Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Blue Pill.
Are you (the public) still trying to decide which pill to take?  Allow me to help you make a decision.
In the article below Far Left organizations have admitted to censoring Conservative voices on social media. They admit to trying to sway the opinion in favor of the Left.
Isn't America all about freedom of speech?  Do you really wish to support those who want to take away our freedoms?

Take the Red Pill and keep Communism out of our country!


Quote:by Jim Hoft August 20, 2018 162 Comments

In January 2017 after Hillary Clinton was shellacked in the November 2016 election top Democrat operatives at Media Matters, Share Blue, American Bridge, and CREW came together and released their two-year plan to take back power in Washington DC.

Share Blue is a far left website that works with the Democrat party and claims to reach 140 million people a month.
[Image: media-matters-share-blue-action-plan-535x600.jpg]
The Washington Free Beacon obtained a copy of this document
[Image: 1.jpg?mode=crop&width=984&height=554]

[Image: 47.jpg?mode=stretch&connatiximg=true&sca...&width=820]
The Free Beacon published this lengthy document by David Brock, the founder of Soros-funded Media Matters website, from a January donor retreat.
The 49 page memo outlined how the George Soros-funded groups Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Shareblue planned to undermine President Trump’s agenda and help Democrats win control of Congress and the White House by 2020.

On page two of the plan these top far left organizations announced their strategy.
They will work with the tech giants to eliminate “right wing propaganda and fake news.”
It is right there on page 2:
[Image: media-matters-plan-facebook--497x600.jpg]
The document then claims that Media Matters and far left groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”
According to their report these far left groups have been working with Facebook and Twitter to eliminate conservative content.
Via The Daily Wire:
Quote:“The earlier we can identify a fake news story, the more effectively we can quash it,” the memo states. “With this new technology at our fingertips, researchers monitoring news in real time will be able to identify the origins of a lie with mathematical precision, creating an early warning system for fake news and disinformation.”
The memo went on to state that Media Matters had a discussion with Facebook on how to crack down on fake news, including Media Matters providing the social media giant with “a detailed map of the constellation of right-wing Facebook pages that had been the biggest purveyors of fake news.” The memo also bragged that Media Matters provided Google with “the information necessary to identify 40 of the worst fake new sites” that would be prevented from using Google’s advertising network.

And this is exactly what happened.
In 2016 The Gateway Pundit was one of the few conservative sites that supported candidate Trump – along with Breitbart, The Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge, Conservative Treehouse and several others.
In 2017 Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review found that The Gateway Pundit was the 4th most influential conservative news source in the 2016 election.
Because of this we were targeted and have seen our numbers related to Facebook and Twitter decline dramatically.
This had nothing to do with the quality of our posts as we have proof that our generic numbers are up and and continue to increase.
In February Facebook launched another algorithm change to their platform. With the changes we saw our traffic dwindle even further.
We weren’t the only ones to be affected. The algorithmic change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%.
In contrast, according to Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement.
Facebook took our money for advertising and promised a fair playing field. Facebook lied to us and every conservative group in America.  And, according to far left groups, Facebook is working with liberal organizations to eliminate conservative content.
A recent Pew Study found that 71% of Americans see how tech giants are censoring political content.
And they are.

A Gateway Pundit June study of top conservative news outlets found that Facebook has eliminated 93% of traffic to top conservative websites.
[Image: facebook-one-1-1-600x440.jpg]

Facebook began eliminating conservative content after the 2016 election.
[Image: facebook-news-conservatives-478x600.jpg]

Source



Reply
With the convoluted politics of the US still causing the country's electorate to scratch their heads on whether a two-term
coup had taken place, the American mainstream media's craving to call President Trump a traitor is struggling.

But the ever-serious BBC have rested their concerns of the movers and shakers of the world and decided to return to what
they know best. Namely the autocratic London elite and ticking the boxes on the list provided by their Diversity Department.

Don't let them fool you, all the images are from the London Underground and stock-photography. Chances are, the author
of this article probably never left their desk.


Quote:Anti-social commuters: Your tales of bad travel etiquette.

'Returning to work after a blissful Bank Holiday can be tiresome enough without being faced with your fellow
commuters' annoying habits. Here are some of our readers' tales of irksome travel etiquette.

The nail clippers.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=4390]

Simon Johns was once two seats away from a man who decided the London Underground was the perfect place
to trim his toenails. "As we left Euston, the shoes came off, then the socks, then out came the clippers," said the
50-year-old from London.

"Shards of toenail were sent pinging around the carriage - those in the vicinity were fairly appalled, but London
being London no-one said a thing." Elizabeth Morfakis, 23, from Norfolk, was on a bus in London with a friend
when "a clipping landed right near us". "We looked at each other in a confused and mildly disgusted way but
didn't say anything," she said.

"The passenger got off at the next stop seemingly without a care in the world, leaving a small gift of clippings scattered
around the area they'd been sat in for other lucky passengers to enjoy."

Andrew Randle, 45, from Berkshire was on a Waterloo to Reading train when he heard the "clicking and occasional
pinging noises" of another travel trimmer. "Another passenger noticed him, she was equally perplexed -and the look
between us before I left was one of joint incredulity and bemusement," he said.

The talkers.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=4391]

Jessica Cavanagh, 20, said she hated people who spoke loudly about personal matters on her rail commute between
Leicester and Birmingham. "I don't need to know about what your dog's poo looked like this morning," she said.
Steve White said he confronted a man who spent 45 minutes talking on two mobile phones while facing a quiet sign.

"He was totally indignant and really quite abusive saying I had no right to ask him to shut up and he was not harming anyone,"
said the 52-year-old from Manchester. "He did eventually stop making calls but only after a further few minutes. I think he was
trying to prove a point. He did. He proved an inability to read and to consider anyone except himself."

The eaters.
David Thornton, 60, from west Somerset, said he was irritated by food aromas, even those from sushi.
"Perhaps one of the most interesting meals was a girl in the seat opposite who, immediately after the train started to move
out of the station, decided to open her pre-packed mixed sushi delight and for the next hour or so picked slowly at the
decomposing raw fish," he said.

Helen Williams, 26, from Manchester said: "A woman sat next to me, opened a family tray of supermarket cold water prawns
and ate the whole packet with her fingers. No shame." Rob Boyd, 49, from London, said he could not deal with "the chap who
eats his muesli out of a Tupperware tub, ritually between Clapham and Vauxhall each morning slurping it really loudly".
"It's gross and he never seems to finish it all," he added...'

The make-uppers.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=4392]

People doing their make up on the train is a regular source of complaint.

Michael Boyd, 61, said he had been dusted with face powder by nearby make-uppers. "I have also been sprayed in the face
as a lady squirted perfume on to her neck," he said. "I coughed very loudly... and she scowled at me."

One anonymous woman, who works for a train operator, said she had seen full makeovers on her journeys around the West
Midlands. She watched a woman spend 30 minutes applying make-up.

"[She] proceeded to do a full-on application of foundation, blending away merrily, followed by contouring, lip liner, lip colour,
eye shadow, eye liner, eyelashes, then a final flourish of powder all over the face - to set it in place I assume.
"Some of the other passengers were looking quite bemused, others just a glance - so clearly totally normal for their journey."

The woman who works for a train operator said she had also seen "a middle aged lady get the nail polish out and proceed
to not only give her fingernails a good top up but also add a layer to her toenails as well".
"It has become the norm to bring bathroom habits to the train journey to presumably snatch a few extra minutes sleep in the
morning," she said.

The recliners.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=4393]

"Feet on seats is never, ever acceptable," said Phil Dibbs, from North Yorkshire. "I always ask people to put their feet down."
"Part of it is seat blocking and part of it is a lack of respect. It's a complete disregard of other people."
Martin Officer said it was "totally selfish" and annoyed him "particularly as they would never do it at home".

Other bug bears from readers included putting bags or dogs on seats, sitting in other people's reserved seats and people
parking themselves next to the aisle when the window seat is vacant...'
BBC:

Will you bring flowers to the established media's graveside?


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
               
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
Remember when Tommy Robinson was accused and at the time, arrested for filming on Magistrate Court property
and possibly tainting the verdict of the Rotherham grooming-gang trial...? Remember how outraged the media were
that such a non-journalistic action was performed?

It hurts me as much as the next person to say this, but the photographed men below are innocent until proven guilty
and reporting in The Sun's manner, must surely effect a fair outcome?

Quote:'SNATCHED AWAY' Rotherham grooming gang trial.
Teenage girl ‘had sex with 100 Asian men by age 16’ and was pregnant at 15
Sheffield Crown Court heard how the girl had her childhood 'snatched away' by years of sexual abuse.

'A young girl was "passed around" and had sex with 100 men by the time she was 16, jurors in a child sex
abuse trial were told. The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, claims the abuse she suffered between
1998 and 2001 began when she was just 13 years old.

Her harrowing account was given in a video interview played at the trial of eight men accused of sexual abuse
of five girls over a five-year period from 1998 to 2003.

They were arrested and charged as part of Operation Stovewood -a police investigation into sexual abuse
launched after the Rotherham grooming scandal.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=4449]
Mohammed Imran Ali Akhtar, (Left_ 36, arrived at Sheffield Crown Court with his face covered and

Tanweer Ali, 36, is accused of two counts of indecent assault, two counts of rape and one of false
imprisonment.

Sheffield Crown Court, South Yorks., heard how her phone number would be "passed around" between men.
She said: "I can honestly say that by the age of 16 I had slept with 100 Asian men -some I didn't see again.
"The ones who come and use you for one time are the ones who are hard to remember.

"As soon as you get to know them your number gets passed around.
"Asian lads demanding to meet you - then you meet a new group and it went on like that.
"I didn't know at the time I was being passed around when I was 13 but I know now I'm older."

Tanweer Ali, 37, and Mohammed Imran Ali Akhtar, 37, are both accused of indecently assaulting the girl between
1998 and 2001 when she was under the age of 16.
Ali and Akhtar would have been aged between 17 and 20 during the alleged period of offending.

The victim described how she initially disliked Ali Akhtar, of Rotherham.
However she eventually "fell" for the delivery driver when he made her feel special by visiting her "every day" after
he finished his shift in the early hours of the morning. She became pregnant with his son at the age of 14 and gave
birth to him when she was 15.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=4450]

Nabeel Kurshid, (Left) 34, is charged with two counts of rape and one of indecent assault and
Iqlak Yousaf, 33, faces two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault.

The victim claimed sexual activity with Ali Akhtar continued throughout pregnancy.
She told how and after their son was born, she "tricked" Akhtar into meeting his child when he visited her hoping for sex.
The victim told how her sister was also allegedly abused by Ali Akhtar.
She said: "We were children one minute and adults the next.
"We were snatched away."

[Image: attachment.php?aid=4451]
Amjal Rafiq, (Left) 38, faces one count of indecent assault and one charge of false imprisonment
and Salah Ahmed El-Hakam, 38, is charged with rape.


Ali, also of Rotherham, and Ali Akhtar are on trial with six other men, all accused of committing historic sex offences in
Rotherham against five alleged victims.
The trial continues...'
The Sun:


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
If I was a Journalist, I'd be wondering how much longer I have in the outrage-paradigm before someone asks me to write
a neutral report. Seriously, with all the articles that have two sides to a particular topic, how long can mainstream journalism
rely on deliberately causing the fuming from a reader to be beneficial to their word-juggling salary?

A lot of people voted for Donald Trump and the rules said he had enough of them to become President of the United States.
Yet everyday, the MSM roll out stories that have negative connotations about him and indicate that those who voted for him
were either tricked or have poor judgement.

Great Britain leaving the European Union is assumed -by the many daily reports from the media, as a bad decision and
one has to wonder, if the referendum had gone the other way and the UK had voted to stay in, what would those same
news outlets say then?
'Exclusive: What Britain has took for granted for years is just the same'?!!

Activists are never reported on to explain their preferences, press-releases from particular groups with favoured agendas
are never acknowledged in a report and official outlets -that provide substance to an article, are not enlarged on to show
that no bias is actually coming from the Reporter, merely being provided a vehicle to purvey that message.

But why only one side...? Why only offer one side of a story? Surely when the current trend of virtuous people marching on
their capital city with rage and five-word slogans, a media can report on both sides of what is for debate?
But they don't.

We're at a time when the establishment press are being seen for what they are, companies with a type of product that's
struggling in a technologically-driven environment where adaption -just like many industries, is reluctant to due to its status
position in society. You're supposed to trust the Press, not some gossiping blogger or YouTube commentator.

The nature of free-markets ensures that those who's product isn't competitive, will struggle and probably fail.
If the mainstream outlets provide a healthy all-around-appreciative commodity, then lesser -and possibly contemporary
styles of information outlets will wither. In essence, the best is best.

But choice can be a factor of course and this would be principally be based on the content of the news provided.
Due to the trust that readers/viewers have come to socially accept, the information would have to be able to -not only hold
the reader/viewer's immediate attention, but also imply that further investment of finance and time in future information
-collation should be a must.

One might think that it would dishonourable to cater for a particular section of society and provide news that holds the duel
purpose of supporting that chosen perception and even promoting it. But sadly, honour isn't something in a Journalist's
vocabulary these days. Honour doesn't pay the bills and dignity in their craft and the truth are just words that belong in a
romantic hardback from Reader's Digest.

I understand that, I really do. Reality has a habit of making you hold your nose and force you to eat shit.
Heck, just watch the in-house pundits on a Paper-Review section of news programme...! They'll take a side and argue with
acting that wouldn't be out of place in a school Christmas play!
Paper-Review... a worrying trend as well. Journalists talking to Journalists about what Journalists wrote.

So if we accept the pragmatism that catering for a parts of society who hold a particular opinion brings its rewards and by
connecting those groups using appropriate phrasing, a medium's audience can be enlarged. Views that would consider
themselves different can be brought closer by nuance prose and those deemed unpopular by the media's audience can
be painted even darker than before.

In fact, we can go further. Why not create new enemies for that avid group of readers/viewers...?! Let's choose sides with
the use of religious-beliefs, skin-colour and different perspectives. Lets divide society up and with what amounts to strife
-causing propaganda, sit back and watch the shit-show. All the while, the warring factions are paying you to dance to a tune
they never decided on.

But the unvarnished truth...? The alternative views that combat those audiences' model of the world?
Well, to maintain favour, one can omit and obfuscate pieces of information and stay with the preferred narrative.
The mortgage gets paid, the lights stay on and the in-group readers/viewers sleep confidently in their beds knowing they
are right and someone else is wrong.

But in reality, a person can have opinions that are right and wrong. We all have them. It's what makes us so pliable.
How many reading this already know that...? Don't you think Journalists know that too?!!

The death-throes of mainstream media are undignified and after all these years of supposedly 'fighting the devil' -as the
Fourth Estate liked to proclaim, they're dying in the most dishonourable manner.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
In an effort to show what I meant by the failing MSM taking a side to maintain an outrage paradigm, here's the
BBC displaying an uninformative article that leans heavily on emotional dissent. They know it annoys both sides
when penned correctly and offers a 'baddie' and the virtuous 'victims'... usually framed -via a photograph, as a
young person.

The simple truth is that the mainstream media have given-up on anyone over 45 years-old and now pursue the
kids as possible 'next-gen' customers.
Good luck with that!

Quote:Brett Kavanaugh confirmation: Victory for Trump in Supreme Court battle.

'President Donald Trump's controversial nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, has been sworn in
following weeks of rancorous debate. The Senate earlier backed his nomination by 50 votes to 48.
Mr Kavanaugh had been embroiled in a bitter battle to stave off claims of sexual assault, which he denies...'

Ignoble at best. The Hearing was requested due to the claims and at the time of writing, there's indications that
the accusations were politically-driven. There no evidence of the crimes -because that's what they would be, and
due to the shrewd verve to write such implications, the divisive act shows that the alleged criminal act towards
Blasey Ford was never important, stopping Kavanaugh getting to the Supreme Court was.

Most reading this may smile at my inexperience of political-jousting and they'd be right. But it's the exhibition of
bogus affront by poor actors that I believe is the concern here. Using words like 'honourable' and 'trust' as mere
bullets to destroy ones enemy shows how crass many of the participants of this shit-show really are.

Quote:'...But after an 11th-hour investigation by the FBI into the allegations, enough wavering senators decided to support
the nomination. His confirmation hands Mr Trump a political victory ahead of key mid-term elections in November...'

And Blasey Ford...? She believes she was sexually assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh back in the mid-early
eighties. What are the concerned Democrats and Republicans doing about that?
You see...? Ford's claim as been relegated to a claim and Kavanaugh's name and family have been insulted,
but the real reason for the terrible carnival is now accepted as the norm.

Reporting an 'eleventh-hour investigation' is also a poor representation of what really occurred and it shows how
the FBI are used in a child-like fictive constabulary. Six investigations had already taken place into Kavanaugh's
past and nothing was found. There was never any opinions that the FBI had failed to unearth Ford's purported
situation, nor that such a failing would then be found due to a better examination.

Regardless of the Bureau's inability to referee on an outcome, why didn't the same mainstream media accuse
the FBI of suppressing the sexual assault...? Because it would possibly indicate the agency had -and still is, being
used as a political-tool instead of performing the role it was created for.

So to compound the bias and vaguely point to this -along with other histrionics, that having Donald Trump in the
White House is not the greatest of idead, the MSM turn to emotions and undeveloped minds.

Quote:'...Before the vote, hundreds of people protested against Mr Kavanaugh's nomination at the US Capitol in Washington.
During the vote, other protesters shouted "shame" from the public gallery and Vice-President Mike Pence had to call
for order to be restored...'

I'll wager Blasey Ford wasn't among the protesters, the actual alleged victim that generated all of this.
One has to wonder if the female that Vice-President Pence had removed from the gallery had been raped or sexually
assaulted and whether she has or will contact the proper authorities.
If not, it's merely a puerile tantrum in a forum where mature decisions are debated upon and decided.

Again, we all know the truth of why Judge was required to answer questions in front of partisan Senators and the
excited public, it was because of Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court and concerns regarding abortion.
Blasey Ford and her memories have faded into the background now and the 'Creepy-Porn Lawyer' has returned to
booking his client into another tit-wiggling gig far from Washington DC.

Its a disgrace that will be archived until the MSM pendulum swings the other way, but the conduct will always be frowned
at in the future and in other power-bases across the world, it will be mocked. Ironically, the reality-show environment that
President Trump left, followed him from the superficial lands of Hollywood and is dining high-off-the-hog in the nation's
capital.

Anyway, back to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford dealing with her ordeal. Er, it seems not. 

Quote:'...Mr Kavanaugh's appointment is for life and he will strengthen conservative control of the nine-judge court, which has the
final say on US law. The 53 year old was sworn in on Saturday evening in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court. Chief
Justice John Roberts administered the constitutional oath and retired justice Anthony Kennedy - whom Mr Kavanaugh is
replacing - administered the judicial oath...'

There it is, the ruse displayed that everyone knew was the real reason for the Hearing debacle.
The biased media couldn't help themselves.

Quote:'...Protesters had gathered outside the court and at one point some ran up the steps and banged on its ornate doors.
Other demonstrators climbed on the nearby statue of justice...'

Because that's what kids do. They make noise and stick out their bottom lips. But it doesn't mean their bawling and behavior
has any merit, only the subject-matter is relevant. 

Quote:'...What has Mr Trump said?
He sent out a tweet of congratulations:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
 I applaud and congratulate the U.S. Senate for confirming our GREAT NOMINEE, Judge Brett Kavanaugh,
to the United States Supreme Court. Later today, I will sign his Commission of Appointment, and he will be
officially sworn in. Very exciting!

Later he spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One, saying Mr Kavanaugh had withstood a "horrible attack by the Democrats"
and that women were "outraged" at what had happened to the nominee. Mr Trump also said he was "100% certain" that the
woman who had accused Mr Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, had named the wrong person...'

And oddly enough, this suggestion of mistaken identity is generally accepted by most fair-minded people looking at
this situation. Dr. Ford did give-off the impression something awful happened to her, but the evidence offered didn't
indicate the perpetrator was Judge Kavanaugh.

The BBC are said to be neutral, so we'll get back to worrying about an accusation from Blasey Ford being ignored and the
assumed reasons people are protesting against the result. Er... again, no.

Quote:'...So what were the numbers in the Senate?
The upper house is split 51-49 in favour of the Republicans and the vote was largely along party lines.
In the end, there was indeed a two-vote margin, the closest nomination vote since 1881.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=4590]


The only party dissenters were Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who had intended to vote no, and Democrat Joe
Manchin, who voted yes. That should have meant a 51-49 tally, but the absence of Republican Steve Daines, a yes voter
who was at his daughter's wedding, altered the final figures.
Ms Murkowski opted instead to simply mark herself as "present", leaving the final vote 50-48...'

Really...? No paragraph on Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick's accusations? We've been led to believe that  people
outside the Supreme Court building are revolting about Kavanaugh being a serial sexual predator and the lack of old white
men believing the women making the accusations.

Who gives a crap about being signed-in as a Supreme Court Judge, the outrage is about the crimes he's been accused of,
isn't it? Come on BBC, don't let the females down now.

Quote:'...What was said in the Senate?
In their final summations, the two Senate party leaders reflected how bitter the divide had become.

Minority Democrat leader Chuck Schumer said Mr Kavanaugh did not belong on the bench as he had "obscured his views
to the American people", "repeatedly misled the Senate" and delivered one of the "bitterest and most partisan testimonies
ever presented by a nominee".

He also said Mr Trump had "stooped to new depths" in mocking the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford...'

Ah finally, Chuck Schumer sounds like the only rational voice in this brouhaha of political chess-playing. The women that
have been physically and mentally violated will be safe in Mr. Schumar's hands. One can be assured that a criminal court
proceedings will coming soon and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will have to answer for their deliberate failings or
even, cover-up.

Quote:'...Mr Schumer said that for all those who opposed the nomination, "there is one answer - vote" in the November mid-term
elections...'

Oh, well maybe not.

Quote:'...Majority Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Mr Kavanaugh was a "serious scholar, a brilliant student of the law and
a meticulous and dedicated public servant". He said events had "strained our basic principles of fairness and justice" and
that the vote showed the Senate was "an institution where evidence and facts matter".
He spoke of "intimidation by the mob" and said the Senate vote should be one "to turn away from darkness".

Ms Murkowski had earlier said that although Mr Kavanaugh was a "good man", he was "not the right person for the court at
this time" and his "appearance of impropriety has become unavoidable". Joe Manchin is facing a difficult re-election campaign
in West Virginia, a traditionally Republican state that Mr Trump won by a landslide.
He said he "found Judge Kavanaugh to be a qualified jurist".

There were shouts of "shame" from the public gallery as he voted yes...'

'Shame' -for what?!! Blasy Ford's miraculous healing from being unable to fly?
The two doors on her house argued for four years after she'd originally had them installed?
The total lack of witnesses to the alleged assault.
The timing-problem with the alleged crime and the opening of the Safeway Store where she'd seen Mark Judge after the
alleged assault.
Julie Swetnick's belief that standing next to a punch-bowl is evidence that you're not only applying alcohol to the bowl, you're
also in a queue for gang-raping. Actions that others she'd testified were there, denied.
Deborah Ramirez's accusation of Kavanaugh wagging his penis at her, an act so engraved into her memory that she had to
phone around her friends and ask if they could reinforce that memory.

Oh yes, the word 'shame' can be used.


Quote:'...Two Republican waverers, Susan Collins and Jeff Flake, finally decided to back the judge.'

Aw yeah, I forgot... we're still doing the Senate vote-thing and women used in this battle are cast aside.
However, I'm sure the BBC will help us to salve our rage that these poor females -the real reason for the media circus,
can have their say.

Quote:Analysis: Just the beginning
By Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter

'Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court has been decided. The political war, however, is just beginning.

Donald Trump's court pick generated a controversy that captured the nation's attention in a way that few political issues do.
It generated daily headlines rivalled only by the US quadrennial presidential elections.
Now that the bombs have been thrown, it's time to assess the fallout...'

Well, apart from the threat at the beginning and end, that was a waste of time.
Let's hope Mr. Zurcher can explain the disgraceful act of ignoring the distraught women that Kavanaugh is supposed to have
used.

Quote:Why is the court so important?
'Basically, it's the final arbiter of US law.

It has the ultimate say on such contentious issues as abortion and gun control.
The Democrats are still smarting from the previous Supreme Court appointment.
Republicans last year successfully stalled the process, meaning it fell to Mr Trump, not Barack Obama, to nominate the new
justice. Mr Trump's choice of Neil Gorsuch strengthened the conservative leaning.

All eyes will now be on November's mid-term elections. Mr Trump will be able to campaign on the back of an important victory,
but commentators will be watching closely how the Kavanaugh affair affects women voters...'
BBC:

Cheers Anthony, that helped.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)