I agree, and also there are many “news” stories these days the sole content of which are simple listings of Tweets on a given subject. I don’t think I’ve seen Fox or WSJ do this - or the leftist NYT (to its credit).
Also, a growing number of the headlines in the Democrat media are 100% clickbait - NYT excepted.
And yet so many global organizations give glowing rankings to countries such as Cuba. Hey, they murder homosexuals, imprison you for speaking your mind, but they have great health care!!! 
Yes actually I have been noticing NYTs to be more credible and more balanced in its reporting than Huffington Post, Bloomberg, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweak, etc. Even Fox is slanted towards the right. I just want unbiased facts, yet all we have are opinions of anonymous uncomfirmed sources which triggers people who take it as fact.
I hear Michael Moore went there for his lobotomy. 
Please link to Fox talking heads pushing for tariffs prior to two years ago. Would be interested to see that.
By the way the stock market is on its way down again.
Trump is playing to the gallery blaming it on another federal agency. If they don’t adjust interest rates now it would end up with a massive bust anyway. Even now it could be quite late.
Trump just has the worst character (everything good - me, everything bad - somebody else’s fault ), it says a lot for how shit the presidential selection process is that you end up with that at the top.
Dunno bout that.
Nobody that I know of has Trump on any pedestal. I know I sure don’t. I do think he’s doing a much, much better job, though, than he gets credit for.
As far as the process goes, I think it says very good things that even an American like Donald Trump can become POTUS and the system does not collapse. Despite his many flaws he was duly sworn in and has served with no hint of an uprising of any kind. For the most part Americans are content to find our next president at the ballot box, not the bullet box.
How many other nations can say that? How many other nations would tolerate DJ Trump as head of government?
I don’t know how to answer that question .
He would have been booted out in 95% countries as soon as there was any suspicion that he was fraternising with the enemy. Another guy or gal would have been bolted into place quick smart. That’s the advantage of parliamentary systems anyway (not looking at you Italy ). There’s no need to resort to violence, a parliamentary coup and/or a snap election is the usual process. The practically binary nature of selecting the most powerful person is very very limiting in terms of a ‘qualified pool’ of candidates being put up for the job .
He hasn’t started a war yet though, I’ll give him credit for that. Too much power given to one individual is the real problem, not Trump per se.
how we react to things like press freedom says a lot about our willingness to look inward.
“Biased survey!”
“these surveys give props to dictatorships!”
“fake news!”
We are too often a fat fuck sitting on the couch covered in Doritos dust yelling at anyone who asks us to exercise.
I post the Press Freedom thing, then it gets expectedly slammed, for no reason other than, well…not ever sure why? hubris? ego? id? add psych term here…
HERE IS A GREAT TALK BY SAM HARRIS ON THE WHOLE KAVANAUGH SHIT SHOW.
Best part (and you Proud Boys will love this) he has the exact same view I have in this thread. Really the ONLY view one can have if they are unbiased and logical about it.
Look at these dark web boys, maybe they will save us after all.
Watch it, its worth the effort.
honestly, you should google something before calling it ‘possibly biased’ and then calling someone an emotional child.
Your own link says it scores low because it is biased… which is it.
Very good audio excerpt. Rational and to the point.
Well thank god that isn’t us then.
Honest question here. Did you wander into the wrong message board?
I just thought this was funny. It’s the only one! 
The point is you shouldn’t have a tainted person in that role. You don’t normally have a role with that much power and so difficult to remove in a democracy . There are a lot of qualified people. Far more than two. Hundreds, thousands of elected representatives the could do a reasonable job without a smell of shit off em. Far too much depends on the decisions of an individual that’s very hard to remove once incumbent , it’s madness if you think about it.
Two questions. 1 if a tainted person can not take that role, what stops an opposition from tainting such a person? 2. What are the repercussions of (hypothetically) tainting a supreme court justice?
How’s it difficult to remove the president of the US from power? it’s a democracy, if people don’t like his work they’ll vote the other candidate, unlike the EU where if you don’t like what the commission is doing you can do nothing.
How’s it difficult to remove the American president from power. LOL. It’s not even supposed to be about ‘removing somebody from power’ in a democracy. It should be about putting a better person in charge (same with that lying biased judge they just appointed for life)
THe ‘other’ candidate is the whole problem.
You got just two choices presented to you basically. Then you are stuck with one of them for four years. Rinse and repeat. In 12 years you just have 6 candidates to choose from (less when the incumbent stands which is the common situation ). In 20 max 10 but often only 6 or 7 candidates. Too few choices. Far too few.
European countries aren’t governed by the EU president , most of us don’t even know who that is lol.
As usual you get defensive but end up looking like an arse, logic is logic.
A thorough investigation is what stops it. Study of confidential documents from past work with Bush administration, character study, etc.
Bullshit, you are avoiding the question, if any impropriety disqualifies a person , what is stopping the opposition of making up bullshit?
Like I said, proving the bullshit wrong, i.e. thoroughness in vetting.