Just another nice takedown, this time Jamie Raskin throwing a foul-smelling Jim Jordan (you just know - just looking at him - the stench emanating from him must be really strong-ponged) hard down to the mat with a double-leg takedown.
And then bag to the nuts.
Funny if, (upon Kevin McCarthy’s demented recommendations) Jordan did, somehow, wierdly, manage to cling onto a position in the Jan. 6 committee, and then, whoops! oh darn! he got asked by his own committee to cough up the skinny on his chats with Don. (Aaaaawww-kwaaaarrrrrrrrd)
Former president Donald Trump abruptly ended an interview with NPR on Tuesday after he was pressed on his baseless claims of election fraud and repeated contention that the 2020 election was “rigged” against him.
Trump hung up on “Morning Edition” host Steve Inskeep nine minutes into what NPR said was scheduled to be a 15-minute interview that was broadcast Wednesday…
I’d prefer Trump to be beating McConnell. The turtle is actually effective in getting done what he wants, while Donald is mostly just a bull in a china shop. He breaks shit, some of it important, but hopefully doesn’t do any damage that isn’t repairable.
Looking in from the outside, I’d prefer McConnell. While Mitch will be more effective in advancing a conservative agenda, he is much less likely to cause the US to be a right-wing dictatorship on our southern border within my lifetime.
If you keep reading down that article, it seems to me to turn from being a news article to being an opinion piece after a while. Kind of a surprise to me, coming from NPR. They are usually pretty scrupulous about the difference.
What aspects of it did you find to be more opinion than fact? To me it seemed fairly straight. They do state out right that Trump’s claims of election fraud are baseless, but that’s just accurate reporting avoiding the trap of false equivalence (or maybe its “middle ground” sometimes its hard to categorize fallacies)
I said more opinion that news. I’m not disputing the truth of anything (that I remember reading) in that article, but there are a lot of sweeping generalizations that reference one instance or fact to back them up. The author is explaining how Trump’s influence within the party works, thereby assuming that his readers needed an explanation, but then not backing it up with very much. Oh, there are a couple of examples here and there, but they don’t match the scope of the assertions and generalizations.
Maybe it’s more a question of style, but it almost feels like all the readers are so much on the same page that evidence is no longer required, it’s something we all “know”. I don’t want my news sources to write that way, that easy path is part of what divides the country.
