Supreme Court Opportunity

[Sons to Glory!]

With Ginsburg's passing, it looks like we may be in for a another round of polarizing partisanship. Trump is evidently moving forward with a nomination before election and the dem's heads are about to explode. Top GOP people are on the record of being against Obama nominating a Supreme Court nominee during an election year, and here we are 6 weeks away from election. However, rightwing pundits are already saying, "Don't you think the Democrats would be pushing to get their choice on the court if the situation was reversed!?" McConnell has a small majority to do it, but some Republican Senators are saying they won't go for it with only 6 weeks before the election.

This one surely has the potential to be really nasty and divide everyone even more . . .

Here's an idea: What if we just tried to out-nice each other? So what if Trump would come out and say, "There's been enough nastiness in American politics and someone has to take a stand to reverse the course we're on. Therefore I am standing down, and let's let the American voters decide which way they want the court to go in November. Hopefully, this will be a first step back toward civility in politics."? If he did that, he would be taking the long view and probably gain a lot of respect and votes! I suspect some middle of the road voters would be swayed, plus it would galvanize conservative voters (but probably also liberal voters).

However, of course, I think the chances of him doing that are probably slim to none . . .

[Sons to Glory!]

Interesting that prominant GOP politicians are being called out for earlier saying that a SCOTUS seat should NOT filled in an election year. McConnel and Graham are both on the record saying this when they held up Obama's nominee for 9 months before the 2016 election. Graham even said that they should bring his own words up to him and he said to call him a hypocrite if he ever went back on this word.

So exactly that is happening now. And all the reasons are bring given, such as the Democrats didn't play fair, etc., so it's only fair . . .

What a cesspool DC has become in the last couple decades! I guess it maybe has been tht for a much longer time, but no one now tries to even hide it. (except to blame the mess on someone else, like Adam is prone to do)

I continue to think the best course of action is for Trump to take the higher road in this, because the Nuclear-Machiavellian option may backfire any way as the GOP having the number of Senate votes appears risky at best. As said in the first post, I think he would gain respect and votes this way, and could then just do the nomination after the November vote.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Interesting that prominant GOP politicians are being called out for earlier saying that a SCOTUS seat should NOT filled in an election year. McConnel and Graham are both on the record saying this when they held up Obama's nominee for 9 months before the 2016 election. Graham even said that they should bring his own words up to him and he said to call him a hypocrite if he ever went back on this word.

So exactly that is happening now. And all the reasons are bring given, such as the Democrats didn't play fair, etc., so it's only fair . . .

What a cesspool DC has become in the last couple decades! I guess it maybe has been tht for a much longer time, but no one now tries to even hide it. (except to blame the mess on someone else, like Adam is prone to do)

I continue to think the best course of action is for Trump to take the higher road in this, because the Nuclear-Machiavellian option may backfire any way as the GOP having the number of Senate votes appears risky at best. As said in the first post, I think he would gain respect and votes this way, and could then just do the nomination after the November vote.

The Republicans are following the so-called "Biden Rule," as explained by Senator Barrasso:

“We were following the ‘Joe Biden rule.’ He was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And he said when there is a Senate of one party and a White House of another” the panel would not consider a high court pick in an election year,” Mr Barrasso claimed.

“He said this to President George Hebert Walker Bush, he said if there is a vacancy in the final year, we will not confirm,” he said of the one-term GOP president. “And that’s what we did with Merrick Garland.”

Pres. Obama nominated Merrick Garland during an election year. That was his duty. Pres. Trump will also nominate a Judge during an election year. That is his duty.

As with Obama's appointee, it is up to the Senate to decide what to do. We watched the smear job they pulled on Kavanaugh. These Democrats are viciously dishonest. Can't blame that on Trump.

This just proves how the Democrats can never be trusted with power. When Pres. Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg, where was the outrage? She replaced an excellent Jurist named Byron White. He was one of two to dissent Roe v. Wade. RBG flipped the court, but since conservatives behave themselves, it was a peaceful, though painful, transition. Why won't Democrats do the same?

Or do we now succumb to mob rule?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Interesting that prominant GOP politicians are being called out for earlier saying that a SCOTUS seat should NOT filled in an election year. McConnel and Graham are both on the record saying this when they held up Obama's nominee for 9 months before the 2016 election. Graham even said that they should bring his own words up to him and he said to call him a hypocrite if he ever went back on this word.

So exactly that is happening now. And all the reasons are bring given, such as the Democrats didn't play fair, etc., so it's only fair . . .

What a cesspool DC has become in the last couple decades! I guess it maybe has been tht for a much longer time, but no one now tries to even hide it. (except to blame the mess on someone else, like Adam is prone to do)

I continue to think the best course of action is for Trump to take the higher road in this, because the Nuclear-Machiavellian option may backfire any way as the GOP having the number of Senate votes appears risky at best. As said in the first post, I think he would gain respect and votes this way, and could then just do the nomination after the November vote.

He should appoint Ted Cruz. Then the whole senate, both pubbies and demmies, would approve it tomorrow. Just to get Cruz out of the senate.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Republicans are following the so-called "Biden Rule," as explained by Senator Barrasso:

Pres. Obama nominated Merrick Garland during an election year. That was his duty. Pres. Trump will also nominate a Judge during an election year. That is his duty.

As with Obama's appointee, it is up to the Senate to decide what to do. We watched the smear job they pulled on Kavanaugh. These Democrats are viciously dishonest. Can't blame that on Trump.

This just proves how the Democrats can never be trusted with power. When Pres. Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg, where was the outrage? She replaced an excellent Jurist named Byron White. He was one of two to dissent Roe v. Wade. RBG flipped the court, but since conservatives behave themselves, it was a peaceful, though painful, transition. Why won't Democrats do the same?

Or do we now succumb to mob rule?

By definition, when/if McConnell and Graham go back on what they most adamantly voiced before, they are simply hypocrites. Therefore they'll continue to fit right in, because I estimate there are about 100 hypocrites in the Senate. (i.e., politicians with lips moving, living out the Adamic life)

Originally Posted by awareness

He should appoint Ted Cruz. Then the whole senate, both pubbies and demmies, would approve it tomorrow. Just to get Cruz out of the senate.

That's funny - I guess. I don't really know that much about him . . . is Cruz not liked by either side?

So neither of you said what you thought of my idea - of Trump taking the higher road in this possibly no-win situation.

[Ohio]

Genius Trump Nominates Joe Biden To Supreme Court Forcing Dems To Accuse Him Of Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Trump has announced his pick for Supreme Court justice: Joe Biden. By nominating Biden, Trump has forced the Dems' hands, making them believe the sexual assault claims and allegations of inappropriate, creepy behavior against the former vice president.

The "4D chess" move forced Dems to immediately accuse Joe Biden of sexual assault and reverse their position on the current claims against him. "We now believe Tara Reade," said a somber Kamala Harris, "and we will do everything in our power to destroy this man's life."

In addition to believing current claims against Joe Biden, Democrats also immediately dug up 417 new accusers against Joe Biden. He has been accused of participating in wild frat parties, drunken keggers, and something called the "Devil's Triangle," which Dems say is either a Satanic ritual or code for a sexual practice or "maybe both."

"It's clear this man is dangerous and cannot be trusted," said Nancy Pelosi. "We call on the Senate to turn down his nomination and run him out of public life."

Biden released a statement, saying, "I just want to go home and see my grandkids again." His mic was cut off and he was pulled off the stage with a shepherd's crook.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Genius Trump Nominates Joe Biden To Supreme Court Forcing Dems To Accuse Him Of Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Trump has announced his pick for Supreme Court justice: Joe Biden. By nominating Biden, Trump has forced the Dems' hands, making them believe the sexual assault claims and allegations of inappropriate, creepy behavior against the former vice president.

The "4D chess" move forced Dems to immediately accuse Joe Biden of sexual assault and reverse their position on the current claims against him. "We now believe Tara Reade," said a somber Kamala Harris, "and we will do everything in our power to destroy this man's life."

In addition to believing current claims against Joe Biden, Democrats also immediately dug up 417 new accusers against Joe Biden. He has been accused of participating in wild frat parties, drunken keggers, and something called the "Devil's Triangle," which Dems say is either a Satanic ritual or code for a sexual practice or "maybe both."

"It's clear this man is dangerous and cannot be trusted," said Nancy Pelosi. "We call on the Senate to turn down his nomination and run him out of public life."

Biden released a statement, saying, "I just want to go home and see my grandkids again." His mic was cut off and he was pulled off the stage with a shepherd's crook.

Now that's brilliant!

Still waiting on a comment on my opening idea . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Now that's brilliant!

Still waiting on a comment on my opening idea . . .

The Democrats have made it abundantly clear that nothing Trump does will calm their hatred. He is after all, worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini together, and they have told us so repeatedly. If Trump does not immediately appoint a SCOTUS replacement, then the Democrats will condemn his for that, and possibly impeach him.

So Trump should just do his job, appoint a Justice, and let the Senate fight. Any appointment he makes, even a woman, will after all, be worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini together.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Trump does not immediately appoint a SCOTUS replacement, then the Democrats will condemn him for that, and possibly impeach him.

Why would they do that? No, really . . . why? Makes no sense. (except yer kidding)

But I think I get your logic: It's the president's job to nominate, so let him do that. And then let the Senate do what their job is - it's them that'll have the proverbial egg on their faces. (but I still think, strategically, my idea is better)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Why would they do that? No, really . . . why? Makes no sense. (except yer kidding)

But I think I get your logic: It's the president's job to nominate, so let him do that. And then let the Senate do what their job is - it's them that'll have the proverbial egg on their faces. (but I still think, strategically, my idea is better)

Please name one thing in the news, done or not done by Trump, which the Democrats have not condemned him for.

E.g. they condemned Trump for shutting down the economy creating loss of jobs (actually only the Governors did that) and they condemned Trump for not shutting down the economy and killing people with Covid (actually only the Governors can do that.

E.g. when Trump cut off travel to China they condemned Trump for blatant racism and xenophobia, and afterwards condemned Trump for not cutting off travel to China to save lives.

I find it quite comical that the media now call a few senators hypocrites.

Have you forgotten that without all these double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Please name one thing in the news, done or not done by Trump, which the Democrats have not condemned him for.

I've watched pretty much the same thing happen to whoever the president was in the last 3-4 cycles. Adam railing at Adam . . .

Those on each side are basically blind to their own side's hypocrisy.

[Sons to Glory!]

Now Democrats are talking up the possibility of expanding the number of judges on the SCOTUS, if the GOP pushes through a conservative nominee. Just this past weekend, the DNC is reported to have received $120 million in donations, because of people being upset about what the GOP is attempting to do.

This is another reason for me to wonder if the better option is for Trump to to come out and say he's holding off. This would energize his base to ensure he's elected, and probably sway some fence sitters. It's a decision that would show good leadership and I think could pay big dividends.

But no doubt, the GOP leadership thinks all the collateral damage is worth it. Maybe they're correct - but the advantage of getting a right-leaning Supreme Court, may be completely negated soon, if Dems expand the number of judges, and will then be much, much more energized to pack the newly created positions with liberals!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This is another reason for me to wonder if the better option is for Trump to to come out and say he's holding off.

But he's trying to stack the court, to rule on the election results when he takes it to the Supremeies.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

But he's trying to stack the court, to rule on the election results when he takes it to the Supremeies.

Well that sounds like a conspiracy theory . . . boy, each side has their ideas regarding the evil motivations and shenanigan's the other side is up to, don't they!?

I'm glad God loves us and doesn't leave us to work it all out ourselves, because mankind would just ultimately destroy himself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Now Democrats are talking up the possibility of expanding the number of judges on the SCOTUS, if the GOP pushes through a conservative nominee. Just this past weekend, the DNC is reported to have received $120 million in donations, because of people being upset about what the GOP is attempting to do.

This is another reason for me to wonder if the better option is for Trump to to come out and say he's holding off. This would energize his base to ensure he's elected, and probably sway some fence sitters. It's a decision that would show good leadership and I think could pay big dividends.

But no doubt, the GOP leadership thinks all the collateral damage is worth it. Maybe they're correct - but the advantage of getting a right-leaning Supreme Court, may be completely negated soon, if Dems expand the number of judges, and will then be much, much more energized to pack the newly created positions with liberals!

Trump is just doing his constitutional duty. Noone is "pushing thru some conservative." The Democrats are just whiners, and never want to play by the rules. What if the Democrats donate $100 Billion? That's their prerogative. How is anything wrong about that, as long as the donations are legal?

We all know that nearly all wealthy people are Democrats. Republicans are the working class. Democrats want class warfare. In 2016 Hillary Clinton had way more money than Trump.

Collateral damage??? So if Trump obeys the demands of the Democrats, then they will behave themselves? That's extortion and terrorism. Haven't you learned that you never give in to terrorists?

They are also rioting, burning, murdering, and looting many cities until the police are defunded and replaced with social workers. You can never give in to their demands.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But he's trying to stack the court, to rule on the election results when he takes it to the Supremeies.

When Clinton appointed RBG in 1993, was he stacking the court with liberals?

When Obama appointed Sotameyer and Kagan, was he stacking the court with liberals?

If RBG wanted an activist replacement, she had plenty of opportunities when Obama was President. It was her choice to keep working in poor health.

Democrats do stupid things and then threaten the Republicans if they don't do stupid things.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well that sounds like a conspiracy theory . . . boy, each side has their ideas regarding the evil motivations and shenanigan's the other side is up to, don't they!?

I'm glad God loves us and doesn't leave us to work it all out ourselves, because mankind would just ultimately destroy himself.

Uh, excuse me bro, but that's exactly what happens.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

[/B]
Uh, excuse me bro, but that's exactly what happens.

Well . . . no, mankind does not destroy itself. God has an elect who will be preserved. Destroy means to utterly bring to naught, right?

So here's a good article in the Houston Chronical that talks about the potential backlash from pushing the nomination through ASAP. However, some GOP folks think it is a calculated risk that can be overcome. I'm praying the Lord has His way in this matter, and it's above my pay grade to tell Him exactly what that is!

Houston Chronical Article

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So here's a good article in the Houston Chronical that talks about the potential backlash from pushing the nomination through ASAP. However, some GOP folks think it is a calculated risk that can be overcome. I'm praying the Lord has His way in this matter, and it's above my pay grade to tell Him exactly what that is!

How has this become "pushing the nomination through ASAP?"

What has been normal presidential procedure for two and a half centuries in America has now become this horrible thing called "pushing the nomination through ASAP."

Step back and think about it. Study the historical facts surrounding this, and you will find that Trump is doing NOTHING out of the ordinary. And consider for a moment that Trump is even going so far as to replace a popular and brilliant, defender of women, well-qualified religious jurist with another popular and brilliant, defender of women, well-qualified religious jurist, assuming it is Barrett as most surmise. Did not Trump check all the boxes which the Left loves to see?

Knowing that historically well over 50% of Republican appointed SCOTUS judges became quite liberal over time (John Roberts, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra O'Connor, John Stevens, Lewis Powell, Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, Potter Stewart, William Brennan, etc), the never ending screams from the Democrats are entirely unjustified. And that list is just from the days of Roe, since this life-and-death issue always comes back to abortion.

Brother STG what you are doing is backing down to mob rule. I don't think that is ever a wise idea.


If Ruth Bader Ginsberg really wanted to be replaced by a Democratic president, she had plenty of opportunity to do so while Obama was President. Since when does any SCOTUS Jurist get to pick their replacement? And where was the conservative outcry in 1993 when RBG replaced Byron White, one of only two to dissent on Roe.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How has this become "pushing the nomination through ASAP?"

Isn't it a very fast turnaround for this? Maybe not, but I don't recall a SCOTUS nomination ever being on such a fast track as this - am I wrong?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Isn't it a very fast turnaround for this? Maybe not, but I don't recall a SCOTUS nomination ever being on such a fast track as this - am I wrong?

It used to be a speedy Senate formality until Senator Ted Kennedy changed everything with Justice Robert Bork. His SCOTUS confirmation battle made me interested in politics and solidified my conservative stance. The Democrats then played the same rotten games with Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. Their whole party has become so viciously dishonest.

[Ohio]

I concur with what Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch wrote:

Regarding the Supreme Court vacancy, my belief is that if Democrats can impeach in an election year, Trump can certainly fill a seat on the Court in an election year. President Trump is set to announce his nomination this weekend.

When karma lands, it lands hard. This is the lesson Democrats are now learning with the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the reality that President Trump will move forward to fill her seat this week.

In years past, Democrats might have had the tools to stop the process in its tracks, or the comity and goodwill to be able to reach a compromise with Senate Republicans or the White House. But they have squandered their goodwill and disarmed their senators, leaving them with little to do but fume and threaten.

If the Left can unilaterally impeach and try to remove a president during an election year, a Supreme Court justice can certainly be appointed during an election year. Democrats can hardly stand on principle regarding election year nominations when they were more than willing to engage in a partisan, election-year impeachment fiasco based on a contrived pretext that had no chance of prevailing.

The impeachment followed other failed attempts to sabotage Trump – illicit spying, the “insurance policy,” seeking to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office, and the Mueller “witch hunt” investigation that harassed him despite almost everyone in D.C. knowing that there was never any evidence of Russian collusion.

After the Mueller fiasco flamed out, Democrats weaponized the whistleblower process to create a fake scandal out of a harmless July 25, 2019, conversation between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. This became the basis for what George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley called “the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”

Byron York called it “an election-year gambit” using the impeachment as “the most audacious opposition research maneuver of all time.” And Berkeley law professor John Yoo cautioned that the Founding Fathers would have rejected the idea of an election-year impeachment because they “expected that the American people would hold a president accountable for any abuses of power at the ballot box.”

So it is ironic to hear Democrats saying that the people should decide who gets to choose the next Supreme Court justice when they were more than willing to deny voters the opportunity to judge President Trump’s fitness for office.

The Left has hired 600 hundred lawyers for the Biden campaign and intends the Supreme Court to be an active participant in the 2020 election. The stakes going into November are frankly too high to have a Supreme Court not at full strength.

Democrats have pushed for a mail-in election that virtually guarantees fraud and chaos and subsequent urgent litigation. They have instructed Democratic nominee Joe Biden not to concede under any circumstances and have threatened violence if they do not win.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I concur with what Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch

Of course you do.

[Sons to Glory!]

BTW - I participated in an awesome gathering in Scottsdale yesterday to pray for the nation - standing one with our brothers & sisters on the mall in DC! Brothers, this is a mess only He will solve. There were so many powerful prayers yesterday that He would take full control and turn the nation back to Him. (we used the path the DC saints were taking as a guide for our prayer, as they stopped to pray in front of each of the 7 buildings on the National Mall)

I had a strong sense that He will do what needs to be done, and it may not look at all like we suppose . . .

I cannot tell how all the lands shall worship,
When, at His bidding, every storm is stilled,
Or who can say how great the jubilation
When all the hearts of men with love are filled.
But this I know, the skies will thrill with rapture,
And myriad, myriad human voices sing,
And earth to heaven, and heaven to earth, will answer:
At last the Savior, Savior of the world, is King.

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It used to be a speedy Senate formality until Senator Ted Kennedy changed everything with Justice Robert Bork. His SCOTUS confirmation battle made me interested in politics and solidified my conservative stance. The Democrats then played the same rotten games with Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. Their whole party has become so viciously dishonest.

Going back in history nominations and confirmations happened in a month or less was the norm. Nomination and confirmation for Sutherland and Taft happened same day under Harding's administration.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Terry

Going back in history nominations and confirmations happened in a month or less was the norm. Nomination and confirmation for Sutherland and Taft happened same day under Harding's administration.

Yes. The Bork nomination was the one that seemed to change things up. After that it seemed to be a game of one-upmanship, to see if one party could knock-off the nominee of the other. Yet I'm hard-pressed to remember any democratic nominee gone after with such vitriol as some GOP nominees have been - is that true?

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes. The Bork nomination was the one that seemed to change things up. After that it seemed to be a game of one-upmanship, to see if one party could knock-off the nominee of the other. Yet I'm hard-pressed to remember any democratic nominee gone after with such vitriol as some GOP nominees have been - is that true?

Sure doesn't seem that way, but view for yourselves.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/n...789present.htm

On another note, confirmation hearings seem to be a whole lot of hysteria and hypotheticals. Fearing about rulings that have not even taken place yet.
Hypothetically speaking, what did you think about Senator Hawley's hypothetical question?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Terry

Sure doesn't seem that way, but view for yourselves.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/n...789present.htm

On another note, confirmation hearings seem to be a whole lot of hysteria and hypotheticals. Fearing about rulings that have not even taken place yet.
Hypothetically speaking, what did you think about Senator Hawley's hypothetical question?

Not paying close attention to the hearings - keeping a 30,000' view of them. So what did he say?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes. The Bork nomination was the one that seemed to change things up. After that it seemed to be a game of one-upmanship, to see if one party could knock-off the nominee of the other. Yet I'm hard-pressed to remember any democratic nominee gone after with such vitriol as some GOP nominees have been - is that true?

No, I can't remember any justice nominated by a Democratic President being attacked by the Republicans, but they will say Merrick Garland never got a vote. So their payback was the disgraceful Kavanaugh smear job. They did the same to Clarence Thomas.

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Not paying close attention to the hearings - keeping a 30,000' view of them. So what did he say?

In questioning the nominee for Supreme Court, he asked:

Hypothetically say there was a Vice President and that vice president hypothetically had adult son who hypothetically worked for a foreign oligarch and the son hypothetically sold access to his father the vice president who then intervened in a case against the oligarch.
Hypothetically, could this be construed as foreign corruption/foreign influence the Constitution was concerned about.
Nominee's response was along the lines I can't answer on hypotheticals.
Senator Hawley-...... that's okay. who knows that case might come before you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Terry

In questioning the nominee for Supreme Court, he asked:

Hypothetically say there was a Vice President and that vice president hypothetically had adult son who hypothetically worked for a foreign oligarch and the son hypothetically sold access to his father the vice president who then intervened in a case against the oligarch.
Hypothetically, could this be construed as foreign corruption/foreign influence the Constitution was concerned about.
Nominee's response was along the lines I can't answer on hypotheticals.
Senator Hawley-...... that's okay. who knows that case might come before you.

Thanks. It's so hard to tell these days what is real and what is not, with the media largely in the tank for the far left. I am accustomed to think along the lines that if something has any merit, then the media will pick it up and escalate it to it's proper place. Therefore I don't have to get into the details of something, because if anything is there, it will be brought out. I have no such confidence now.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. It's so hard to tell these days what is real and what is not, with the media largely in the tank for the far left. I am accustomed to think along the lines that if something has any merit, then the media will pick it up and escalate it to it's proper place. Therefore I don't have to get into the details of something, because if anything is there, it will be brought out. I have no such confidence now.

Media vetting requires a period of time to ascertain accuracy by fact-checking past stories. When a media source, pundit, or author has proved accurate for the past few years, then they become trusted for a news story or article today.

But when a media source, pundit, or author has proved to be inaccurate, hyperbolic, incendiary, or false for their last 99 reports, then only a fool would still believe them the hundredth time.

Such was the case with the Russian Collusion Hoax. It proved every source. It was a testing ground to vet each one. Some still promote such lies. All of these should be categorized as pure propaganda.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Media vetting requires a period of time to ascertain accuracy by fact-checking past stories. When a media source, pundit, or author has proved accurate for the past few years, then they become trusted for a news story or article today.

But when a media source, pundit, or author has proved to be inaccurate, hyperbolic, incendiary, or false for their last 99 reports, then only a fool would still believe them the hundredth time.

Such was the case with the Russian Collusion Hoax. It proved every source. It was a testing ground to vet each one. Some still promote such lies. All of these should be categorized as pure propaganda.

My wife, after I tell her something I've read or heard in the media, will ask me, "What is the source and how do we know it's true?" I then will ask something that drives her a little crazy - "How do we know anything is true? That is, how do we really know Antarctica even exists? We've never been there and seen it with our own eyes, so how do we really know it's there? Maybe there's a huge conspiracy to make us believe it exists when it doesn't!"

The point is, we can't go and investigate everything ourselves - the best we can do in many cases is to rely on some other person. Therefore we actually do something akin to like what happens when we watch movies - "the suspension of disbelief." That is, we have to allow ourselves the mental latitude to believe a certain amount from a source, or it can't be appreciated or taken in at all. So we make a choice on what news sources we believe, based upon how much trust we think they've historically built up.

But in the end, it's just a bunch of men, yakin' about things they probably struggle with containing their bias regarding . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The point is, we can't go and investigate everything ourselves - the best we can do in many cases is to rely on some other person.

This gets to the heart of the matter. Who do we really rely on in life?

When we were young, we trusted our parents because they had our best interests in mind. They established credit with us. They were thus vetted. So we believed what they told us. Doesn't make them perfect, only makes their message true.

Same with the truth of the Gospels. We believed the report of eye-witnesses who were with Jesus. These ones were proven and tested. They lived and died for their message. Their report was not challenged by other witnesses, rather only confirmed.

Likewise news reporters. When a network or reporter tells us the same message for years, and then never apologizes when the story is debunked, then they lose all credit. Credit in people and their reports are slowly built up over time.

The same is true with every relationship in our lives.

[Sons to Glory!]

Just to bring this thread up to date, Amy Coney Barrett was made a justice on the SCOTUS yesterday with a 52-48 vote strictly along party lines (except for GOP Senator Collins who voted "no"). Biden has said he is against "packing the court" if he wins, meaning to add additional seats and fill them with his selections. But, once he gets elected, who knows . . . he might easily be swayed to do so.

BTW: I still think (as mentioned in the opening post) that Trump may have missed an opportunity here. That is, if he had come out to say he was holding off on nominating her until after the election, it might have been the better strategic, bigger picture move. I think if he had done that it would have swayed some middle-roaders, and fired-up conservatives to vote for him so she would be nominated. We'll never know now . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

BTW: I still think (as mentioned in the opening post) that Trump may have missed an opportunity here. That is, if he had come out to say he was holding off on nominating her until after the election, it might have been the better strategic, bigger picture move. I think if he had done that it would have swayed some middle-roaders, and fired-up conservatives to vote for him so she would be nominated. We'll never know now . . .

Isn't there a saying like, "Bird in hand is better than two in the bush?"

I'm not buying that waiting could have been some how be better.

Today I heard about an interesting trend on Google. The top two searches were for (1) Can I change my mailed in ballot? and (2) Hunter Biden.

Apparently many people just learned about the Biden "pay to play" scheme at the last debate. This investment manager Tony Bobulinski who flipped on Biden has apparently struck a nerve. The more Big Tech hides the story, the more curious people become. And Big Tech has a major censoring operation going on.

Always search with DuckDuckGo!