ChiGoose

Fundamentals are very much against the Dems this cycle. Midterms tend to go against the party of the President Biden's approval is low Inflation is high Gas prices are... fluctuating? Seem to go up and then down and then back up again. Still higher than normal though The Dems should be expected to lose dozens of seats in the House and several in the Senate. That it's even close is a testament to how terrible many of the GOP candidates are, but I'm skeptical it'll make the difference. The GOP will almost assuredly take the House and have better than even odds to win the Senate as well.

A guy in a dress entertaining kids is just as sexual as Bozo the clown entertaining kids. If you don't understand that, then maybe ask yourself why your mind immediately goes to sex when you think about a guy in a dress?

Why else are women dressing up to masquerade as Peter Pan, a male character, unless they want to emulate or be seen as a male in that particular situation? What I don't understand is why a guy can dress up as Mickey Mouse, or the Beast, or Charles Entertainment Cheese, or a clown, or a magician, or a purple dinosaur, or HR Puff n' Stuff or Teletubbies... and all of that is fine. But if they put on a dress, it's suddenly sexual.

First in line would be the Vice President, then the Speaker.

Ahhh. Got it. You're an idiot. Thanks for clearing that up.

You don't think the attempted assault and kidnapping of the Speaker of the House, second in line for the presidency, is a big story?

There are theories that there is a uniparty government that controls everything. Or it's (((Soros))) or the (((Rothschilds))) or illuminati or other nefarious group. Theories like that help make sense of a chaotic world and explain why bad things happen. It's not that life is chaotic and people acting in their own self-interest might overlap with other people doing the same, it's that there's a cabal running everything.

In an era where threats against politicians are increasing at alarming rates, a crazy person breaking into a politician's home in the hopes of harming them seems like something we should not be surprised about and not odd at all.

Holy hell. You're deep into the brainwashing, aren't you? 1. You seriously think that Disney is trying to groom kids for pedophiles? 2. As I stated above, drag shows *can* be sexual. They also can just be a guy in a costume leading sing-a-longs. 3. What motive is there for a woman to dress up as a princess and want to hang out with children and shouldn't that motive be questioned. You must think it's fine because it's just a "costume" but strippers wear "costumes" you want one of them to put on a show for kids too?

I literally said I didn't particularly care for it in the post you quoted. As I keep saying, it's not for everyone. But it's not sexual either. It's people in costumes doing sing-a-longs and balloons and stuff. It's as sexual as a woman dressed as Belle and someone in a Beast costume. The Right sexualizing it is dangerous. It's why we are now seeing attacks and fire-bombings of places that hose drag brunches.

I think that the corporations are in it for the reasons that corporations do anything: money. It's why nobody should ever watch TV news, especially cable news. It's infotainment at best and misinformation at worst. It's designed to invoke emotional reactions in the viewers (anger, fear, etc.) so they keep their eyeballs on it through the ad breaks.

So do you think this is sexualizing kids: When a person in a Mickey Mouse costume entertains kids during brunch, is that sexual? It's fine not to like drag queens. It's not for everyone. I don't particularly enjoy them. But to argue that it's sexual to have someone in a costume leading sing-a-longs is just flat out wrong. If seeing a guy in a dress triggers sexual thoughts in you, that's on you, not them.

You clearly have no idea what’s going on or how things work. Maybe log off for a bit.

The media sucks and the problem is that reality and facts tend to support the left, so we end up with bothsides-ism and outlets designed to cater to a specific audience. But if the mainstream media really was a subsidiary of the Democratic Party, it would act VERY differently than it does today.

I was asked a specific question about a specific story I hadn’t seen. If you are going to extrapolate from that, then that’s on you. Just get on your jump to conclusions map and hop to the square that says “I’m right and everybody else is wrong” instead of understanding what’s actually being said.

If I were to guess, I’d say something like 60% of the conversations on this board are actually about media criticism. And I will plant my stake on the fact that the media sucks and has failed this country. From what I can tell, Abrams is behind. I have not seen the CBS story so I do not know if they were saying as CBS that she was pulling ahead or reporting on the results of a particular poll.

Uh huh. And since crime stories hurt Dems, we don’t ever see stories about crime, right?

If the media was under the control of the Democrats, it wouldn't report on them at all. Nor would it run story after story about crime. Both of those issues are bad for the Dems politically.

You don't have to take your kid to a drag brunch if you don't want to. But they are about as sexual as seeing the mascots on Disney World's main street. People who view it as sexual are saying more about themselves than about the drag queens.

Have you seen a Drag Brunch or all ages drag show? Or are you assuming it's the same as what you'd find late at night at a gay bar? I accidently went to a drag brunch (grabbing an early lunch at a bar before a movie and didn't realize there would be one there) and it was mostly just sing-a-longs and balloons. Basically what you'd expect from a birthday entertainer. There wasn't anything sexual about it. I did attend a late night drag show when I went to a gay friend's birthday party at a popular gay bar in Chicago. It was very much different than what I had seen at the brunch. If that is what was happening at events aimed at kids, I'd agree it was a problem. Unless you are intentionally sexualizing the performers, there's nothing sexual about a drag brunch. And if you are, maybe that's something you should think about.

Wait.. do people actually believe the "groomer" nonsense? Nobody's the stupid, right?

I'm not saying to have blind faith in how the legal system works. I'm saying that we should probably know how it's supposed to work before making wild accusations. There is no criminal indictment or action against Donald Trump. Once there is, he can file motions to view the documents or exclude evidence as privileged or overly prejudicial. If the Feds decide not to charge him, they will have to return his stuff at that time. If they delay for a long time (roughly a year), Trump can file a Bivens motion to get his stuff back. He also has no possessory right to documents from the White House once he is no longer president. This is part of why the DoJ opposed the Special Master: a traditional filter team would be sufficient in this case. Additionally, a special master sets a precedent that others will (and already have) seek to have for basically any case. All of this concern about talk and perception are irrelevant to legal proceedings. If you want to talk about media criticism, I think we'd probably agree on a lot about how poorly these things are handled. Generally the DoJ tries to keep ongoing investigations under wraps as much as possible, but ended up going public about this one because Trump wouldn't shut up about it. If the DoJ charges Trump, he'll get additional rights and duties that will give him access to the information the DoJ collected and plans to use against him. He will be able to see what they have. He will be able to challenge to say that things shouldn't be admissible in the trial. The things that he is trying to do now (that he has little chance of succeeding on) are things he will be able to do once he's actually charged. If the DoJ doesn't charge Trump, they have to return his stuff to him. But as I said, in either case, the White House documents are not his and will not be returned to him. This is all standard practice and serves to both protect the person being searched (we wouldn't know about this if Trump didn't talk about it), as well as the investigation (if the target knows everything the investigation has before they charge, they can work to get rid of other evidence or tamper with potential witnesses). tl;dr: This is all normal stuff except that Trump has terrible attorneys who don't seem to understand what law is.

Tell us that you have no ideal how the legal system works without saying "I have no idea how the legal system works."

You say this as if this wasn’t in that very same post: “State legislators carefully considered revisiting this rule in 2020 but ultimately decided against it.” Not addressing this leaves a loophole where people who clearly pose a threat aren’t detained if they aren’t charged with a felony. It may be good-intentioned to try to avoid bias but if you have someone who has committed assaults, requires a restraining order, and has a history of violence, the judge should be able to have them held even if none of the specific charges amount to a felony.

Crime is up a bit but the coverage of crime in the news is grossly disproportionate to reality, leading people to believe that crime is much worse than it really is: For people who experience crime, that's not a comforting thought and we need to implement reality based solutions. However, the fearmongering is also very beneficial to some actors, which helps drive the narrative that crime is skyrocketing when it's really not. That app your friend uses is likely Citizen. It's interesting and can be helpful, but it relies on user-reported information. I've seen multiple times when there was a shooting reported and then it turned out it was fireworks (some neighborhoods here love fireworks for some reason) or some other loud noise and not actually a shooting.