I'm not sure that trying to apply critical thought is that rare - a recent Pew poll found that 38% of Americans identify as politically independent, though to be sure only 10% stood out as truly non-partisan. But that's hardly rare. And I certainly have my biases - one of mine is that when someone is a State or DOJ or judicial system professional with a long career and a sterling reputation, it's a pretty high bar for me to feel comfortable accusing them of bias or unprofessional or improper behavior. That's why during the Kavanaugh hearings, while I thought Blasey Ford should be listened to, I also felt that unless her testimony could be corroborated, it shouldn't derail his confirmation. It's the same way with Comey and now Mueller - it's going to be hard to convince me that either of them acted out of bias against Trump, particularly as Mueller is reported to be a lifelong and registered Republican. Strzok has already met that standard with his texts/emails, but with Mueller all we have is speculation.

No. I said IF she did it because we don't REALLY know that she did... but yeah, we know. Either she, or someone she trusted enough to give access to the server, erased those emails. And it was (yeah, I know) a "deplorable" - not to mention criminal - act.

Could you please explain your reasons for thinking this? Thanks.

I try to read both sides also, and as I do watch local news get a lot of the Left leaning feeds from the networks.  I have a TRUST issue with the so called science that promotes Man's cause of generating CO2 causing climate change.  There has been many incidents of cooking the numbers, changing historical data, and using assumptions to purposely get the outcomes they want.

The science has been politicized.  We're not talking about scientists making the A bomb, or curing cancer here.  We are talking about scientists driving economic policy through what I view as their political masters.  Man Made Climate Change is NOT an environmental movement but an economic and political movement.  They can't answer these basic questions.

1.  What percentage of climate change is naturally occurring and what percentage is due to Man's use of fossil fuels?

2.  Where will the money from more taxes, fees, cap and trade, and surcharges on fossil fuels go, and what will it be used for to "fix" Man's role in climate change?

3.  How will we know that the "fixes" are reducing Man's portion of climate change?  How will it be measured, especially if we have increases, or decreases in NATURALLY occurring climate change?

4.  How do we reconcile the impact of much higher energy costs, and higher costs for all products on the poor and middle income earner struggling to make ends meet?  Will they get an "energy subsidy" from government?

*shrug*

People don't like it when their cars are stolen. Insurance companies don't like paying when cars are stolen. So keys now have chips in them that are read by the computer on the car. No chip, no start. And it's not new, my 2001 Ford F-150 had chip in key.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/05/23/pelosi-schumer-continue-charade-later-think/

You'd think, though, that Roddenberry would have insisted on a major role for her if that were the case. The only central cast role she ever had on Trek was as Nurse (later Dr.) Chapel. I know I'll mostly remember her as the god-awful Lwaxana Troi, the Counselor's mom, who appeared in some of the weakest TNG episodes ever made.

(Lwaxana did have a memorable appearance early on in DS9 though, where she managed to soften up - literally - the shape-shifting security officer, Odo, played by Rene Auberjonois. That's the only time I ever found her remotely tolerable.)

Which was why they got rid of Grace Lee Whitney (Yeoman Rand) who was gorgeous, and played a great role.

I find it a scary read - it is the blue print for how to bring down the Republic and almost everyone, even those opposed to the Left, are blind to why.

The big take away I have is that it's not OK to for anyone to set aside their oversight.  Essentially, the Obama administration made a rule that said that they would have no oversight in certain areas.  They didn't jump to using FISA to spy on the Trump campaign, they grew into it.  If Hillary had won, they would have had 4 or 8 more years of doing that and who knows how much more they would have gone to?

Worse, because this isn't widely recognized, they get to try it again.  The next time they are in control of the government, expect them to continue to weaponize the government, using redefinition of law in order to protect themselves.  At this point, if they can string together 16 years of government, we may go past the tipping point.

IMO, the biggest threat to the United States today is the Democrat party.

I think extreme behavior is prevalent among extremists. The particular behaviors Stan mentions are prevalent among leftist extremists, other behaviors are prevalent among ultra-right extremists. Branding of all Muslims as terrorists, all gays as degenerate, physically attacking liberal protestors (think Charlottesville). I'm not saying you or anyone here falls into that group.

I do think some of the crazier behavior might be more prevalent on the left because people tend to be more left-wing when they're young, and the brain centers that inhibit impulsive and violent behavior usually mature after one is legally an adult. Maybe even people who never develop good impulse control tend to be more liberal? I don't really know, that's just a thought.

I certainly don't want to defend liberals, or conservatives in this. I just don't particularly like "they" thinking that stereotypes a whole group, regardless of who does it. Both sides of the political spectrum do this, and it is part of why the country is so strongly polarized.