RedDenver

You don't understand corroborating means. Ford knew Kavanaugh from high school, which means that she would be able to identify him. That's corroborating evidence because when she identified him as her assailant, nobody would wonder if she could pick Kavanaugh out of a lineup. It's not proof or even strong evidence, but it is corroborating. And it's independent evidence because Ford knowing Kavanaugh has nothing to do with her story. If you really went to law school, then you'd already know these things.

Umm, what? The fact she knows him means that she would be much more likely to identify him. Being able to identify him is corroborating evidence.

It's a good metaphor for most political talking-points and promises on both sides of the aisle.

Since I've criticized all of the above, does that make me an angry left-rightist or an angry right-leftist?

Congrats!

You know that independent means that you aren't affiliated with a party, not that you have to vote against the two major parties, right?

Ford said she would hand over her notes to the FBI if they interviewed her. I wonder why the FBI didn't interview her?

Well, they would have had to set up this hoax 6+ years ago when Ford told her therapist about the event.

I mean, getting Mexico to pay for that wall worked so well, there's no way this would fail!

Well, that's evidence of perjury during his hearing. Got to be disqualifying for a SCOTUS candidate, right? Unfortunately, we live in hypocritical and ridiculous times where the party of personal responsibility will take none and blame everyone else.

You keep using the word "reality" when that isn't what you mean. Even after I said you really mean perception. Twice. Moving beyond the semantics, I stand by my earlier post: "I'm not saying that media isn't necessary, but rather that the President being able to communicate directly with the citizens is ok and we don't need a media filter. For example, FDR's fireside chats would have been a lot less meaningful and useful if they all had to go through the media first." I don't need the media to have control over what gets to me and what doesn't. That goes to the bolded part of your post. The media is useful to provide commentary and viewpoint about what's happening, but not as a filter to block me from what's happening. In other words, the President should be able to communicate directly with the people and the media should be able to comment on his communication but not be a filter to present only certain aspects of what he's saying.

So if the media told you tomorrow that the Earth is flat, you think that shapes reality? Will the Earth actually be flat, or will you just believe them that it is flat? As I said before: what you're talking about is perception. Perception doesn't change reality. And I trust people I know more than "media" to tell me the truth. And even then I remain skeptical and want to see a variety of sources and evidence for some things. The media is just one facet of learning about the world, but it's far from the only or even the most important facet.

Are you saying the radio stations that broadcast FDR's chats were somehow discerning of the content? They'd also have to be discerning after the fact, wouldn't they? But I can ask people who were there (Washington), listen to other accounts, and otherwise investigate the veracity of a media claim. What the media reports is simply NOT reality - it's perception. Otherwise things like climate change would be false as the media didn't report on them and then disbelieved them for years, but none of that changed the reality of what was happening. And whoever said perception is reality was wrong. And it's the job of the American people to determine what is and isn't true. The media is a source of evidence but not one of truth or reality. We have to think about what the President or the media or any other source is claiming and use our ability to reason to decide what's probably real. Trump being able to espouse his nonsense without a filter is a good thing in my eyes.

If simply relaying the President's words is "going through the media", then Twitter is now also "media" in the same sense. What I know or what I've been told about what happened in Washington is not the same as the reality of what actually happened in Washington. The media could report my name incorrectly, but that doesn't actually mean my name has changed.

I totally disagree that media creates our reality. I'm not saying that media isn't necessary, but rather that the President being able to communicate directly with the citizens is ok and we don't need a media filter. For example, FDR's fireside chats would have been a lot less meaningful and useful if they all had to go through the media first.

I don't have nearly the faith in the media that you do, and actually prefer that Trump can communicate more directly with the citizens. But having a signal that only he can push his message out is not a good idea.

I mostly agree with this, but I'm strongly opposed to setting a limit that can never be changed. Different times and different circumstances can make any limit a bad one. But something like a direct vote by the people is something I'd favor so that the power isn't entirely resting with our representatives.

I'm not sure if that's what makes the story good, but it's important to the plot as the men have specific reasons why they cannot use magic. And the more interesting thing to me is that it portrays that just putting women in charge isn't necessarily any better than the men being in charge, so the people complaining about it actually have the reasons backwards.

So am I!! Are we best buddies now? The bold is sort of a circular argument. What's legal and illegal is set by the government. The "legal limit" is by definition whatever the tax rate is. Colorado for example has a law (part of the state constitution?) that requires a vote of the people to set taxes, so maybe that's what you mean?

The quote from Amazon that has these people upset is exactly what happens in the actual books. The Aes Sedai were all-female for reasons that are part of the history of that world.

Ok, I didn't take it that way from what you wrote, but I certainly agree that you shouldn't join a group or claim to be a member of a group that you mostly don't agree with. But can we find a compromise for the issues around inheritance taxes even if we don't join the same group(s)?

I don't understand why we have this for the President. Shouldn't it just be a new feature of the existing emergency broadcast system?

I didn't think we were talking about joining a party but rather compromising with those who are NOT in your party/ideology. I was responding more to the context of what you wrote: "I'm sure you and I could negotiate something that each of us could stomach. But, there are too many on the left on this issue that I could never agree with." Which seems to say that you don't want to spend the time/energy finding a compromise, which is why I used "cop-out". Maybe that wasn't what you meant. Yes, I'm making more of a comparison/analogy to "royalty" than a strict definition. "Aristocracy" or "gentry" might be a better word choice.

I mean this with all due respect, but saying "there's too many <insert group of differing opinion> that I could never agree with" seems like a copout. If you and I can find some compromise, then it seems possible to compromise with a much larger group as well. You don't have to agree on a whole bunch of wide-ranging issues, just on one or a few. It's "royalty" under the current system where the wealthy can simply buy politicians. If money was removed from politics, then it's be more like the old class system of aristocracy, which was a major reason we split from the British Empire, and I would think/hope we wouldn't want any more today than back then. American ideas of capitalism (especially conservative/libertarian ideologies) are built on the notion that income and wealth should be merit-based, but inheritance is the exact opposite of that, so I'm mildly surprised that so many conservatives/libertarians oppose inheritance taxes.

Taxing the net worth of someone who can no longer have a net worth because they're deceased doesn't seem all that invasive - there's no way for dead people to represent themselves anymore. As far as inheritors who did earn some of that inheritance - I'm ok with having some method or process that takes that into account. As far as disrupting businesses, I think that's a valid concern and the government could do something like spread the inheritance tax over the lifetime of the inheritor or wait for the company to be sold (or the inheritor otherwise extracting the value they inherited) to claim the taxes (sort of like a lien on a property). I'd be fine with getting rid of the inheritance tax if there was another mechanism to prevent/minimize the equivalent of American royalty and still fund the things that make our society worth living in. But allowing giant sums to be transferred from the earner to a non-earner seems like a terrible idea all around, especially when he inheritors typically grew up wealthy and have had every opportunity to succeed without the inheritance.