Jeff Fields

It's about time. We need to see about 1000 more cases like this. And we need to see jail time.

You think all the very complex statements those Senators have publicly made to explain their votes were all fabricated, and the real reason is 100% Schumer? I'm sorry. That's ludicrous.

And just for the record, there was, is, and continues to be zero evidence that any of this "originated" with Schumer. I get wanting a scapegoat. Blame the Dems that voted the way you don't like and work to get them removed. Schumer isn't some magical god-king Oz. He doesn't have control of this.

Maybe we will pay for it. Maybe. I think it's just as likely that the shutdown will end up having been a net positive for Dems. Consider: Trump's ratings tanked, the election was a blue wave, and the shutdown seems to have clarified, for many voters, where the two parties stand.

Just going to clarify this one more time: It's childish to assume that Schumer magically controlled all these votes and somehow "used" 8 sitting Senators to "cover his ass". Childish. You think 8 people took a very unpopular vote just to save Schumer and there's a conspiracy to keep it quiet? Silly.

BTW, if you think your little grade-school attacks distracted me from the fact that you still haven't defended your weak argument...they haven't.

The traditional cry of the incompetent child who can't defend his argument. "Oh, I'm right because you don't have enough followers!"

Fucking idiot.

After all, what has been the consistent attack on Schumer for years? That he can't successfully control his caucus.

That's a very interesting made-up speculation, but there is zero evidence to support it. It's a lot more likely that those members made their own decisions based on their own motivations, than it is to make up conspiracy theories about Schumer magically being able to suddenly control his caucus.

To be fair, Pelosi never had to herd the Senate. It's a different animal. You don't actually know whether Schumer or any leader could have prevented these particular votes under this particular combination of pressures and circumstances, facing an opposition that does. not. care about the damage.

You seriously think Bernie could force everyone to vote the same way? I have news for you. He can't.

But Schumer didn't suggest this. He suggested the opposite. He voted for the opposite. So it's unfair to blame Schumer for these things. You can blame Schumer for failing to keep his caucus together, I suppose, but it's unclear whether any other leader could have done that in these circumstances.

You also pretended not to see my other comment. Nice! What a fucking lazy liar.

Predictable stupid response; this wasn't used to prove my point, and you need to learn how to use quotation marks. You can look this up yourself in 15 seconds and see that I'm obviously right, but you're too lazy, and you're rather keep lying.

Shut the fuck up and stop wasting my time, ok?

If you don't care about that, then you need to grow up a lot more and learn a lot more. And figure out basic, really important facts, like the fact that that 1 extra seat sometimes mean getting a Supreme Court Justice through, or not. Or getting key legislation through, or not.

Completely separate.

You're confused. The editorial board oversees ONLY the op/ed page. It has NO role in choosing or supervising news content or "controlling tone" of said reporting. Look it up.

He's not an entertainer. He's a paid fascist. Entertainers have to *be entertaining*. Funny. Observant. Clever.

Gutfeld is just a clumsy bully who smiles while being cruel. That's not entertainment.

There's not really any real evidence of that. There's zero evidence (so far at least) that Bezos has his thumb on the scale in the newsroom, which is what counts.

I don't see any real evidence of that in the newsroom. The reporting in the newsroom is still quite solid. It's just the stupid op/ed page, and honestly, who fucking cares if the op/ed page is bad? That's easy to ignore. What's truly irreplaceable is that experienced newsroom of real journalists.

Do op/ed boards have business models? The paper has a business model, one supposes, but I think what we see here is more of a...political model. It doesn't cater to any business interest that I can identify. It militates against the credibility of the rest of the paper.

That's just your stupid interpretation. Nobody intelligent thinks that tough questioning is a "meltdown" just because they hear a female voice.

We need a questioner who will take this response, and say "No. It is NOT just a fact. Please back up your accusation with relevant data, or retract it. Right now. And then stop repeating the lie daily. Stop forever."

What he said: 💯 🎯

"Thought"? No. Still thinks. He's aggressively campaigning for it every day.

Since when did it become acceptable for presidents to give speeches wearing stupid fucking baseball hats so you can't even see their eyes or facial expressions? Can we go back to not doing that, please? It's fucking ridiculous.

Cite evidence that Apple is helping them. Or you could just shut up! That'd work.

You don't know how I read your comment, apparently, and you probably shouldn't put things in quotes unless someone actually said those things. :) Have a good day.

Funding the arts is part of why we have a government. It's too important to be left to the largesse of the wealthy. But yes, they could do that. And they often help out with it.

Your math is off. Musk alone could cover half the interest on the federal debt (NOT "deficit", that's something else, as you know) this year. Not saying that would be a great idea or a permanent solution; just clarifying what the numbers are.