All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Jim Kelly]

Trump and his supporters are outraged that the CBC dared to cut his few seconds from their broadcast of HOME ALONE 2--attributing the cut to some political malice on the part of the CBC, Trudeau or the people of Canada--when, in fact, the movie (part of the yearly dump of Christmas content on the CBC) was edited for time back in 2014.

[Tami]

Chelsea Clinton responds to GOP congressman's Christmas Eve sneer

Chelsea Clinton on Thursday responded to a Republican congressman who on Christmas Eve tweeted out old footage of her mother Hillary Clinton nearly getting struck in the head by a falling television light.

"Remember the reason for the season!" Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona tweeted along with the four-second clip in which Clinton shouts "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!" before her husband, then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton, pulls her to safety.

The scare happened while the pair were doing an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" in 1992.

Chelsea Clinton waited until the day after Christmas to respond, and noted she'd spent Tuesday in a more traditional Christmas way than Gosar.

"At 11 am Christmas Eve, we were making cookies for Santa. Thank you Congressman @Rep Gosar for reminding me of my dad's quick reflexes!" she tweeted.

No wonder Gosar's family hates him.

[worstblogever]

Trump and his supporters are outraged that the CBC dared to cut his few seconds from their broadcast of HOME ALONE 2--attributing the cut to some political malice on the part of the CBC, Trudeau or the people of Canada--when, in fact, the movie (part of the yearly dump of Christmas content on the CBC) was edited for time back in 2014.

Trump accused Trudeau of being behind it on Twitter.

Like... we get that you'd rather move from impeachment over all the criminal activity to a different controversy, Donald, but could you try one that doesn't make you look like a paranoid moron?

[Tami]

Trump accused Trudeau of being behind it on Twitter.

Like... we get that you'd rather move from impeachment over all the criminal activity to a different controversy, Donald, but could you try one that doesn't make you look like a paranoid moron?

A couple of days ago I checked out the History Channel and saw a Documentary on the Johnston Flood. The documentary was half over, but I still watched it for a whie until i saw the first Talking Head, which, to my disappointment, was Trump (per-election). I changed the channel.

Trump bought his cameo role on Home Alone 2 by getting the producers to use his hotel as a filming location. Aside from the occasional interview related to his presdency, and the Apprentice, Trump has never done anything on film that was worth the preserving.

[Mister Mets]

You've shown absolutely no proof that Democrats are "routinely dishonest" like the Republican party -- again, just because you say it doesn't make it true.

In fact, all you are doing is further proving that Republicans have problems being honest by continuing to engage in said false equivalency without proof.

If your argument is that it's "right" to habitually lie about tax cuts, the deficit, social security, climate change, foreign interference in our elections, and separating children from their families like the Republicans do, then it's debatable that you even know the difference between what's wrong and what's right.

Lying about climate change "produces the best outcomes for the most people"? How so exactly?

Lying about minority voter suppression "produces the best outcomes for the most people"? How so exactly?

Lying about foreign interference in our elections "produces the best outcomes for the most people?" How so exactly?

How exactly did people's lives improve more under Republican policies that brought us the Iraq War and the Great Recession than under Obama who brought us out of said recession and led us to the longest period of economic growth in modern history, while also extending health care to millions of those who needed it?

Or is that just another lie told with no evidence to back it up?

I think you do know it's wrong to lie -- about the effects of the tax cuts, the importance of the deficit, about climate change being a "hoax", about Russian interference in our elections, about minority voter suppression, about how many children have been separated from their families at the border -- which is why you don't even attempt to address those issues in an objective manner.

You just deflect and then try to project onto the Democrats -- the standard Republican playbook.

With that in mind, I'll take your lack of any real defense of said actions as an admission that you know they are indefensible.

You provided the evidence that Democrats routinely lie. According to the Politico piece you posted, "54 percent of Democratic statements were rated as "mostly true" or "true," which means 46 percent fell in the category of pants on fire, false, mostly false or mixture. 46 percent is routine.

As a side point, Politifact wasn't happy about how the study was used, since they were looking at individual claims, rather than coming to larger conclusions.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ie-more-164943

PolitiFact rates the factual accuracy of specific claims; we do not seek to measure which party tells more falsehoods.

The authors of this press release seem to have counted up a small number of our Truth-O-Meter ratings over a few months, and then drew their own conclusions.

We've rated more than 7,000 statements since we started in 2007. We are journalists, not social scientists. We select statements to fact-check based on our news judgment -- whether a statement is timely, provocative, whether it's been repeated and whether readers would wonder if it is true.

Writing for the Atlantic, Elsbeth Reeve noted potential selection bias.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ocrats/314794/

It's possible the fact-checkers are intentionally or unintentionally letting some bias show through. Whether or not that's true, the state of each party right now most certainly plays a role. A lot of very conservative Republicans got elected in 2010, and the Tea Party got a lot of attention, and some Tea Party Republicans have had a tendency to say inflammatory things. Like, say, Michele Bachmann.

Rival fact-checker Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post noted on Tuesday that with Bachmann's retirement, he'll lose some of his best material: "As one of our colleagues put it, 'The entire fact checking industry may have to hold a national day of mourning.'" In 2013 Bachmann has earned four Pinocchios, the most false rating the Post offers. Over her career, PolitiFact rated 15 Bachmann claims to be "pants on fire" ratings, its harshest rating. PolitiFact called her retirement "shocking."

Bachmann was a fact-checker's dream because she was prominent, she got lots of attention, and she didn't mind throwing out easily disprovable statistics. But she's only a four-term member of Congress from Minnesota, and she doesn't have an important leadership role in the House. Nevertheless, she was elevated to national stardom by the cable news appearances that offered fact-checkers so much great material. And that helped her launch a presidential campaign.

Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke was elected the same year as Bachmann, 2006. But PolitiFact didn't bother with Clarke when she went on The Colbert Report in September 2012 and said that Brooklyn still had slavery in 1898, five decades after New York abolished slavery, and three decades after the Civil War ended. "Slavery. Really? I didn’t realize there was slavery in Brooklyn in 1898," Colbert responded. "I'm pretty sure there was," Clarke said.

PolitiFact did not rate this claim. There are some obvious reasons why — Clarke is a little-known congresswoman; her claim was not about a current policy debate. Bachmann, on the other hand, was a presidential candidate.

I have never argued that it's right to lie as a general policy. I am curious as to where you think I've said that.

As for my belief that Republican policies are better, that would be a lie if I believed it to be untrue. But it is an opinion. If anyone were able to definitely prove in the space of a message board post that a particular ideology is superior, they would go down as one of the best political figures ever.

[Mister Mets]

I'm a NJ Democrat (a state notorious for political corruption), and as, much as I hate to say it not all Democrats are 'saints'. Corruption, along with the lying involved, is not exclusive to Republicans.

That said, currently, during the Trump era, many if not most Republicans are following his lead. Trump is the worst possible example for any Politician, yet many Republicans are taking their cues from him in terms of lying (among other things).

Thing is, there is a balancing act going on. As more and more Republicans begin to act like Trump, lying as often as he does, feeling like they can get always with anything - Democrats are forced to confront their own flirtations with lies and respond aggressively against those who do.

Michele Obama said, famously 'When they go low, we go high'. The thing is, Democrats now, these days, don't have much of a choice in that matter. There is still lying on their part on occasion, but when called out for it, the retribution is swifter and far more cutting. [Consider what happened to Al Franken, for example].

Chaos would ensue if both sides lied with equal disdain for the truth. That is the kind of Chaos that could destroy this country.

Interesting point on state corruption. Being a New Yorker and seeing local news item about corrupt New York and New Jersey Democrats has probably influenced how I see the party (I'll fully admit that New York Republicans have their share of problems.)

I do wonder if there's any region where local politicians are generally trustworthy?

A couple of days ago I checked out the History Channel and saw a Documentary on the Johnston Flood. The documentary was half over, but I still watched it for a whie until i saw the first Talking Head, which, to my disappointment, was Trump (per-election). I changed the channel.

Trump bought his cameo role on Home Alone 2 by getting the producers to use his hotel as a filming location. Aside from the occasional interview related to his presdency, and the Apprentice, Trump has never done anything on film that was worth the preserving.

Trump's also a talking head on America: The Story of Us, a series that's been used in various history classes. He's been savvy about creating the appearance of being an expert.

I literally have friends who would not survive a second Trump term, but I do not trust White Americans to prevent it from happening. It's causing a lot of stress in my soul.

Can you elaborate? How are friends of yours guaranteed to die if Trump is reelected?

[worstblogever]

Trump bought his cameo role on Home Alone 2 by getting the producers to use his hotel as a filming location. Aside from the occasional interview related to his presdency, and the Apprentice, Trump has never done anything on film that was worth the preserving.

His cameos in Playboy softcore porn at least gave the viewer the moment to get turned off and pause from 'batin' so they wouldn't get chafed.

[aja_christopher]

You provided the evidence that Democrats routinely lie. According to the Politico piece you posted, "54 percent of Democratic statements were rated as "mostly true" or "true," which means 46 percent fell in the category of pants on fire, false, mostly false or mixture. 46 percent is routine.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ie-more-164943

Yet again -- you're deflecting to Democrats instead of addressing any of the issues raised about Republicans.

You can't defend the actions of your party on any issue named so instead you try to slander the opposition.

Only 24 percent of Democratic statements were rated as rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire" (i.e. "routinely" lying.)

In contrast, 52 percent of Republican statements were were rated as rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire" (i.e. "routinely" lying.)

Even if your argument is "both sides" here, one side -- the side you support -- is clearly far more dishonest than the other.

------
"Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ie-more-164943
--------

None of which addresses the questions asked about how any Republican policies regarding tax cuts, record deficits, climate change, voter suppression, or foreign interference are the "best for the most people".

[Tami]

Interesting point on state corruption. Being a New Yorker and seeing local news item about corrupt New York and New Jersey Democrats has probably influenced how I see the party (I'll fully admit that New York Republicans have their share of problems.)

I do wonder if there's any region where local politicians are generally trustworthy?



Trump's also a talking head on America: The Story of Us, a series that's been used in various history classes. He's been savvy about creating the appearance of being an expert.

Can you elaborate? How are friends of yours guaranteed to die if Trump is reelected?

That is the key, he creates an appearance, just as he did on The Apprentice. But it's not real, not justified, and in no way earned or deserved through any means.

[worstblogever]

Yet again -- you're deflecting to Democrats instead of addressing any of the issues raised about Republicans.

You can't defend the actions of your party on any issue named so instead you try to slander the opposition.

Only 24 percent of Democratic statements were rated as rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire" (i.e. "routinely" lying.)

In contrast, 52 percent of Republican statements were were rated as rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire" (i.e. "routinely" lying.)

Even if your argument is "both sides" here, one side -- the side you support -- is clearly far more dishonest than the other.

------
"Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ie-more-164943
--------

None of which addresses the questions asked about how any Republican policies regarding tax cuts, record deficits, climate change, voter suppression, or foreign interference are the "best for the most people".

The cult of GOP rank-and-file believe the lies, too, no matter how ridiculous.

It wasn't even five years ago that 1/3 of Republican voters believed that the U.S. Government would invade Texas as part of Jade Helm 15, and another 28% "weren't sure" because they're too stupid to disbelieve even Alex Jones, or understand that there's no point in invading a state that's already a part of the country.

This may have something to do with how everyone ignored former Gov. Bobby Jindal when he pleaded with other Republicans to "not be the stupid party". I mean, on all issues of science or research, they ignore facts, and embrace the lies that don't challenge their mindset. It's literal willful ignorance.

[Mister Mets]

Yet again -- you're deflecting to Democrats instead of addressing any of the issues raised about Republicans.

You can't defend the actions of your party on any issue named so instead you try to slander the opposition.

Only 24 percent of Democratic statements were rated as rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire" (i.e. "routinely" lying.)

In contrast, 52 percent of Republican statements were were rated as rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire" (i.e. "routinely" lying.)

Even if your argument is "both sides" here, one side -- the side you support -- is clearly far more dishonest than the other.

------
"Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ie-more-164943
--------

None of which addresses the questions asked about how any Republican policies regarding tax cuts, record deficits, climate change, voter suppression, or foreign interference are the "best for the most people".

I'm not deflecting to Democrats. I was responding to points you made where you suggested I had been unable to demonstrate that Democrats routinely lied. 24 percent of contentious statements, as of 2013, being lies would still qualify as routine, but that leaves out the 22 percent of contentious statements that are determined to be half-true. Those are still meant to deceive.

My argument isn't about whether Democrats are more dishonest than Republicans (and Politifact said that the point of their factchecks isn't to be representative but simply to address particular claims) but that Democrats aren't honest enough for someone to make the argument that even if someone disagrees with their policies, they merit support because they are fundamentally trustworthy. As I said before, there is probably an opening for a party to practice and run on legitimate honesty, although it seems unlikely for a variety of reasons (difficulty of maintaining the necessary level of party discipline, the likely blowback to admitting politically inconvenient truths, honest disagreements about what is opinion and what is fact, discomfort calling out people with particular constituencies.)

Regarding deflection, the comment that set off this discussion was about SSI/ SSDI reform. I'm still not sure whether you agree with what I said on that.

As for the question about how Republican policies could be seen as the "best for the most people" I'll address those. The main point is that there are always tradeoffs.

With tax cuts, the benefit is that people have more money to spend as they choose.

I'm not a fan of record deficits, although that's a bipartisan problem. The main argument is that it's more important to spend the money now, especially at a time of low interest rates, than to raise taxes and cut spending enough to reduce the deficit and the debt.

With climate change, the argument is that the costs of preferred left-wing policies are too expensive and limit the quality of life for ordinary Americans, and that we've made gains in energy efficiency and emissions reductions, largely due to a policy the left wing doesn't like: switching to less carbon-intensive fuels like natural gas. .

With voter suppression, the main argument is that claims are largely exaggerated. Democrats are pushing for changes that they believe will benefit them politically (IE- restoring voting rights to felons.) There is also an ugly history of rampant fraud in living memory, so that is going to influence the views of policy-holders, even if it's not as big a problem now.

With foreign interference, the main argument is that claims are largely exaggerated. This can have the effect of increasing Russia's perceived power, and giving it what it seems to want: a divided United States.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District, Jim Sensenbrenner, who has been a member of Congress since 1979. Through the years, he has been involved in some of the more distasteful legislative acts in our country, such as the attempted impeachment of President Clinton, where he read the opening statement, the drafting of the original version of the Patriot Act (which he denies leaving loopholes in to allow for government surveillance of the civilian populace), and his vote against $50 billion in relief aid for Hurricane Katrina. Sensenbrenner has also been prone to tantrums, like when in 2005, he walked out of a meeting about human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay prison after demanding C-SPAN turn off all cameras in an attempt at a media blackout. This guy even fought against funding for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis prevention, and against stiffer penalties for people convicted of dogfighting, he’s so heartless. Sensenbrenner also has a long history of ridiculous quotes on climate change denial, including his insistence that there’s data to prove “global cooling” out there. That should come as little surprise, as Sensenbrenner owns stock in British Petroleum,and during the Congressional hearings after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, he actually refused to recuse himself from the proceedings, instead writing an angry letter to the White House to lay blame on them for the disaster. His disgust for the Obama White House goes a bit farther than that, as he actually tried criticizing Michelle Obama’s efforts to combat childhood obesity, because “she has a big butt” (because he himself is doing so much better in battling obesity). Sensenbrenner actually voted against the renewal of the Violence Against Women act, and not only voted for the 2013 Government Shutdown, but voted against re-opening it when the time came. In 2015, Sensenbrenner was taking testimony in the hearings on Planned Parenthood, and asked witness Priscilla Smith why she prioritized Planned Parenthood over feeding hungry children, then cut her off to pretend to be baffled by her answer about how it helped mothers with cancer screenings so they could feed their healthy children, because they would still be alive to if it's caught early.

Jim Sensenbrenner has been around for four decades, and has worn his conservative disdain for the working class the majority of that time. So, it’s little surprise that when he hosted a town hall back in April of 2017, he didn’t seem too concerned with his constituents’ wealth of complaints. When asked about his vote for SJ Res 34, where internet providers would now be allowed to sell the data information of their users to businesses, and how that would violate all sense of privacy, his response was, “Well you know, nobody has got to use the internet.” (Yeah, he’s that out of touch, he doesn’t seem to understand that most jobs require the internet these days, or that to even apply for one, you need to have an e-mail you can be reached at.)

Sensenbrenner was again re-elected in 2018 with 62% of the vote, and went back to Washington to serve his 21st term in Congress. We’ll note that it was twelve years prior, back in 2006 he finished second place in a Rolling Stone piece about “America’s Worst Congressmen”, only behind GOP colleague and child molester, Dennis Hastert. In that article, this was the assessment of the man representing Wisconsin’s 5th District:

”Sensenbrenner is an ever-sweating, fat-fingered beast who wields his gavel in a way that makes you think he might have used one before in some other arena, perhaps to beat prostitutes to death.”

And yet he has remained in office for another seven terms. In the current one Sensebrenner has missed numerous votes, but we have seen some of that tempermental, impotently-enraged Sensenbrenner back in action of late, specifically when he showed up at the Congressional hearings aimed at discrediting the Mueller investigation, and he spent a few minutes harassing Peter Strzok, failing to score any points in his partisan attack on the career FBI agent who investigated the massive corruption within the Trump campaign and its ties to Russia.

We at least got good news, though, in September of 2019, when Sensenbrenner announced he would be retiring at the end of his term. While he has begun missing votes more than any other point in his career, that doesn’t mean he’s going quietly, though, as he has started predictably flailing about during the impeachment inquiry, telling Democratic counsel that “you have made Joe McCarthy look like a piker”, and seemingly because he can’t remember he doesn’t wield a gavel anymore, he has used his time to accuse Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of losing control when Trump is simply disparaged, saying, “The committee is not in order and the chairman is not in order. We have to have some decorum in here.”

He is not taking the proceedings well at all, as he watches a president his own party helped elect, and has desperately tried to defend from legitimate charges of corruption and self-dealing, continuously make their job of protecting him nigh-impossible. We’re not going to be surprised if Jim Sensebrenner fakes a heart attack, or just goes apoplectic and has one as the impeachment hearings continue.

[shooshoomanjoe]

I agree that both parties lie but Republicans, under trump, have taken the lies to the fantastical. It began on day 1 with Conway coining 'alternative facts' and ramping it up with the Bowling Green Massacre. To my knowledge, the GOP are the only party that have members who believe in conspiracy theories and trump often tweets things that have already been proven false. The GOP we see under trump is Koch's Tea Party.

[aja_christopher]

I'm not deflecting to Democrats. I was responding to points you made where you suggested I had been unable to demonstrate that Democrats routinely lied. 24 percent of contentious statements, as of 2013, being lies would still qualify as routine, but that leaves out the 22 percent of contentious statements that are determined to be half-true. Those are still meant to deceive.

My argument isn't about whether Democrats are more dishonest than Republicans (and Politifact said that the point of their factchecks isn't to be representative but simply to address particular claims) but that Democrats aren't honest enough for someone to make the argument that even if someone disagrees with their policies, they merit support because they are fundamentally trustworthy. As I said before, there is probably an opening for a party to practice and run on legitimate honesty, although it seems unlikely for a variety of reasons (difficulty of maintaining the necessary level of party discipline, the likely blowback to admitting politically inconvenient truths, honest disagreements about what is opinion and what is fact, discomfort calling out people with particular constituencies.)

Regarding deflection, the comment that set off this discussion was about SSI/ SSDI reform. I'm still not sure whether you agree with what I said on that.

As for the question about how Republican policies could be seen as the "best for the most people" I'll address those. The main point is that there are always tradeoffs.

With tax cuts, the benefit is that people have more money to spend as they choose.

I'm not a fan of record deficits, although that's a bipartisan problem. The main argument is that it's more important to spend the money now, especially at a time of low interest rates, than to raise taxes and cut spending enough to reduce the deficit and the debt.

With climate change, the argument is that the costs of preferred left-wing policies are too expensive and limit the quality of life for ordinary Americans, and that we've made gains in energy efficiency and emissions reductions, largely due to a policy the left wing doesn't like: switching to less carbon-intensive fuels like natural gas. .

With voter suppression, the main argument is that claims are largely exaggerated. Democrats are pushing for changes that they believe will benefit them politically (IE- restoring voting rights to felons.) There is also an ugly history of rampant fraud in living memory, so that is going to influence the views of policy-holders, even if it's not as big a problem now.

With foreign interference, the main argument is that claims are largely exaggerated. This can have the effect of increasing Russia's perceived power, and giving it what it seems to want: a divided United States.

I know what the Republican arguments are -- the issue is that most of those arguments are meant to deceive.

Contentious arguments are not necessarily meant to deceive -- that is just your own opinion on the matter, meant to further slander the Democrats.

Republicans claiming that climate change is a hoax, that deficits only matter when Democrats are in office, that tax cuts will pay for themselves, that Republicans don't attempt to suppress the votes of minorities, that children aren't still being separated from their parents, that Trump didn't request foreign help in the election (etc) is intentional deception.

And you know this, which is why I say it's hypocritical for you to claim that you are concerned with truth while supporting a party that you know routinely -- and intentionally -- makes "false" and "mostly false" statements regarding said issues.

You claim Democrats "exaggerate" but the truth is that it's the Republican party that routinely engages in this kind of behavior ("open borders", "caravan invasion", "voter fraud", etc) not the Democrats -- the only difference is that you either accept or overlook those exaggerations due to personal bias.

[Mister Mets]

I know what the Republican arguments are -- the issue is that most of those arguments are meant to deceive.

Contentious arguments are not necessarily meant to deceive -- that is just your own opinion on the matter, meant to further slander the Democrats.

Republicans claiming that climate change is a hoax, that deficits only matter when Democrats are in office, that tax cuts will pay for themselves, that Republicans don't attempt to suppress the votes of minorities, that children aren't still being separated from their parents, that Trump didn't request foreign help in the election (etc) is intentional deception.

And you know this, which is why I say it's hypocritical for you to claim that you are concerned with truth while supporting a party that you know routinely -- and intentionally -- makes "false" and "mostly false" statements regarding said issues.

You claim Democrats "exaggerate" but the truth is that it's the Republican party that routinely engages in this kind of behavior ("open borders", "caravan invasion", "voter fraud", etc) not the Democrats -- the only difference is that you either accept or overlook those exaggerations due to personal bias.

Politifact's standard for calling a statement half-true is when it "leaves out important details or takes things out of context." That's not about something being contentious. It suggests either an effort to deceive or ignorance on the part of the speaker.

But even if you don't include statements that leave out important details or take things out of context, it does leave 24 percent of Democratic statements as unambiguously false or mostly false. That still falls in the category of routine lies. They could try to take the mantle of the honest party, but that would require serious changes.

The George Mason study was in 2012, so we could also look at Democrats now to see if they got better. Of 22 statements made in December by democratic candidates or officeholders, half (11) were in the category of mostly false, false, or pants on fire. Two were partly true. Nine were true or mostly true. If this is a metric for measuring honesty, the party has gotten worse.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/

There are some areas where we disagree about the merits of arguments, but I agree that Republicans and Republican officeholders have lied and made some poor decisions. A major difference between us is that recent developments have changed my political preferences, to the extent that I've been pretty consistent in my support for the Democratic frontrunner over the Republican incumbent President in the next election.