Government Shutdown

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:No one truly voted against her.  There was never a vote until she was approved.  The negotiating was all done behind closed doors.

But there was talk even before the November election that should the Dems take back the House, there was going to be serious hurdles for Nancy to clear to become Speaker again.

This article is from August 15th- https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Is-the-November-election-Pelosi-s-last-stand-13159467.php

Again...if the House selects a 30-year-old self-identified Latino Socialist as the next Speaker on January 3rd, 2021, I will be the first person to admit I'm wrong.

But, until that happens, I am going to believe that the takeover of the Democratic Party by the radical left has been greatly exaggerated.


More likely, the Democratic Party will subsume AOC and her ilk, much like what happened to the Tea Parties within the Republican Party.

And if AOC refuses to play ball? There is always the primary:
https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fhouse%2F427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a radical left/Socialist takeover in 2 years but what we are suggesting is that the radical wing has the ear of an increasing number of Democrats, especially younger voters, as well as more Democrats in the House.

Precisely.  You don't have to be Speaker to wield political power.

I mean, AOC's been in office for how long?  2 months?  Look at the amount of clout she's already wielding.

What committees is she on? How many bills is she getting through? Other than making headlines with her economic illiteracy, what real clout does she have? Is Pelosi and the Democratic leadership  really going to put her in charge of anything important?

She raises a lot of money, no doubt. But she needs to. Republican fundraisers LOVE her, I'm sure. She is a gift from the Gods...

She showed up pretty prominently in the Cohen questioning.

OSUBucks wrote:

19delta wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:No one truly voted against her.  There was never a vote until she was approved.  The negotiating was all done behind closed doors.

But there was talk even before the November election that should the Dems take back the House, there was going to be serious hurdles for Nancy to clear to become Speaker again.

This article is from August 15th- https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Is-the-November-election-Pelosi-s-last-stand-13159467.php

Again...if the House selects a 30-year-old self-identified Latino Socialist as the next Speaker on January 3rd, 2021, I will be the first person to admit I'm wrong.

But, until that happens, I am going to believe that the takeover of the Democratic Party by the radical left has been greatly exaggerated.


More likely, the Democratic Party will subsume AOC and her ilk, much like what happened to the Tea Parties within the Republican Party.

And if AOC refuses to play ball? There is always the primary:
https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fhouse%2F427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a radical left/Socialist takeover....

Re-read your earlier posts. That's exactly what you were suggesting. Maybe not in 2 years, but that was certainly the point of your earlier posts.

Me, on the other hand? I'm willing to bet that AOC and her ilk are an afterthought by 2021 and will have lost what influence they are currently enjoying.

Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement or you are just trolling.

I am not going to go through each one of your hyperbolic statements and quote them, but here's a good example:

"Pelosi appears weak as I just saw her on TV today and she was careful not to criticize Ilhan Omar for her public anti Semitic statements."

What Omar said was NOT anti-Semetic so there is no reason for the Democratic Party leadership to criticize what she said.

Here's Omar's statement:

"I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country," the congresswoman from Minnesota said...

That is anti-semetic? Seriously? If that is antisemitism, then Omar is doing it wrong.

This, on the other hand, is CLEARLY antisemitism:
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale. It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master." --Adolph Hitler

So, if you REALLy think that Omar's comment is anti-semitic, then either YOU are the troll or you need a serious recalibration of your offensometer. Like I said...toughen up, snowflake!

Head Idiot wrote:

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:No one truly voted against her.  There was never a vote until she was approved.  The negotiating was all done behind closed doors.

But there was talk even before the November election that should the Dems take back the House, there was going to be serious hurdles for Nancy to clear to become Speaker again.

This article is from August 15th- https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Is-the-November-election-Pelosi-s-last-stand-13159467.php

Again...if the House selects a 30-year-old self-identified Latino Socialist as the next Speaker on January 3rd, 2021, I will be the first person to admit I'm wrong.

But, until that happens, I am going to believe that the takeover of the Democratic Party by the radical left has been greatly exaggerated.


More likely, the Democratic Party will subsume AOC and her ilk, much like what happened to the Tea Parties within the Republican Party.

And if AOC refuses to play ball? There is always the primary:
https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fhouse%2F427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a radical left/Socialist takeover in 2 years but what we are suggesting is that the radical wing has the ear of an increasing number of Democrats, especially younger voters, as well as more Democrats in the House.

Precisely.  You don't have to be Speaker to wield political power.

I mean, AOC's been in office for how long?  2 months?  Look at the amount of clout she's already wielding.

What committees is she on? How many bills is she getting through? Other than making headlines with her economic illiteracy, what real clout does she have? Is Pelosi and the Democratic leadership  really going to put her in charge of anything important?

She raises a lot of money, no doubt. But she needs to. Republican fundraisers LOVE her, I'm sure. She is a gift from the Gods...

She showed up pretty prominently in the Cohen questioning.

Sure. She looks good on camera. I'll give her that.

But her primary contribution to public discourse to this point is that laughably bad "Green New Deal" that reads like it was written by a lovesick 10th grader trying to impress a girl way out of his league. She has already been forced to memory hole portions of it.

19delta wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

19delta wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:No one truly voted against her.  There was never a vote until she was approved.  The negotiating was all done behind closed doors.

But there was talk even before the November election that should the Dems take back the House, there was going to be serious hurdles for Nancy to clear to become Speaker again.

This article is from August 15th- https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Is-the-November-election-Pelosi-s-last-stand-13159467.php

Again...if the House selects a 30-year-old self-identified Latino Socialist as the next Speaker on January 3rd, 2021, I will be the first person to admit I'm wrong.

But, until that happens, I am going to believe that the takeover of the Democratic Party by the radical left has been greatly exaggerated.


More likely, the Democratic Party will subsume AOC and her ilk, much like what happened to the Tea Parties within the Republican Party.

And if AOC refuses to play ball? There is always the primary:
https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fhouse%2F427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a radical left/Socialist takeover....

Re-read your earlier posts. That's exactly what you were suggesting. Maybe not in 2 years, but that was certainly the point of your earlier posts.

Me, on the other hand? I'm willing to bet that AOC and her ilk are an afterthought by 2021 and will have lost what influence they are currently enjoying.

Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement or you are just trolling.

I am not going to go through each one of your hyperbolic statements and quote them, but here's a good example:

"Pelosi appears weak as I just saw her on TV today and she was careful not to criticize Ilhan Omar for her public anti Semitic statements."

What Omar said was NOT anti-Semetic so there is no reason for the Democratic Party leadership to criticize what she said.

Here's Omar's statement:

"I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country," the congresswoman from Minnesota said...

That is anti-semetic? Seriously? If that is antisemitism, then Omar is doing it wrong.

This, on the other hand, is CLEARLY antisemitism:
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale. It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master." --Adolph Hitler

So, if you REALLy think that Omar's comment is anti-semitic, then either YOU are the troll or you need a serious recalibration of your offensometer. Like I said...toughen up, snowflake!

I must have touched a nerve. Toughen up snowflake!

Yes. Indeed. It does get on my nerves when people talk out of their ass and just barf back what they saw on Fox News or read on National Review.

You didn't even know what Omar actually said. You admitted that.

Again...I ask you...do you really think that what she said is anti-Semitic? And if so, how? You are going to have seriously contort what she said to convince me that she is an anti-Semite.

19delta wrote:Yes. Indeed. It does get on my nerves when people talk out of their ass and just barf back what they saw on Fox News or read on National Review.

You didn't even know what Omar actually said. You admitted that.

Again...I ask you...do you really think that what she said is anti-Semitic? And if so, how? You are going to have seriously contort what she said to convince me that she is an anti-Semite.

Jumping into this fray briefly...

I agree that what she said in this most recent dust up did not seem anti Seimitic to me. Why, then, is Pelosi saying that Omar doesn't understand the anti-Semitic connotations of her words? And why did the Democratic controlled House of Reps overwhelmingly vote in favor of a resolution repudiating bigotry and hate speech shortly after one of their own uttered those words she "didn't understand"?

ramblinman wrote:

19delta wrote:Yes. Indeed. It does get on my nerves when people talk out of their ass and just barf back what they saw on Fox News or read on National Review.

You didn't even know what Omar actually said. You admitted that.

Again...I ask you...do you really think that what she said is anti-Semitic? And if so, how? You are going to have to seriously contort what she said to convince me that she is an anti-Semite.

Jumping into this fray briefly...

I agree that what she said in this most recent dust up did not seem anti Seimitic to me.  Why, then, is Pelosi saying that Omar doesn't understand the anti-Semitic connotations of her words?  And why did the Democratic controlled House of Reps overwhelmingly vote in favor of a resolution repudiating bigotry and hate speech shortly after one of their own uttered those words she "didn't understand"?

You are a smart guy. You know the answer to that.

But, for everyone else, here is why:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/aipac-uses-ilhan-omar-controversy-around-israel-lobby-to-raise-funds/255067/

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but she doesn't seem to like Israel to say the least. See the tweet from 2012 when she calls for Allah's help in awakening the people to see the evil doings of Israel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/house-democrats-ilhan-omar-antisemitism-1163728

https://www.gop.gov/house-gop-leaders-call-on-democrats-to-denounce-rep-omars-past-anti-israel-statements/

OSUBucks wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion but she doesn't seem to like Israel to say the least. See the tweet from 2012 when she calls for Allah's help in awakening the people to see the evil doings of Israel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/house-democrats-ilhan-omar-antisemitism-1163728

https://www.gop.gov/house-gop-leaders-call-on-democrats-to-denounce-rep-omars-past-anti-israel-statements/

Again...how is the recent comment anti-Semitic?

And her tweet? How is that anti-Semitic? She said that she is praying to God that people realize that the government of Israel is evil. That is NOT an anti-Semitic statement.

Legitimate criticism of Israel IS NOT anti-Semitism.

But it is good to see that you are actually doing some research on your own that has led to you walking back your earlier contention that Omar's comments are anti-Semitic.

19delta wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion but she doesn't seem to like Israel to say the least. See the tweet from 2012 when she calls for Allah's help in awakening the people to see the evil doings of Israel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/house-democrats-ilhan-omar-antisemitism-1163728

https://www.gop.gov/house-gop-leaders-call-on-democrats-to-denounce-rep-omars-past-anti-israel-statements/

Again...how is the recent comment anti-Semitic?

And her tweet? How is that anti-Semitic? She said that she is praying to God that people realize that the government of Israel is evil. That is NOT an anti-Semitic statement.

Legitimate criticism of Israel IS NOT anti-Semitism.

But it is good to see that you are actually doing some research on your own that has led to you walking back your earlier contention that Omar's comments are anti-Semitic.

When a Muslim makes a comment referring to Israel as evil does that imply that she's anti Semitic? Yes it probably does IMO. But again you are entitled to your opinion. I'm not walking anything back. You asked for a quote and you got one.
I still think you are a troll when I look at this thread as well as looking back to some of your previous arguments on the board. I remember years ago when you maintained that Urlacher was better than Butkus. More recently you maintained that the recently released Bears player Jordan Howard was the equal of Zeke Elliott. You were either just trolling or you are the worst talent evaluator that I've ever come across.

OSUBucks wrote:

19delta wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Everyone is entitled to their opinion but she doesn't seem to like Israel to say the least. See the tweet from 2012 when she calls for Allah's help in awakening the people to see the evil doings of Israel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/house-democrats-ilhan-omar-antisemitism-1163728

https://www.gop.gov/house-gop-leaders-call-on-democrats-to-denounce-rep-omars-past-anti-israel-statements/

Again...how is the recent comment anti-Semitic?

And her tweet? How is that anti-Semitic? She said that she is praying to God that people realize that the government of Israel is evil. That is NOT an anti-Semitic statement.

Legitimate criticism of Israel IS NOT anti-Semitism.

But it is good to see that you are actually doing some research on your own that has led to you walking back your earlier contention that Omar's comments are anti-Semitic.

When a Muslim makes a comment referring to Israel as evil does that imply that she's anti Semitic? Yes it probably does IMO. But again you are entitled to your opinion. I'm not walking anything back. You asked for a quote and you got one.
I still think you are a troll when I look at this thread as well as looking back to some of your previous arguments on the board. I remember years ago when you maintained that Urlacher was better than Butkus. More recently you maintained that the recently released Bears player Jordan Howard was the equal of Zeke Elliott. You were either just trolling or you are the worst talent evaluator that I've ever come across.

Urlacher IS better than Butkus.

And, Howard is equal to Elliott, at least dollar-for-dollar, which, IIRC, is the argument I was making.

And regarding Omar, perhaps her being Muslim gives her a perspective on Israel that should be given greater legitimacy. That does not make it anti-Semitic.

Career Production: Jordan Howard vs. Zeke Elliott

Jordan Howard - 5th Round Draft Pick (150th player overall)
47 games played
778 carries
3,370 yards
4.3 YPC
24 career rushing TDs
568 receiving yards
1 TD receiving
Career Earnings: $1.8 million (2016-2018)


Zeke Elliott - 1st Round Draft Pick (#4 overall)
40 games played
868 carries
4,048 yards
4.7 YPC
28 career rushing TDs
1,199 receiving yards
6 receiving TDs
Career Earnings: $20.5 million (2016-2018)

So, for almost $19 million more than the Bears have paid for Howard's services, Elliott has played 7 fewer games, generated about 1200 more yards of offense, produced 9 more TDs, and gained about a foot and half more per carry.

Yeah...Howard is really a bum. Man...the Bears are jerks for drafting a serviceable, cheap NFL-ready RB in the 5th round!

I like Howard, never said anywhere on here that I didn't. I wasn't real happy when I heard he was leaving. I was impressed by what I saw of him at Indiana too. He's not the equal of Zeke Elliott as your own stats show. That was my point.
I will walk back my comment about you being a troll. I think you really believe what you say about Urlacher. Heck of a player. Just not the equal of Butkus IMO. Watching Urlacher over the years one thing that I noticed was that he wasn't elite at shedding blocks. You could put a hat on him and hold him at bay for a while. Other than that there's not much to critique. Freaky speed for a 250 lb guy.
You just couldn't keep Butkus blocked very long, shed blockers quickly. It was a fools errand to run at him. Butkus's career was shortened by injuries and they didn't keep as complete stats then as they do now. Butkus had 22 interceptions in 119 games, the same number Urlacher had in 182 games. I was surprised to see that, especially considering the Mike backers responsibilities in Lovie's Tampa-2.

19delta wrote:And regarding Omar, perhaps her being Muslim gives her a perspective on Israel that should be given greater legitimacy. That does not make it anti-Semitic.

So, being anti-Israel doesn't make her an anti-Semite.

Does being anti-illegal immigration from a certain country (e.g. Mexico) mean one is not racist? I mean, Mexico's not a race, right?

BirdWatcher wrote:

19delta wrote:And regarding Omar, perhaps her being Muslim gives her a perspective on Israel that should be given greater legitimacy. That does not make it anti-Semitic.

So, being anti-Israel doesn't make her an anti-Semite.

Does being anti-illegal immigration from a certain country (e.g. Mexico) mean one is not racist?   I mean, Mexico's not a race, right?

You nailed it. I read news from a lot of different sources as I like to hear different perspectives on issues. This link is from FOX so it will be disregarded by some but read it and form your own conclusions. This is Omar's District.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/how-rep-ilhan-omars-minnesota-district-became-the-terrorist-recruitment-capital-of-the-us-officials-highly-concerned

BirdWatcher wrote:

19delta wrote:And regarding Omar, perhaps her being Muslim gives her a perspective on Israel that should be given greater legitimacy. That does not make it anti-Semitic.

So, being anti-Israel doesn't make her an anti-Semite.

Does being anti-illegal immigration from a certain country (e.g. Mexico) mean one is not racist?   I mean, Mexico's not a race, right?

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the proper term in that context would be "nativist", not "racist". "Racist", I think, has basically turned into a catch-all term for people who don't like other people of a different culture or ethnic group.

Regardless, your analogy is poor. Omar's criticisms of the Israeli government is not based on most Israelis being Jewish.

OSUBucks wrote:

BirdWatcher wrote:

19delta wrote:And regarding Omar, perhaps her being Muslim gives her a perspective on Israel that should be given greater legitimacy. That does not make it anti-Semitic.

So, being anti-Israel doesn't make her an anti-Semite.

Does being anti-illegal immigration from a certain country (e.g. Mexico) mean one is not racist?   I mean, Mexico's not a race, right?

You nailed it. I read news from a lot of different sources as I like to hear different perspectives on issues. This link is from FOX so it will be disregarded by some but read it and form your own conclusions. This is Omar's District.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/how-rep-ilhan-omars-minnesota-district-became-the-terrorist-recruitment-capital-of-the-us-officials-highly-concerned

Read this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/how-the-fbi-helps-terrorists-succeed/273537/

You should be EXTREMELY suspicious of any foreign terrorism-related statistics that are released by federal law enforcement or intelligence gathering agencies.

BirdWatcher wrote:Does being anti-illegal immigration from a certain country (e.g. Mexico) mean one is not racist?   I mean, Mexico's not a race, right?

I think the answer to that question is YES....not racist. Is that your position, anyone but Mexicans can come here?

I'm not of ANYONE in today's political sphere has that opinion. Are you implying that is the Trump party position? Because it certainly is not. He and his followers are opposed to anyone from south of our border immigrating and especially from those "shithole" African countries. He wants more immigrants from Norway and Sweden. He is not racist against Swedes, no matter what color they are.


https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880750/trump-immigrants-shithole-countries-norway

OSUBucks wrote:

BirdWatcher wrote:

19delta wrote:And regarding Omar, perhaps her being Muslim gives her a perspective on Israel that should be given greater legitimacy. That does not make it anti-Semitic.

So, being anti-Israel doesn't make her an anti-Semite.

Does being anti-illegal immigration from a certain country (e.g. Mexico) mean one is not racist?   I mean, Mexico's not a race, right?

You nailed it. I read news from a lot of different sources as I like to hear different perspectives on issues. This link is from FOX so it will be disregarded by some but read it and form your own conclusions. This is Omar's District.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/how-rep-ilhan-omars-minnesota-district-became-the-terrorist-recruitment-capital-of-the-us-officials-highly-concerned

And then there is this:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/its-time-congress-make-domestic-terrorism-federal-crime

And this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/28/opinions/homegrown-terrorism-a-plague-we-cannot-ignore-bergen/index.html

19delta wrote:Regardless, your analogy is poor. Omar's criticisms of the Israeli government is not based on most Israelis being Jewish.

I think my analogy is spot on.
Omar's criticism is not based on Jewish-ness.
Trump's criticism of illegal aliens is not based on race. Or even nativism. It is based having a border.

Teetime wrote:He wants more immigrants from Norway and Sweden. .

Trump favors merit-based immigration. In practice, that would mean 90-95% of new immigrants would be minority.... Indian, Chinese, Brazilian, even African...

In a world where cars are self-driving, checkouts are self-serve and automation is the number one threat to the working class, we don't need more unskilled labor.

BirdWatcher wrote:

Teetime wrote:He wants more immigrants from Norway and Sweden. .

Trump favors merit-based immigration.  In practice, that would mean 90-95% of new immigrants would be minority.... Indian, Chinese, Brazilian, even African...

His words:

A New York Times report in December recounted a meeting in the Oval Office at which Trump railed against the recipients of US visas in 2017. During it, he reportedly complained Haitians “all have AIDS” and Nigerians would never “go back to their huts.” The White House denied Trump made those remarks.

This time, the White House responded with a statement that contained no denials: “Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” CNN’s Jim Sciutto reported.

Nothing racist there.

Hey, how can he say "politicians choose to fight for foreign countries" and not get censured. That's what Rep. Omar said.

BirdWatcher wrote:

19delta wrote:Regardless, your analogy is poor. Omar's criticisms of the Israeli government is not based on most Israelis being Jewish.

I think my analogy is spot on.  
Omar's criticism is not based on Jewish-ness.
Trump's criticism of illegal aliens is not based on race.  Or even nativism.  It is based having a border.

OK. Now I am tracking.

I do think it is wrong to believe that Trump is a racist for wanting to improve border security. Instead, there are plenty of other reasons to believe he is a racist.

19delta wrote:....There are plenty of other reasons to believe he is a racist.

Such as his dating a black woman for two years....

Teetime wrote:
New York Times..... he reportedly

I stopped reading when I saw that.....

When I'm trying to persuade a #NeverTrumper, I never use FoxNews sources to back my point.
When I'm trying to persuade a Trump supporter, I never use CNN or NYT.

I also try to avoid "mind reading"