RedDenver

How much money you can spend is not a limit on speech but on spending. And corporations aren't a "someone".

There's literally an ABC camera crew traveling with the caravan and there's been no mention of the "getting coached" conspiracy. Here's a fact sheet: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/oct/22/politifact-sheet-what-we-know-about-caravan-headin/

There's a HUGE difference in free speech and whether money constitutes speech. All of us have equal opportunity to voice our opinions but how much money we can spend to do so is very much not equal or free. Plus Citizens United had the absolutely moronic opinion that corporations (a legal entity) somehow are equivalent to people in the rights they get under the Constitution. Until we get money out of politics, we will live more and more in an oligarchy and less and less in a democracy.

Because they sound insecure when they emphasize the THE, so I always use tOSU as I'm mocking them.

Remember when the ban was only for 60 days? And then only 90 days?

Wow. That is super lame.

Owen?

This is- I'm not even sure what the right word is: monstrous? A group that purports to help children is more concerned with religious bigotry than helping those children. Wow.

I'm not sure which candidates I'll be voting for just yet, but the Clintons (like the Bush family) just needs to disappear from politics.

I'm sure that's what Jesus would do.

You'd think our elected officials would do something to help secure the integrity and faith in the vote. But they don't.

I mean, Obama could never have been elected President based on his own merits - must have been his race.

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.