Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "The Daily Signal" channel.

@Soshi701 At the moment of crisis, she WAS a villain to her daughter. It's the role that she must take if her child insists on doing things that are harmful.
34
@warlorddk2070 I will say that the Democrat leaders refuse to call out the radical left. Even Trump has called out the alt right, numerous times, but Biden says that Antifa is an idea and Nadler calls it a myth. BLM protests are mostly peaceful, in spite of the hundreds of millions in damages, all the arrests and all the injuries and deaths. People are associating this stuff with the Democrats and it's a large reason why the Democrats did so poorly in the election. The voters have rejected Trump but they've also rejected the Democrat Party. If they continue on the path they've chosen, they will lose in 2024. The riots, the cancel culture the politically correct posturing, critical race theory (weirdest racism I've ever seen) and the pandering to China will not sit well forever, especially if the Republicans get a candidate that isn't as abrasive as Trump.
8
@gabepizza I'm 71 years old. I've watched that show and have been aware of it all my life. We only had 2 TV stations when I was growing up and my dad watched it all the time. When you have a program, whose platform is interviewing people, you can still cater those interviews so that they play to the biases of the host and writers. Any claims made, by the person being interviewed, or by how the host frames their questions, should be verified by the viewer, NOT by the host, who may or may not have their own ideas and allow the interview to reflect those ideas, and especially not by the person being interviewed. I can't believe that you'd blindly trust a host of ANY program. Listen to interview and then verify. Don't take what you've just heard as fact even if the host might imply that it is. Having said that, Meet the Press isn't that bad a show but to believe that the host can't manipulate an interview, to suit their agenda, is naive.
3
@duolingoowo4855 That just about sums it up. I'll clean it up for you. "When I was confused about my gender, teachers and medical experts affirmed that confusion and told me that I had to be transgender and that my confusion proved this to be true. However, I now know that it was just a phase that I was going through."
2
@gabepizza Are you seriously saying that "Meet the Press" could NEVER have a biased host? Really? They're the perfect political outlet? LOL. I'm astounded that we would trust ANYONE in the media, without verifying what they say. No one is perfect. No one is totally honest and that would include the host and staff of "Meet the Press".
2
Greed is a factor but I think that ideology might contribute even more. There's nothing more dangerous than self righteous ideologues. The socialist movement, of the 20th century, was an ideology that ended the lives of over hundred million people and destroyed the economic well being of even more. Combine ideology and greed and you have a extremely dangerous situation.
2
How infuriating it must be for the parents of a girl who has to deal with these transgender athletes. I'd lose it if it was my daughter or grand daughter. Is nothing delusional anymore?
1
@1donjuego Isn't it strange that 69% of the hyper rich and well educated say that they would cheat to win an election where as the national average is around 7%, yet, the film "2000 Mules" is nonsense. I'm finding it hard to believe that you're a conservative AND a Republican. I'm thinking RINO, myself.....a Republican who thinks that he's conservative.
1
@rosesandthorns47 I can't imagine being so educated that I have nothing to learn anymore. I like the rule "Assume that the person that you're talking to knows something that you don't." There's a humility, in that adage, that the super educated could benefit from. I've found that the more I learned, the more I don't know. It can be disheartening at times but it's always exciting to learn more and to see my ideas change as I learn more.
1
@burmy1552 The first problem that I see with your comment is that you think that an elected government is going to be free of religious influences. Take the abortion issue. Not all religious people are pro-life but it is a dominant influence in their beliefs. There are other reasons that non-religious believers have for being pro-life. It's an absolute impossibility to divorce political beliefs from religious or ideological ones when voting. You vote for those whose political goals align with your own personal beliefs. A person with Marxist beliefs is more likely to vote for those whose platforms align with theirs. A religious person will be more likely to vote for one who has conservative beliefs. You can't separate your beliefs from what you expect from government. It's impossible. Ideology will inevitably include almost everything about how you live and want to live, including the type of society that you want. I'm actually thinking that, not understanding this tendency for voters, is as close to a logical fallacy as it gets.
1
Everything that DeSantis said about California is true. Everything that Newsom said about Florida is BS. Pure BS.
1
@gabepizza " They are getting opinions from the person they are interviewing." In a perfect world, that would be true. However, a host can and has asked questions to suit their own agenda and refrain from asking the questions that they don't want the answers to. The really intelligent ones will make it seem legit and will even subtly change the subject if they don't like where it's going. They even have ways of asking questions in a way that puts the interviewee in a bad spot. Sort of like..."experts say that...." or "sources have informed us that....., in the hopes of cornering someone. That's why I say, always double check the information that's gathered in such an interview. It's not the obvious bias that fools you. It's the ones that are believable that can be the most dangerous. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
1
Jordan Peterson said that this was going to happen 10 years ago. I argued with people over it. Now, it is happening and I don't have to argue anymore about whether it will happen or not. Now, I have to argue on how wrong it is.
1