Trump lashes out at GM and Ohio union official, calling for 'fast' action to reopen plant.

Well if the sales of the Cruze over here are any reflection of that model over there (and I hear that it is) then why should G.M. continue to make a product that they can't make a profit from?

Will Trump stump up the $'s to keep the line open?

Not bloody likely.

But what would 1 expect from a person that attacks dead people.

Trump again attacks the late Sen. John McCain

Late-night TV sucks because the hosts and their writers are lazy
by Eddie Scarry
| March 13, 2019 12:03 PM

Jay Leno is too polite to state the obvious: Late-night network shows under their current stewardship are no longer funny. If anything, they're offensively predictable.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/late-night-tv-sucks-because-the-hosts-and-their-writers-are-lazy?_amp=true

.....This isn’t some new world with an audience that Leno and other real comedians don’t understand. It’s a business decision by network TV executives who, for one reason or another, think merely blurting out the word “Trump” is an adequate substitute for comedy.

As to GM and the Cruze....you're right, they are expensive junk. But that doesn't mean there isn't a market for GOOD cars.......Toyota sells the hell out of Camrys and Corollas because they are QUALITY. GM has produced nothing but garbage for the last 20 years with the exception of the Corvette and Silverado Pickup(which have a very vocal customer base that will not accept shoddy products).
It's unfortunate that so many GM employees counted on management to turn the ship and start competing instead of chasing the wild goose of all electric.

GM will be a memory in 20 more years.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

USA Today Poll: Half of Americans say Trump is victim of a 'witch hunt' as trust in Mueller erodes
WASHINGTON – Amid signs that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference may be near its conclusion, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds that trust in Mueller has eroded and half of Americans now agree with President Trump's contention that he has been the victim of a "witch hunt."

Support for the House of Representatives to seriously consider impeaching the president has dropped since last October by 10 percentage points, to 28 percent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-half-of-americans-say-trump-is-victim-of-a-witch-hunt-as-trust-in-mueller-erodes/ar-BBUUO7T?li=BBnbfcP#page=2

To be totally 'fair and balanced' .......the rest of the article states :

Despite that, the survey shows a nation that remains skeptical of Trump's honesty and deeply divided by his leadership. A 52 percent majority say they have little or no trust in the president's denials that his 2016 campaign colluded with Moscow in the election that put him in the Oval Office.

But that number does reflect an improvement from previous polls. One year ago, 57 percent had little or no trust in his denials; in December, 59 percent did.

What's more, Trump's relentless attacks on Mueller and his inquiry have taken a toll on the special counsel's credibility. Now, 28 percent say they have a lot of trust in the former FBI director's investigation to be fair and accurate. That's the lowest level to date, and down five points since December.

In comparison, 30 percent express a lot of trust in Trump's denials, the highest to date.

....."There is, unsurprisingly, a stark partisan divide on that question: 86 percent of Republicans but just 14 percent of Democrats say Trump is the victim of a "witch hunt." Among independents, 54 percent say he is; 42 percent say he isn't."

........and the beat goes on.........

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Sigh... this again..



Breitbart is too uncomfortably close to the Infowars sewer for my liking. :^p

I see CNN has taken a beating recently as well, way out of the circle.

Actually, much of the center spot where they (who made this meme?) call it 'actual news' has a deep pro-corporate, pro-US interests bias.

The reporting on many of those outlets are currently deeply flawed in regards to Venezuela and were when it came to reporting on the 2008 banking crisis and the march to the war in Iraq. PBS News Hour is deeply pro-Biden and refuses to air any of his dirty laundry, like his close ties to the banking industry and how he made it harder for the working people, he supposedly supports, to declare bankruptcy. News Hour regularly refused to name Heather Heyer when the person killed in Charlottesville came up over the last 2 years. They regularly refuse to air dissident (Noam Chomskey hasn't been invited on in decades, maybe never) and activist (Jeffery Brown wouldn't name Tarana Burk as the +1 to the Golden Globes) opinions. They are more like the US state news agency with an extreme focus on the status quo. They certainly won't discuss the anti-competitive practices of Amazon nor how that company paid no taxes in 2018 or 2019 and actually received federal welfare of $139 million in 2019.

BBC Global actually used the racist term 'savagery' when referring to inter tribal warfare in DRC but not when referring to US bombing of a hospital full of civilians in Syria. No explanation of how the Venezuelan constitution works, no discussion of the Spanish Revolutionary War history of the Catalan region to give scope to their desire to break away. No mention of the history of the US actions in North Korea to make them hate us so much. Their podcast summary virtually never summarizes news from Africa even though they regularly focus on any bad news coming out of Africa. They still have a noticeable colonialist and racist bias when it comes to Africa.

These two outlets I listen to daily and have for 5 years and compared it to other outlets. They are not to be trusted in all matters.
When Yoland Knell of BBC Global compares 50mm sniper bullets through the heads and chest of 220 dead Palestinians, 30 of which are 13 and younger, many of which are medics, doctors and afew even parapalegics, as equivalent to burning tires and kites with gas to start fields a fire to create smoke screens; then you know that Yoland Knell's coverage is extremely biased and not to be trusted.
If the US shot immigrants through the heads at the Mexican border, including 30 children, it would be a fiasco; Israel does it... it's tolerated by the BBC Global and PBS News Hour covers it up by refusing to even cover it.

So, do NOT try and claim those center circle of outlets are unbiased or even completely accurate. Their bias can be extreme indeed especially when you notice what they refuse to cover and the opinions they allow on.

Know that all outlets have a bias and how to detect the compromised reporters.

---

Yes, certainly no source can be said to be unbiased as one can always pick and choose what to report, even if the actual reporting is strictly factual... burying stories can have a similar effect to "spin". These are just the least offenders; like democracy being the "worst system in the world except for all the others."

I notice that you didn't mention Al Jazeera in there which is in the high centre and is certainly only minimally U.S.-influenced; you linked to one of their stories in another thread recently for just this reason.

---

Actually, much of the center spot where they (who made this meme?) call it 'actual news' has a deep pro-corporate, pro-US interests bias.

Of course. It was intended to show which USA specific source slants Democrat or Republican. Nothing else.

Many of the biases you note are caused by the governments in the areas requiring censorship of news reporting. The issue is the deal with the devil, if you want to operate there, you have to play by their rules. If you don't your reporters end up in a hell hole.

marmot......interesting that the 'neutral circle' included Reuters,

Reuters Admits They Sat On Bombshell Beto O'Rourke Story For 2 Years

.....so a founder of the 'Dead Cow Cult' gets a free pass while running against Cruz in the most highly funded (by the left) LOSING race since Clinton.

Bozo O'Rourke is an empty suit more devoid of actual substance than AOC.

Both are the 'new ilk' of American politicians. Funded puppets who are photogenic and glib of tongue, with positions scripted by their puppet masters. Neither has original ideas or positions of their own. Neither has experience in crafting and passing legislation MEANINGFUL to the country(despite serving in Congress, the only accomplishment by Bozo is the naming of a Post Office).

They aren't totally new though, the former President is cut very much from the same mold and with similar background resulting in his present predicament of visiting Suburu dealerships, trying to buy a Legacy.

Unfortunately there are NO news outlets in the world today, just propaganda mills grinding away at events until they are a palatable gruel fit for their particular group of sheep to feed upon.

You can't believe anything you didn't actually see and hear personally. And if you 'saw or heard' it on a 'news source', you must STILL question if the footage was altered or manipulated.

Max Headroom is alive and well.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Mr Kevvy:

Yes, certainly no source can be said to be unbiased as one can always pick and choose what to report, even if the actual reporting is strictly factual... burying stories can have a similar effect to "spin". These are just the least offenders; like democracy being the "worst system in the world except for all the others."

- Well said.

I notice that you didn't mention Al Jazeera in there which is in the high centre and is certainly only minimally U.S.-influenced; you linked to one of their stories in another thread recently for just this reason.

Hardly consumed any of Al Jazeera's direct reporting, (almost all was redirected) so can not criticize them from personal experience.
I opened up their World English podcast today and will start listening to their coverage. They are Qatar based and I will keep that in mind.

JaundicedEye:

marmot......interesting that the 'neutral circle' included Reuters,

This is directed to you and Mr Kevvy's first quoted comment.

It's time consuming, but it is important to notice which reporter on the staff has their name on the byline. A news organization can generally attempt to put out high quality reporting but Individual reporters' biases (or compromised positions) can undermine particular reports.

I haven't forgotten AP's calling premature calling of Clinton as the winner of the primary in 2016, but I failed to notice the particular reporters involved. Had to be extremely high up editorial control. https://fair.org/home/action-alert-aps-premature-call-for-clinton-does-disservice-to-democracy/

---

marmot, I agree the individual bias of reporters does not necessarily reflect a bias in the entire news source, but those reporters have editors who's position must reflect that bias if the story is allowed to be used.

I don't know if the Reuter's reporter informed his superiors of the story he was sitting on and I would like to believe he did not as I've always considered that organization one of the few sources of factual coverage of any event.

I found Al Jazeera's reporting when they were on air in the US to be at least slanted toward support of anti-Israeli viewpoints and supportive of organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

It gets extremely tiresome to constantly have to sift through the rhetoric from all sides and discard the chaff of bias, but it's necessary if one is to actually see what's behind the scene. I have become increasingly more skeptical and cynical(gasp, me cynical?) trying to watch or read coverage from any sources, including my preference Fox which does, to it's credit, invite opposing viewpoints to debate most every controversial story they air.

The DNC made a great error not allowing FOX to host some of their upcoming internecine warfare between 2020 'hopefuls'. Their viewers are unlikely to watch CNN or MSNBC to actually hear these debates and therefore will only hear the 'sound bites' that are trimmed and prepared for the masses.............again, Max Headroom.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Hardly consumed any of Al Jazeera's direct reporting, (almost all was redirected) so can not criticize them from personal experience.
I opened up their World English podcast today and will start listening to their coverage. They are Qatar based and I will keep that in mind.

That would be Qatar government funded, not just based.

Of course there is https://www.voanews.com/ if you want such kinds of reporting.

Trump gets a U.S. Supreme Court victory on immigration detention
March 19, 2019
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government’s authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration/us-supreme-court-gives-trump-victory-on-immigration-detention-idUSKCN1R01TF

I must say I disagree with this ruling in one major facet. The Plantiffs in the case that were LEGAL immigrants should not be denied 'due process'.

ILLEGAL immigrants who have criminal convictions are also guilty of violation of immigration law, evidenced by their presence and therefor subject to detention and deportation.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

ILLEGAL immigrants

No human being is illegal. Why don't you call it what it is? Trespassing. Lots of places just an infraction, pay a fine no jail time. I know you can't have a racist rant if you call it what it is.

By the way, how much smaller would the US budget deficit be if it wasn't buying meals for a year, providing free housing and buying one way airline tickets for millions? How much smaller would the US budget deficit be if there were more workers paying taxes into the system?

I see on a few media sites that reminiscent of the birther bill, some states are considering a "show your tax returns" bill. Which could mean Trump isn't on the ballot in 2020.

That won't work the President is not on the state ballots only the electors who pledge to vote for the person. As a point of order they don't always vote that way.

---

I see on a few media sites that reminiscent of the birther bill, some states are considering a "show your tax returns" bill. Which could mean Trump isn't on the ballot in 2020.

In that case ALL candidates for ANY public office should have the same requirements.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I see on a few media sites that reminiscent of the birther bill, some states are considering a "show your tax returns" bill. Which could mean Trump isn't on the ballot in 2020.

In that case ALL candidates for ANY public office should have the same requirements.

Unfortunately, federal candidates get a free ride because they are federal candidates. In some states where they don't enjoy corruption, candidates do have to have the same requirements from dog catcher to Governor.

However Rump if he wants to be on a primary ballot will be forced to hand over his tax returns, because the primary is a state election, not a federal election.

Handing over tax returns that are under IRS audit is not fair to anyone. After IRS auditing for sure, hand them over. All elected officials should turn over tax returns. All or nothing.

---

...

Stealing a post from another thread ...

https://www.ksl.com/article/46514513/drinking-very-hot-tea-almost-doubles-risk-of-cancer-new-study-says
NEW YORK (CNN) — Many people start their day with a cup of tea. But those who drink it piping hot could be increasing their risk of esophageal cancer, according to a new study.

Researchers found that tea drinkers who liked their beverage to be warmer than 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit) and consumed more than 700 ml of tea per day -- about two large cups-- had a 90% higher risk of esophageal cancer, when compared to those who drank less tea and at cooler temperatures.

This has proved true in the case of the Tea Party. Look at the cancer they have brought forth upon the nation!

Handing over tax returns that are under IRS audit is not fair to anyone. After IRS auditing for sure, hand them over. All elected officials should turn over tax returns. All or nothing.

What tax audit? There is no tax audit. Fake News.

OBW he filed them, if they are checking his math BFD. However if he did perjury in sending in the returns and they are looking to jail his sorry RUMP for it, even more reason to get them released!
After all as Nixon said:

'IF' the biggest little word.

"If only if."

---

...