" the science of Luntz"

What a riot.

Luntz famously grabs "undecided" Republicans to pretend they're open-minded.

Last debate, Luntz complained he couldn't find ANY undecided female under 27.

Bellringer chuffed about OTHERS lying.

It's like the comedy writes itself!

" We must end economic policy by experts who promoted outsourcing USA to China."

Good point.

Of course, you're referring to Republicans.

"She is neither good nor bright"
~Bellringer

No wonder my irony meter just exploded.

"Why so slow Biden/Harris?"

They're not. Biden even signed the disaster declaration the day BEFORE it hit. FEMA was on the ground the day after.

Kemp, Cooper, and Youngkin all said they'd talked with Biden; Kemp specifically said Biden asked if he needed anything else. Kemp said no, they're alright with the current help; Biden responded if Kemp needed anything else, to call him directly.

What news outlets are lying to you about this?

" why are they not staying in their own homeland and country (Haiti) and fixing it just as the USA settlers did in its inception, instead of coming here and disrupting"

And Emma Lazarus wept.

"I haven't seen anything I want to see"

Stop limiting yourself; today's fare is mostly crap.

Go through the AFI Top 100 list. If you really want to have fun while learning, watch in chronological order.

If you'd rather do the Cliff Notes, start with The Searchers, and Citizen Kane.

Once you're done, add Rope, Paths of Glory, The Man Who Would Be King, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Pawnbroker.

You'll thank me later.

"You get superheros and monsters and natural disasters."

And explosions. Lots and lots of explosions. A universal language.

For me ... I prefer music.

" Some of my feeling is the Stars over exposed themselves, they shouldn't be political or even in the papers for divorces and other events."

Are you mental?

There are INDUSTRIES built around "stars" being overexposed. The National Enquirer being just ONE of very, very many. TMZ and E come to mind as well.

Bill?

Lamplighter has a question for you on the table, as do I.

And he'll probably still vote for Trump. ...

"At this point, from what I have seen of those in the Trump cult, I could not disagree."

That's classic abuser/abused behavior.

"You now have to prove its deliberate discrimination"

I've already done that.

You have to prove it's not.

You also have to answer the question: how long did it take you to vote?

Absent that, I believe you're lying, and you voted by mail, something you don't want "certain" "lazy" people to be able to do.

"Rhetorical questions violate site policy."

Point well taken.

"Kamala Harris is a terrible candidate."

To quote (and welcome back!) Hans ...

"When lies are all you have ... ."

Let me guess: Bellringer?

" You now have to prove its deliberate discrimination and not just poor planning."

If you don't believe me taking 7 minutes, and minorities forced to take 7 hours is "deliberate discrimination", you're a brainless moron. Especially since it happens election after election.

Are you a brainless moron?

" Does that not imply I think it's excessive?"

Imply, Schmimply; is it SUPPRESSION?

Just be honest, for once in your life.

" I said it's a problem that needs fixed."

While you're in favor of exacerbating the problem.

And it's not just "a problem", it's purposeful suppression.

"Certain" other folks don't get the same advantage as you. Which is your entire goal.

How long did it take for you to vote? Why won't you answer that simple question?

You avoided it so long, I accused you of voting by mail, which you want to deny to others. You told me you voted in person, but since you won't specifically answer my specific question, I'm starting to believe you were lying.

My vote took seven minutes. How long did it take you to vote in person?

"Sounds like a voting precinct needs to fix a problem...but that doesn't make it deliberate hampering as you are suggesting."

Sounds like you've got your head in the sand. It was no mistake that my precinct took 7 minutes. It was also no mistake "certain" folks had to wait 7 hours. ALL ON PURPOSE.

If you can't see that's "hampering", you're a moron's moron.

"Again..you have to prove it is deliberate discrimination "

If you can't see the difference between 7 minutes and 7 hours, there's no hope for you.

"If everyone is required to vote in person unless they have a valid reason..."

You never answered if 7 hours is a valid reason. Why not?

"sounds to me everyone is being treated the same."

That's because you pretend your burden is the same as a single mother with three kids and two full-time jobs, expected to waste 7 hours in line. Ultimately, you don't want her to vote, right? Not unless she adheres to your made-up requirements.

Just admit it: you're a voter suppressionist. You want it easy for you, but very VERY hard for "certain" people.

#30

GREAT follow-up!

(An art which current journalists don't seem to have)

Many years ago, I was cited as someone who asks the questions everyone else wants to ask. On this blog, I'm accused of cutting to the salient question.

I plead guilty to both.

"Harder sounds like discrimination if it is proven to be a deliberate attempt to hamper voting."

You're right. Let's compare my 7 minutes to their 7 hours, shall we?

How long was your experience? (To make it equal, please don't count the minutes walking to and from your car.)

And do you agree SEVEN HOURS is "hampering"?

"This will go over your head but my answer is neither."

Dude...nothing you have EVER said went over my head.

"If you can make the case discrimination is going on.."

That's easy: How many hours did you stand in line in 2020? If it's less than 6, I've made my case.

You're up: how long did it take you to vote?

"does fmr Pres Trump really care about workers?"

Only the gullible ones.

"Then why was she able to kick his ample derriere..."

Fake News! Polls showed she scored a 65, and I scored a 35. Golf Rules: I WIN!