Where is the subpoena for Fox News to testify in front of a committee?

Where did Fox News prevent anyone from communicating anything, except possibly cases where an employee would be communicating as an employee?

You do realize that Fox News passed up the opportunity to run the Hunter Biden email story because they didn't find it credible? That the news organization with the most interest in finding supportable dirt on the Bidens didn't find this story sufficiently credible?

Credibility hasn't been an issue before. Out of the dozens of unsupported and improbable stories that paint Trump in a bad light, not to mention the completely disproven ones, how many have Twitter/Facebook/etc similarly censored?

More importantly, days later, after corroborating evidence was unearthed and nobody involved has been willing to deny it, it is (or was, haven't checked today) still being blocked.

Corporations are people, and have been ever since the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United 10 years ago.

It's been quite a bit longer than that.

How many wars did Trump start again?

He has, like, an R next to his name, so, like, all of them Like, I mean, duh!. /s

Even the hardliners know Trump wants to go to war with them

I think you're confused.

It boggles the mind the way you people cling desperately to the sometimes completely ludicrous (pizzagate, anyone ?) and tiniest shred of evidence the candidate for the other side is a rotten piece of trash, while systematically and relentlessly rejecting mountains of evidence and testimony spanning almost five decades that the candidate for your side is an even worse piece of shit and a disgusting sexual predator and child-molesting sack of pus.

If it weren't for the pizzagate mention, I honestly wouldn't know which side you were on.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and I still wouldn't lose any voters."

Right - Trump brags about how much his supporters love him using a hyperbolic hypothetical. I have no idea how this is a bad thing.

On the other hand, Biden has actually gotten away with inappropriately touching dozens of women and girls, in public and on camera. What does that tell you about Biden supporters*?

*I'm not talking about people who reluctantly support him because he's slightly better than Trump or something similar, just the ones that do so enthusiastically, both of them.

The non-Jebus arguments are based on ignoring science. That makes them invalid.

If you want to believe that, I can't stop you, and if you ever feel like learning something, you can pick up a book.

Either way, it's not my problem.

From your article:

"One troubling question is whether Russian hackers altered voting tallies in Trump’s favour. Most intelligence professionals think they didn’t. But Harry Reid, the senate minority leader in 2016 , has said there is “no question” Moscow changed the outcome. “The Russians manipulated the votes. It’s that simple,” he declared."

When one side has spent almost four years shouting about Russia and blaming them for everything from an election loss to "potentially turning off the heat in Vermont", and the most you've managed to show is that they have an intelligence service that spies on the US (like most countries) and ran Facebook ads, you can't really blame the rest of us for being a bit blazé about the whole Russia thing.

Heck, it was the mainstream immediate response to Hunter's emails being released - not "they're not real, it could be a Russian operation" but instead "no comment on if they're real, and we have no evidence of this, but it's totally Russia, just take our word for it".

As for fake news, do you really think that the BS spread by the right is anywhere close to the left-supporting BS spread by mainstream and social media, especially given that Twitter will censor right-supporting news that's just questionable, and will "fact check" well-supported stories by linking to articles stating outright, provable falsehoods?

As reported by Fox News and no other source.

Newsweek via MSN

Daily Mail

The Washington Times

And have you actually looked at the story? It's hilariously improbable...

Yes. What's so improbable about it? That an addict broke a laptop, dropped it off for repairs, and forgot to pick it up?

On the other hand, the fact that nobody is saying that the emails were forged is rather telling. If the emails are fake, they should say that, but if they're real, you can't just dismiss the whole thing as a smear job.

Also, keep in mind what they're trying to get you to believe "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say", what they actually have reason to believe "we do not have evidence of Russian involvement" (literally in body of that story), and what they're merely "suspicious" of.

The anti-abortion crew doesn't have a logical argument at all, unless you believe in magic sky friends, which is illogical.

Just because you haven't bothered to crack open an intro to ethics textbook doesn't mean that the arguments don't exist.

That's often how reform works. Laws are widely ignored or not enforced, it works okay so they get repealed.

Or white people get to go 75 and darker people are stuck at 65, and even after decades of jokes and a few riots, nothing gets done about it.

Or the wealthy can go to salons while the middle class has to deal with hair trimmers at home.

Or prosecutors just happen to drop cases against the children of politicians.

Or you get to stay in the country, but if you interact with a cop who wants something from you, you have to give it to them or face deportation.

"I don't know how to refute an incredulous stare." David Lewis

I also don't know how to refute an insult, or a context-free assertion about other people's state of mind.

Next time try using an argument, or at least state a verifiable fact.

I have to say that "appeal to the law" is an exceptionally shitty argument. Just because something is the law doesn't make it right.

Yes, thank goodness I didn't make such an argument.

In fact many democracies only work because half the laws aren't enforced.

See, that's what I'm arguing against. Selective enforcement just leads to sudden legal changes after an election, discrimination against various groups, corruption and using the law as a weapon, and resentment, frustration, and lack of trust in government.

If you want immigration law to be reformed, like I do, then creating "sanctuary cites" is the worst way to go - the new arrivals get used as cheap labor that can't sue over safety violations, it makes the "us vs them" dynamic even worse, the well-connected get away with a lot more than the rest of us, and it reduces the urgency for fixing the underlying problem.

I think I'm getting where you're coming from, but I think you're saying "the price of food" when you mean "the price of the food I like, the way I like to get it, along with other stuff related to it".

Here in europe that is much more averaged out, and basic food from the grocery store costs multiple time as much as in the USA.

Sure, as a first guess I'd say that taxes, trade policy, and resistance to GMOs and other "not invented here" tech probably play a role. But that's not the food itself that's more expensive, it's the government added costs that are "expensive".

as soon as you are the wrong place in a decent restaurant prices explode.

Sure, but if it's the location that's expensive, then it's not really the price of the food itself that's different.

I mean, if you could get soybeans from Brazil that cost 20% less but the government bans them because of GMO fears, and your favorite restaurant raises prices because their new lease costs them more, it's kind of misleading to say that "food is not cheaper than ever".

Wow, still peddling that lie are you? I thought that died years ago.

Even if it were untrue, it's still a funny idea.

Some venue asked hearing people to do it for the benefit of the deaf people in attendance and right wing social media lost it's mind

Yes, just for deaf people and it's only right wing social media that bought into it. :)