting that Kavanaugh presented himself as an altar boy in his Fox interview. He's really given an implausible denial there. Pretty sure everyone knows by now he was a prep school and frat boy pisstank.

Hope it doesn't bite him in the ass.

[BananaStand]

I guess you missed the news...... it's not getting airtime on Fox, so it's understandable it's gone by you.

See post #1348....nothing got by me.

And again, I'm challenging you to not get your news filtered through CNN, and go directly to the source. Her lawyer has posted her sworn affidavit. HER OWN WORDS. Not CNN's, not Fox's.

I'm asking you exactly which passage in that document implicates Kavanaugh in any specific act? What accusation has she leveled that would rise to the point of delaying confirmation pending FBI inquiry?

Also, don't you think it's kinda weird that her lawyer is posting huge glossy photos of her with tweets that say "please don't send death threats". Is someone begging for attention or what?

[BananaStand]

I think the point is more like what goes around comes around.

The repubs only squashed Garland because the Dems gave them the idea in 1992. So if anything, the score was even, and now it's the Dems who are the aggressors.

But yeah, there's no doubt that some Dem senators are still miffed about that. The repubs should have just voted Garland down. I wont argue that they weren't obstructionist ass holes back then. But at least they had some decency about it.

[Poopadoop]

tucker confused.jpg

What part of 'they're not done' and 'there's other allegations forthcoming and I'm explaining what they are here' do you think relates to what is in that sworn affidavit?

[BananaStand]

What part of 'they're not done' and 'there's other allegations forthcoming and I'm explaining what they are here' do you think relates to what is in that sworn affidavit?

They are done. The allegations promised are no longer forthcoming...they're here. I know what they are. I linked to them in post #1348, hours before you heard a peep about gang rape. The "allegations" (if you can call them that) are IN THE AFFIDAVIT. I don't need them explained to me. Definitely not by you.

I'll repeat the question:

I'm asking you exactly which passage in [her affidavit] implicates Kavanaugh in any specific act? What accusation has she leveled that would rise to the point of delaying confirmation pending FBI inquiry?

[BananaStand]

Apparently Kavanaugh kept his calendars from 1982.

He has one week blocked off for something called "Beach Week". Then the following sunday he wrote "Come back from beach".....just in case he forgets to go home or something (??)

A guy that conscientious almost certainly would have scheduled "rape party", had such a thing ever been planned

[boost]

The point I think @boost is trying to make is that there are ways to de-rail a court nomination without destroying someone's life

[BananaStand]

Do you have a picture of Garland being falsely accused of sexual assault and organized gang rape?

I must have missed that one....

[boost]

Do you have a picture of Garland being falsely accused of sexual assault and organized gang rape?

I must have missed that one....

Not gonna dive in with you, but your interchangeable use of "falsely accussed" and "accused with, in my opinion, inadequate supporting evidence" is a neat trick.

Oh, and notice how there were no rape and rape adjacent accusations tossed at Gorsuch? What gives, Nancy and Chuck hadn't got around to writing that part of the play book yet?

edit: damnit, I kinda dived in, didn't I?

[BananaStand]

Not gonna dive in with you, but your interchangeable use of "falsely accussed" and "accused with, in my opinion, inadequate supporting evidence" is a neat trick.

I think at this point "false" is an apt term. You certainly can't use "true"

if you don't want to use "false" then you have to believe that it's possible there was a woman who was at a party where she saw people being drugged and raped.....and then voluntarily went to at least nine more parties with the same people.

does that make a lick of sense to anyone here?

Oh, and notice how there were no rape and rape adjacent accusations tossed at Gorsuch? What gives, Nancy and Chuck hadn't got around to writing that part of the play book yet?

LOL, you're obviously not familiar with the play book. Here's how it works....

Dems say "Believe all women", then mumble under their breath "as long as their story supports our agenda"

[Poopadoop]

Hamster-Wheel-Skull-X-Ray-T-Shirt-Tee.jpg

[BananaStand]

.

[Poopadoop]

Life is like a box of speculation and jumping to conclusions.

[BananaStand]

Life is like a box of speculation and jumping to conclusions.

Yeah, speculation, like maybe there is such a thing as a guy who coordinated gang rape from ages 17-20, and then lived the next 35 years beyond reproach as an honorable public servant.

[BananaStand]

You can't cuck the Tuck

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, speculation, like maybe there is such a thing as a guy who coordinated gang rape from ages 17-20, and then lived the next 35 years beyond reproach as an honorable public servant.

Ya, like because only 3 have come forward so far, they're all lying and there's not more out there. Pretty sure that was Bill Cosby's defense.

[Poopadoop]

You can't cuck the Tuck

ORLY?

[BananaStand]

ORLY?

Short memory huh? Do you even remember 2004?

Tuck's point is "Hey Jon, you spend 30 minutes a show giving sincere impassioned monologues about how dumb and evil Bush is, then you have an actual presidential candidate on your show and you spend the whole interview licking his balls"

And Stewart, predictably, as he's done every other time he's challenged, claims "naaah, I'm just jokin' around". Then at 12:39 he says "and shows like this are too easy on politicians"

What exactly did you see in that clip?

[BananaStand]

3 have come forward so far, they're all lying and there's not more out there.

I don't think the first one is lying, I just think she's stupendously mistaken.

The second one is lying

And the third woman didn't make any actual allegations. but she is also most definitely lying.

I mean...cmon now. Avenatti truly thought that he and Stormy were gonna take down Trump. They thought that telling people things about Trump that they could have guessed anyway....makes them heroes or something. This latest stunt just sour grapes from the creepy porn lawyer.

[CoccoBill]

And Stewart, predictably, as he's done every other time he's challenged, claims "naaah, I'm just jokin' around". Then at 12:39 he says "and shows like this are too easy on politicians"

He had a comedy show that made fun of news media's shitty partisan rhetoric, and Tucker's response is "hey your comedy show didn't ask the tough questions of John Kerry!". What is funny is that TC already back then felt it's appropriate to compare his show to a parody show on Comedy Central.

[Poopadoop]

He had a comedy show that made fun of news media's shitty partisan rhetoric, and Tucker's response is "hey your comedy show didn't ask the tough questions of John Kerry!". What is funny is that TC already back then felt it's appropriate to compare his show to a parody show on Comedy Central.

Precisely.

Also, when your own audience laughs at a guest coming on and calling your show shit, that's the epitome of getting your ass handed to you.

Tucker lost that debate by inviting a satirist on his show and trying to argue about whose show should be taken more seriously.

[Poopadoop]

Also, when your own audience laughs at a guest coming on and calling your show shit, that's the epitome of getting your ass handed to you.

But I guess it's not as bad as having the entire world laugh at you.

[BananaStand]

He had a comedy show that made fun of news media's shitty partisan rhetoric,.

Sometimes. But the Bush-bashing was authentic enough, often enough, that it was clear that Stewart expected to be taken seriously sometimes, and expected his audience to know the difference.

There's be a 7 minute serious tirade about Cheney and then he would segue to "Let's joke and riff with some democrats"

Tucker's point was that Stewart can't have it both ways.

You can shit on Bush, that's fine. It's your show, free speech and all that. Most reasonable people can tell the difference between satire and commentary, and Stewart is welcome to do both. But if you're going to do commentary sometimes, then you have a responsibility to be fair.

Stewart had an opportunity show some balance and openness, and he didn't take it. It's a fair question to ask him why

[Poopadoop]

Here's another example of Tucker not getting pwned.



Tucker: You idiot law professor! Stop pointing out that I'm wrong! Aararararggghhghg!!

Guest: Whatever.

[BananaStand]

Here's another example of Tucker not getting pwned..

We talked about this.....if you're going to post a clip, then post it. I don't need some drooling libtard to hold my hand through his hyper-spun interpretation of what he thinks TC is "really" saying.

I've never tried to make you watch Ben Shapiro slow-walk you through his analysis of MSNBC. MSNBC's ridiculousness is self-evident.

Tucker's on TV every goddamn night and has been for a jillion years. So far your lowlight reel has a clip from 2004 and another clip that apparently needs 11 minutes of nuanced explanation from Sam friggen Seder.

Maybe he's just not as bad as you wish he was.

[BananaStand]

So news broke last night that a couple of dudes have come forward and said "I was at parties in that area at that time and I remember one time me and my buddy tackled a chick"

[BananaStand]

Ford tells her therapist there were four boys in the room.

Ford tells her senator that there were two boys in the room, and the entire party consisted of Ford and four others.

Ford tells the polygraph examiner that the entire party consisted of 7-8 people.

Confirmed credible

[Poopadoop]

We talked about this.....if you're going to post a clip, then post it. I don't need some drooling libtard to hold my hand through his hyper-spun interpretation of what he thinks TC is "really" saying.

lol, deal with it. You think my purpose here is to please you by finding clips that are edited to your tastes? lol, get over yourself.

The irony here is that you, banana, behave pretty much like an online version of TC. And like those clips, you don't need some so-and-so-such-and-such pointing out how lame your debating tactics are. Because just like Tucker, you won't listen anyways.

I've never tried to make you watch Ben Shapiro slow-walk you through his analysis of MSNBC. MSNBC's ridiculousness is self-evident.

Change the subject to something irrelevant that makes the 'other' side look bad. Straight out of Tucker 101.

Tucker's on TV every goddamn night and has been for a jillion years. So far your lowlight reel has a clip from 2004 and another clip that apparently needs 11 minutes of nuanced explanation from Sam friggen Seder.

Another great job of doing a Tucker here. Argue that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. The expectation apparently is that I watch every single show of Tucker and point out every single time he interrupts his guest, changes the subject, uses ad hominen, twists their words, and, when things aren't going his way, ends the interview.

There's so many examples of these lousy "interview" tactics that I don't have time to post them all; at least one of them happens every time he interviews someone.

Maybe he's just not as bad as you wish he was.

I WISH he was a decent journalist. He's just not. He's quite possibly the worst interviewer in mass media history.

[BananaStand]

lol, deal with it. You think my purpose here is to please you by finding clips that are edited to your tastes?

No, just post the relevant content. Keep the drooling libtard commentary to yourself.

I WISH he was a decent journalist. He's just not. He's quite possibly the worst interviewer in mass media history.

Literally every objective measure that exists for evaluating this...says the exact opposite. So...there's that.

lol, get over yourself.

Indeed

[Jack Sawyer]

But I guess it's not as bad as having the entire world laugh at you.

And Fox edited that part out of their footage. People in the Fox Bubble never even saw that happening. It's then #FakeNews

[Poopadoop]

No, just post the relevant content. Keep the drooling libtard commentary to yourself.

I guess you missed what I said. "Deal with it."

Literally every objective measure that exists for evaluating this...says the exact opposite. So...there's that.

What are these 'objective' measures? You mean some award he's won from right-wing media?

[BananaStand]

And Fox edited that part out of their footage. People in the Fox Bubble never even saw that happening. It's then #FakeNews

Actually.....it's in the headline

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ica-first.html

[BananaStand]

What are these 'objective' measures? You mean some award he's won from right-wing media?

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-...018-are/375391

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scor...sept-25/378634

[Jack Sawyer]

Yeah, speculation, like maybe there is such a thing as a guy who coordinated gang rape from ages 17-20, and then lived the next 35 years beyond reproach as an honorable public servant.

Is this the claim?

[BananaStand]

Is this the claim?

Yes

This guy has gone through six FBI personal background checks. That's not just looking up speeding tickets. This guy was Staff Secretary to President Bush....he had access to the fucking nuclear codes. You can bet that the FBI and Secret Service crawled up this guy's ass eighty different ways.

There isn't a peep about this guy prior to 1982.

Creepy porn lawyer says that before age 20 though, BK was a notorious gang-rape facilitator.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-...018-are/375391

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scor...sept-25/378634

I guess you're trying to argue that ratings are "objective" measures of good journalism? In fact, they're pretty much orthogonal to one another. That should be kinda obvious by the fact that Hannity is #1.

Or maybe in your mind a journalist's role is to reflect the political leanings of their audience, and help them avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs.

[Jack Sawyer]

Actually.....it's in the headline

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ica-first.html

After getting called out on it, they spin

Can't really hide the sun with one finger there

Trump brushes off laughing UN audience, doubles down on 'America First'

Wouldn't a more accurate headline say something about Trump being "Laughed at"?

[Poopadoop]

Actually.....it's in the headline

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ica-first.html

Maybe try reading the thing you're responding to. It's referring to Fox's twitter.

[BananaStand]

Shouldn't a more accurate headline say something about Trump being "Laughed at"?

No. There's nothing about that headline that conveys more facts than the one Fox used.

[BananaStand]

Maybe try reading the thing you're responding to. It's referring to Fox's twitter.

So? Maybe they felt the content of his speech had more journalistic value.

The point is, it's not like they're avoiding that occurrence. It's included in their coverage.

Whining because their twitter account isn't a mirror image of what's on TV seems petty.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-...018-are/375391

This list is kind of enlightening though in that there's a near-perfect correlation between how openly biased the reporter is and how high up the list they are.

[Poopadoop]

No. There's nothing about that headline that conveys more facts than the one Fox used.

'laughed at' wasn't a fact now?

I guess you watched the Fox version of events where he was making a joke there on purpose.

[BananaStand]

After getting called out on it

omg....what dream world do you live in where vivian Kane at something called 'the mary sue dot com' can bully fox news into "correcting" their narrative.

Yeah Jack....Fox was really trying to bury that one....good thing ol' Viv is on the case!!!

[Jack Sawyer]

No. There's nothing about that headline that conveys more facts than the one Fox used.

So, all these world leaders are laughing for no reason. Maybe someone dressed in a clown suit passed by selling cracker-jack style popcorn on a Unicycle while having a monkey on his back. That would sure get a laugh as well.

[Jack Sawyer]

omg....what dream world do you live in where vivian Kane at something called 'the mary sue dot com' can bully fox news into "correcting" their narrative.

Yeah Jack....Fox was really trying to bury that one....good thing ol' Viv is on the case!!!

Why the edits tho?

[BananaStand]

This list is kind of enlightening though in that there's a near-perfect correlation between how openly biased the reporter is and how high up the list they are.

I thought you were good at stats or something?

Are you saying that Chris Hayes is less openly bias than Maddow? 'cuz that's not true.

I think the biggest driver of where you are on the list is time-slot. That 9pm hour is the tits. Anything earlier than that, and you miss the western time zones. Later than that, and the east coast has gone to sleep.

[Poopadoop]

So? Maybe they felt the content of his speech had more journalistic value.

Or maybe they didn't want him to look like an idiot.

The point is, it's not like they're avoiding that occurrence. It's included in their coverage.

Pretty sure fox.com and fox.twitter are not a monolithic news media typed up by the same person. But I guess it's better that only one of the two Fox 'journalists' was deliberately editing the news Goebbel's style and not both.

[BananaStand]

So, all these world leaders are laughing for no reason. Maybe someone dressed in a clown suit passed by selling cracker-jack style popcorn on a Unicycle while having a monkey on his back. That would sure get a laugh as well.

Did all these world leaders give a reason for laughing? Did Fox deny the laughing happened?

The answer to both is "no".

So...again...I'm asking you, what FACT is your alternate headline conveying?

[BananaStand]

Why the edits tho?

Because fox is run by racist lizard people. Didn't you know that?

[BananaStand]

deliberately editing the news Goebbel's style

I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my brain

[Poopadoop]

I thought you were good at stats or something?

Thanks, Tucker.

Are you saying that Chris Hayes is less openly bias than Maddow? 'cuz that's not true.

Actually it is true; she's clearly by far and away the worst on her side, followed by that Lawrence whatshisname. on the right, it goes Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham.

I think the biggest driver of where you are on the list is time-slot. That 9pm hour is the tits. Anything earlier than that, and you miss the western time zones. Later than that, and the east coast has gone to sleep.

ldo, that's why they put their most biased person in that slot, 'cause the average person isn't watching the news to get facts, they're watching for their daily dose of kool aid.

[Poopadoop]

I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my brain

STFU yourself.

They took a clip, cut out the part where the UN laughs at POTUS, and posts it on twitter. If that's not being a Ministry of Propaganda, nothing is.

[BananaStand]

TIL I learned that not demagogue-ing = being a Ministry of Propaganda

[Poopadoop]

Did all these world leaders give a reason for laughing?

Guy says something predictably self-aggrandizing; crowd laughs.

What is hard about this for you to get? Do you really need interviews with everyone at the UN to confirm that they were laughing at the orange clown who was talking at the time?

[Poopadoop]

TIL I learned that not demagogue-ing = being a Ministry of Propaganda

What are you even talking about 'demagogueing?'.

They took a clip, cut out a bit where the UN laughs at POTUS, then posted it on twitter. Ministry of Propaganda.

[BananaStand]

What's hard about this for you to get. Fox reported the laughing. For some reason that's not good enough for Jack. Apparently he needs a headline that conveys how Trump was mocked and shamed. However, in actual reality (you know the stuff that journalists are supposed to report on) Trump brushed it off and kept talking. Headline confirmed appropriate.

[Jack Sawyer]

omg....what dream world do you live in where vivian Kane at something called 'the mary sue dot com' can bully fox news into "correcting" their narrative.

Yeah Jack....Fox was really trying to bury that one....good thing ol' Viv is on the case!!!

Did vivian kane from mary sue dot com report on something that didn't happen?

[Poopadoop]

What's hard about this for you to get. Fox reported the laughing. For some reason that's not good enough for Jack. Apparently he needs a headline that conveys how Trump was mocked and shamed. However, in actual reality (you know the stuff that journalists are supposed to report on) Trump brushed it off and kept talking. Headline confirmed appropriate.

Nice ad hominen and nice deflection. That's a double-Tucker.

I'm not arguing about what you and Jack are disputing. My point was Fox Twitter was acting just like a Ministry of Propaganda by editing the clip to take out the part where the UN reacts to Trump the Orange Clown.

Your response to that is something along the lines of 'please ban me' and 'here's some other thing I was talking about that has nothing to do with your post.'

[Poopadoop]

Want some more?

[Poopadoop]

Here's 18 clips in one of the Edward Murrow of Fox News.

[Jack Sawyer]

What's hard about this for you to get. Fox reported the laughing. For some reason that's not good enough for Jack. Apparently he needs a headline that conveys how Trump was mocked and shamed. However, in actual reality (you know the stuff that journalists are supposed to report on) Trump brushed it off and kept talking. Headline confirmed appropriate.

One headline says the truth, the other is spin. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which is which

[BananaStand]

Did vivian kane from mary sue dot com report on something that didn't happen?

Are you moving the goalpost again?? Your assertion was that fox was denying the laughing, and then finally acknowledged it because they were called out by mary sucks balls dot com

[BananaStand]

I'm not arguing about what you and Jack are disputing. My point was Fox Twitter was acting just like a Ministry of Propaganda by editing the clip to take out the part where the UN reacts to Trump the Orange Clown.

Yup, those two things are exactly the same. Hail Lizard-people!!