Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

[BDKJMU]

FAKE News CNN, MSNBC skip historic Senate vote confirming Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-msnbc ... reme-court

Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?

So if Trump wins it won’t be that historic, so no need for CNN or MSNBC to cover his inauguration, right?

[Ibanez]

Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?

Was there something else going on that was more newsworthy at the time that CNN & MSNBC shouldn’t have been covering it?

I'll answer your question if you can answer mine.

[Ibanez]

Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?

So if Trump wins it won’t be that historic, so no need for CNN or MSNBC to cover his inauguration, right?

I asked a simple question. I find it odd that you aren't able to answer it.

Don't get triggered, bub. Why is this one historic? It's the 3rd justice in 3 years and 7th in the last 15 years. What history was made by her confirmation other than a new supreme court justice?


What is so historic about re-election? It's not a famous or important event in US history. Biden's would be b/c we'd have the first female VPOTUS - that's historic. The last historic inauguration was Obama's as the first black POTUS.


Not everyone is out to get you, don't be so touchy.

[Ibanez]

Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?

Whether it was historic or not, for MSNBC to not even show the swearing in...

Are you shocked? The Right and Left have dialed up their rhetoric in the past decade or 2 to create such a divisive and nasty political atmosphere that permeates ordinary, daily human interactions. You can't buy a can of beans or get a coffee w/o it saying something about your political affiliations. MSNBC or CNN not covering news b/c of whatever reasons is on them. News agencies have a strong biased and i'm not shocked they refuse to cover basic, important events in our government.

I simply asked why her confirmation was history making. Honestly, the ONLY way I knew it was happening was from pulling up Drudge Report. I noticed it wasn't on CNNs front page - which is stupid b/c it is news. It's important news. I just don't think it's "history in the making" news.

[Ibanez]

Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?

Well, there aren't an infinite number of SCOTUS justices being confirmed in our lifetimes. I think she's the first judge to become a SCOTUS justice while still having school age children. I think the other moms all had adult kids.

We've had 7 of the 9 replaced in the last 15 years.

[89Hen]

Whether it was historic or not, for MSNBC to not even show the swearing in...

Are you shocked? The Right and Left have dialed up their rhetoric in the past decade or 2 to create such a divisive and nasty political atmosphere that permeates ordinary, daily human interactions. You can't buy a can of beans or get a coffee w/o it saying something about your political affiliations. MSNBC or CNN not covering news b/c of whatever reasons is on them. News agencies have a strong biased and i'm not shocked they refuse to cover basic, important events in our government.

I simply asked why her confirmation was history making. Honestly, the ONLY way I knew it was happening was from pulling up Drudge Report. I noticed it wasn't on CNNs front page - which is stupid b/c it is news. It's important news. I just don't think it's "history in the making" news.

Shocked isn't the right word, but certainly disappointed. If roles were reversed you can bet your 401k that Fox would have shown it. As right as Fox is, it really is the most fair and balanced like their claim. I watch Fox, MSNBC and CNN regularly and I know I'm biased to view them differently, but Fox will always have 2-3 Dems on a big panel during debates, election night, etc... the other two might have one RINO on once in a while.

[Ibanez]

Are you shocked? The Right and Left have dialed up their rhetoric in the past decade or 2 to create such a divisive and nasty political atmosphere that permeates ordinary, daily human interactions. You can't buy a can of beans or get a coffee w/o it saying something about your political affiliations. MSNBC or CNN not covering news b/c of whatever reasons is on them. News agencies have a strong biased and i'm not shocked they refuse to cover basic, important events in our government.

I simply asked why her confirmation was history making. Honestly, the ONLY way I knew it was happening was from pulling up Drudge Report. I noticed it wasn't on CNNs front page - which is stupid b/c it is news. It's important news. I just don't think it's "history in the making" news.

Shocked isn't the right word, but certainly disappointed. If roles were reversed you can bet your 401k that Fox would have shown it. As right as Fox is, it really is the most fair and balanced like their claim. I watch Fox, MSNBC and CNN regularly and I know I'm biased to view them differently, but Fox will always have 2-3 Dems on a big panel during debates, election night, etc... the other two might have one RINO on once in a while.

I'll try to watch some of Fox News next Tuesday. I usually avoid CNN b/c that John King just gets too excited about going bac kand forth between counties and states on his TV - that and I honestly dislike Wolf Blitzer.

I must be super jaded b/c I find myself, when I do watch CNN or Fox, equally calling them out for taking things out of context, twisting someone's words or actions or just applying a good ole Double Standard.

As to their claim of fair and balanced - I find that to not be the case. If they were fair, they wouldn't shill for one ideology over the other as obvious as they do. But they weren't created to be middle of the road so you can't really hold their Conservative bias against them.

[89Hen]

As to their claim of fair and balanced - I find that to not be the case. If they were fair, they wouldn't shill for one ideology over the other as obvious as they do. But they weren't created to be middle of the road so you can't really hold their Conservative bias against them.

I said most, as in compared to the others.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ri ... 6-positive

For this study, the MRC analyzed all coverage of President Trump and former Vice President Biden on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). This is the same time period examined by the MRC four years ago, in advance of that year’s election.

This time around, it’s obvious that the networks are pouring their energy into confronting and criticizing the President, not equally covering both campaigns. During the twelve weeks we examined, Trump received 839 minutes of coverage, compared to just 269 minutes of airtime for Biden, a three-to-one disparity.

Even more lopsided, our analysts found ten times more evaluative statements about Trump than Biden: 890 comments about the President, of which 822 (92.4%) were negative, vs. 68 (7.6%) that were positive. Note that these totals do not include statements about the candidates’ prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.), nor does it include partisan statements from the candidates or their surrogates.

[Ibanez]

As to their claim of fair and balanced - I find that to not be the case. If they were fair, they wouldn't shill for one ideology over the other as obvious as they do. But they weren't created to be middle of the road so you can't really hold their Conservative bias against them.

I said most, as in compared to the others.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ri ... 6-positive

For this study, the MRC analyzed all coverage of President Trump and former Vice President Biden on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). This is the same time period examined by the MRC four years ago, in advance of that year’s election.

This time around, it’s obvious that the networks are pouring their energy into confronting and criticizing the President, not equally covering both campaigns. During the twelve weeks we examined, Trump received 839 minutes of coverage, compared to just 269 minutes of airtime for Biden, a three-to-one disparity.

Even more lopsided, our analysts found ten times more evaluative statements about Trump than Biden: 890 comments about the President, of which 822 (92.4%) were negative, vs. 68 (7.6%) that were positive. Note that these totals do not include statements about the candidates’ prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.), nor does it include partisan statements from the candidates or their surrogates.

I just read that article on Fox News. My first thought was - " No kidding."

[SDHornet]

Awesome! Glad this went through before the election. Huge win for Trump a week prior to election day.

[Pwns]

[Ibanez]

[SDHornet]

Was this statement before the Kavanaugh trainwreck? Graham publicly stated that his perspective was changed at seeing how the Dems treated Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

[Ibanez]

Was this statement before the Kavanaugh trainwreck? Graham publicly stated that his perspective was changed at seeing how the Dems treated Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

His original comment was in 2016. I'm not sure about him doubling-down on it.

[SDHornet]

Was this statement before the Kavanaugh trainwreck? Graham publicly stated that his perspective was changed at seeing how the Dems treated Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

His original comment was in 2016. I'm not sure about him doubling-down on it.

So his view likely evolved then thanks to the Dem's mistreatment of Kavanaugh during his confirmation. Or are we not allowed to change views anymore?

[UNI88]

His original comment was in 2016. I'm not sure about him doubling-down on it.

So his view likely evolved then thanks to the Dem's mistreatment of Kavanaugh during his confirmation. Or are we not allowed to change views anymore?

Ask Dr. Fauci ...

[Ibanez]

His original comment was in 2016. I'm not sure about him doubling-down on it.

So his view likely evolved then thanks to the Dem's mistreatment of Kavanaugh during his confirmation. Or are we not allowed to change views anymore?

I'm all for an evolution of views but we both know that any "evolution" in politics is merely a flip flop. How many Democrats have evolved on an issue only to be called out as a flip flopper? Same for Republicans. Trump has evolved on a number of issues. Did you know he tweeting about abolishing the Electoral College in 2012 (maybe 2008)? In fact - Republicans used to speak out the need for the Popular Vote vs EC well into the 2000s... Is it a true evolution or just politics.

I would guess that if the Dems had given Kavanaugh no trouble, Graham still would've "evolved" and ignored his own statement. Graham is known for saying and doing what ever keeps him relevant.

[SDHornet]

So his view likely evolved then thanks to the Dem's mistreatment of Kavanaugh during his confirmation. Or are we not allowed to change views anymore?

I'm all for an evolution of views but we both know that any "evolution" in politics is merely a flip flop. How many Democrats have evolved on an issue only to be called out as a flip flopper? Same for Republicans. Trump has evolved on a number of issues. Did you know he tweeting about abolishing the Electoral College in 2012 (maybe 2008)? In fact - Republicans used to speak out the need for the Popular Vote vs EC well into the 2000s... Is it a true evolution or just politics.

I would guess that if the Dems had given Kavanaugh no trouble, Graham still would've "evolved" and ignored his own statement. Graham is known for saying and doing what ever keeps him relevant.

Agreed. Regarding voting at the end of the term, it was stupid to say and not do it in 2016, and was stupid to take that same stance now.

[houndawg]

You never know I guess. She might turn around and recuse herself after her appointment goes through in an attempt to salvage some miniscule amount of what is left of SCOTUS' and her own credibility.

Feinstein? There is no credibility left there. Must be a requirement to be a Senator from California.

Disagree. What has been packed today can be unpacked tomorrow.

How do you unpack a bunch of lifetime appointments?

Create more courts and pack them with your own judicial hacks

[houndawg]

You never know I guess. She might turn around and recuse herself after her appointment goes through in an attempt to salvage some miniscule amount of what is left of SCOTUS' and her own credibility.

Feinstein? There is no credibility left there. Must be a requirement to be a Senator from California.

Disagree. What has been packed today can be unpacked tomorrow.

How do you unpack a bunch of lifetime appointments?

wut?
Feinstein?

[houndawg]

Why is it historic? She isn't the first woman, white woman, Catholic, mother on the bench?

Whether it was historic or not, for MSNBC to not even show the swearing in...

if they had it in for her they would have made a big deal of the least qualified nominee in decades participating in a political campaign event after being sworn in, so I'd say it was just lack of interest - its been a done deal for a while now so there isn't much news appeal.

[89Hen]

Whether it was historic or not, for MSNBC to not even show the swearing in...

if they had it in for her they would have made a big deal of the least qualified nominee in decades participating in a political campaign event after being sworn in, so I'd say it was just lack of interest - its been a done deal for a while now so there isn't much news appeal.

Go back to the farm.

[LeadBolt]

First scotus conservative majority in 80+ years. No packing necessary. Unhinged libretards going apeshite at the thought that they might actually have to depend on Congress to legislate rather than just have court and bureaucrats make shite up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

Whether it was historic or not, for MSNBC to not even show the swearing in...

if they had it in for her they would have made a big deal of the least qualified nominee in decades participating in a political campaign event after being sworn in, so I'd say it was just lack of interest - its been a done deal for a while now so there isn't much news appeal.

What's Elena Kagan got to do with this, and what political campaign event did she attend?

[houndawg]

if they had it in for her they would have made a big deal of the least qualified nominee in decades participating in a political campaign event after being sworn in, so I'd say it was just lack of interest - its been a done deal for a while now so there isn't much news appeal.

Go back to the farm.

Done been did, city boy.