Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: Considering that Trump's gonna get impeached soon, should we let him pick a Justice in the last year of his presidency?
Heh... #TheMcConnellRule eh?
Imma steal that....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wuestenfux wrote: Come on guys, in the States people are upset about Trump's EO against migration from rogue states.
And here in Germany there was a police raid against the islamistic scene with 1,100 police men this night.
1,100 police? o.O
I don't think the Ferguson riots in Missouri had over 500 police...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 14:02:20
All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise"
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
I'd lean more to Nurgle...the news is going to gak!
I've been around long enough to remember the time when broadcast news was a loss-leader for the networks. For the most part, it was boring, straight-forward and there wasn't much distinction between the news venues. Nowadays, with dedicated news networks, social media and all the "spawn" passing for news sites on the internet, we have access to more news and connectivity than at any time in history and that has had some wonderful results, but it also has created some absolute abominations. Part of me sometimes longs for the boring days.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 14:14:56
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Why? Bad orders don't become bad orders because days pass.
Here in Germany we have no such orders. They cannot agree on an upper bound of migrants coming in during one year.
Gefährder (persons that likely threaten public safety, likely islamic context) will eventually get ankle bracelets in the near future. Maybe.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated. Since the election they've just utterly lost their minds, to the extent I can't even watch them any more.
Frankly its annoying. I have a truckload of news cites on cable, but since they took off AJ I can only watch BBC, and I really could care less about soccer...;-)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 14:32:51
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
White Supremacist Richard Spencer Hails Trump's 'de-Judaification' of Holocaust
The leader of the so-called 'alt-right' dismisses criticism of Trump's Holocaust Day statement that left out Jews as 'kvetching.'
Fun times ahead.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Unacceptable behavior, to be sure, but not quite the network collusion implied though.
Not a big deal? This is way worse than biased reporting. I find it hard to think of a better way for a News agency to influence an election.
And it was more than Brazile:
From CNN: Brianna Keilar, Gloria Borger, John Berman, and Kate Bolduan.
... The nascent Clinton campaign invited Jeff Zucker and Phil Griffin, the presidents of CNN and MSNBC, respectively. Zucker declined while Griffin RSVPed “yes.” Wikileaks’ release of emails from the Democratic National Committee showed then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduled or attempted to schedule private meetings with both executives.
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign slammed CNN on Wednesday after emails were released that the campaign claimed showed a reporter “colluding” with a Hillary Clinton aide to “attack” the Kentucky senator.
The CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, already has been suspended over a separate incident – a tweet last week criticizing a House bill limiting Syrian refugees. But her communications with then-Clinton State Department official Philippe Reines turned up Tuesday in a batch of emails obtained and published by Gawker.
In those January 2013 emails, Reines appears to give Labott suggestions for tweets. Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative American Commitment, first flagged the exchange about Paul.
I'm sure that Breitbart and Steven Bannon's relationship with the Trump campaign was absolutely squeaky clean.
As apparently using reddit as a source is now a thing then I submit this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/5r2pe3/antitrump_protest_sign_in_glasgow_tonight/ On the grounds that it is by far the funniest thing that I have ever read on Reddit. Basically some goons from R/The_Donald attempt to invade a thread in R/Scotland about an interesting women's march sign and get obliterated. Lots of swearing of course, or as we say in Scotland 'words'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 15:13:00
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Unacceptable behavior, to be sure, but not quite the network collusion implied though.
Not a big deal? This is way worse than biased reporting. I find it hard to think of a better way for a News agency to influence an election.
And it was more than Brazile:
From CNN: Brianna Keilar, Gloria Borger, John Berman, and Kate Bolduan.
...
The nascent Clinton campaign invited Jeff Zucker and Phil Griffin, the presidents of CNN and MSNBC, respectively. Zucker declined while Griffin RSVPed “yes.” Wikileaks’ release of emails from the Democratic National Committee showed then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduled or attempted to schedule private meetings with both executives.
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign slammed CNN on Wednesday after emails were released that the campaign claimed showed a reporter “colluding” with a Hillary Clinton aide to “attack” the Kentucky senator.
The CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, already has been suspended over a separate incident – a tweet last week criticizing a House bill limiting Syrian refugees. But her communications with then-Clinton State Department official Philippe Reines turned up Tuesday in a batch of emails obtained and published by Gawker.
In those January 2013 emails, Reines appears to give Labott suggestions for tweets. Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative American Commitment, first flagged the exchange about Paul.
Most of that (with the exception of the allegation of passing the Colton team the debate questions.) seems to be normal journalist/politician relationship. Politicians court news outlets for posative editorial coverage. As long as journalists declare it I don't see any issue, and I can't see any alligation that they didn't. Editorial bias is well known and accepted. It is not the same as "fake news" where people were deliberately publishing lies to try and influence opinion.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Prestor Jon wrote: What is the proper role and function of the Dept of Education? Or the Dept of Energy? Or the Dept of Homeland Security? The Dept of Ed has only been operating since 1980, The Dept of Energy began operating in 1977, Homeland security started in 2002, HUD was formed in 1965. The majority of the cabinet departments are relatively new creations in US history, they're not mentioned in the constitution, their mission and proper function changes with every new president. What is the benchmark you're using to determine the efficacy and proper usage of these departments? Policies under Obama were different than under Clinton which were different than during the Reagan administration etc.
Departments shift focus with new presidents, but they don’t completely change role. To use a business analogy that I know conservatives are so fond of, Facebook has only been in business since 2004, but that’s long enough to develop expertise and processes within their niche. It would be considered utterly bonkers if Facebook came out tomorrow and announced they were stopping the social network thing and they were now a soft drink company. Even if they have a really great idea for a softdrink, they have no expertise in that, and would now be needed to dump all the expertise they have developed in social media.
The same is true of government agencies. You can’t just decide they should be something different from one day to the next. The people in the agency have set roles and set expertise that pushes them in a different direction. Strategic management is about working with the organisation as it is, guiding it to a new strategic direction while respecting the expertise and ability that already exists. And while that means you are unlikely to make a huge difference in the four years of your government, if the idea is a good one then the new government will be likely to just quietly accept the direction you put in place, and even if they don’t the public servants in the agency itself will be likely to continue that direction by themselves.
This, like everything so far in the Trump administration, is falling down not on ideology, but on the understanding of what government is and how it works.
You are giving Trump and the Cabinet Secretaries too much credit. The federal depts were created by Congress and can only be fundamentally changed by Congress. Let's look at the Dept of Esd for example. Sure Betsy Devos is very different politically and in terms of her education philosophy than Obamas appointee Arne Duncan so she'll give different speeches and advocate different approaches. However just like Duncan her ability to actually affect public education in the US will be severely limited. Congress created the Dept of Ed and only Congress can dismantle it. Congress determines the funding for the Dept of Ed and Congress passes the federal laws that create the federal programs that determine how that funding is allocated. All the Dept of Ed does is administrate the federal laws created by Congress. Devos can't change public education in the US with a memo. At best she can make changes to operational guidelines. It's a caretaker position because the president needs somebody to delegate to that can report on the efficacy and enforcement of Federal education laws and programs. The Dept of Ed pretty much just sends federal money to the states and provides token oversight and record keeping. The Dept of Ed has 5000 employees, the state of CA alone has over 10000 public schools for K-12 education the Ed Sec has at best/worst a minimal impact on the US public school system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 15:29:06
of course you don't, and thats why polling of trustworthiness of the media are often in the single digits.
Just because its not "fake" doesn't mean its not slanted. Just choosing what to cover slants the news.
if it didn't no one would give a about Trans restroom issues (on either side) because its a statistical nonevent.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Unacceptable behavior, to be sure, but not quite the network collusion implied though.
Not a big deal? This is way worse than biased reporting. I find it hard to think of a better way for a News agency to influence an election.
And it was more than Brazile:
From CNN: Brianna Keilar, Gloria Borger, John Berman, and Kate Bolduan.
... The nascent Clinton campaign invited Jeff Zucker and Phil Griffin, the presidents of CNN and MSNBC, respectively. Zucker declined while Griffin RSVPed “yes.” Wikileaks’ release of emails from the Democratic National Committee showed then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduled or attempted to schedule private meetings with both executives.
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign slammed CNN on Wednesday after emails were released that the campaign claimed showed a reporter “colluding” with a Hillary Clinton aide to “attack” the Kentucky senator.
The CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, already has been suspended over a separate incident – a tweet last week criticizing a House bill limiting Syrian refugees. But her communications with then-Clinton State Department official Philippe Reines turned up Tuesday in a batch of emails obtained and published by Gawker.
In those January 2013 emails, Reines appears to give Labott suggestions for tweets. Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative American Commitment, first flagged the exchange about Paul.
Most of that (with the exception of the allegation of passing the Colton team the debate questions.) seems to be normal journalist/politician relationship. Politicians court news outlets for posative editorial coverage. As long as journalists declare it I don't see any issue, and I can't see any alligation that they didn't. Editorial bias is well known and accepted. It is not the same as "fake news" where people were deliberately publishing lies to try and influence opinion.
Here's the difference.... it's not "fake news"... but, it's deceptively bias'ed.
The Clinton Campaign WANTED Trump to be the GOP nominee during the primary, believing that he'd be the weakest opponent for Clinton. Those wikileak showing the campaign collaboration with the medai (since they were never denounced as false) supports that assertion.
Hence why, Trump got something like $2 Billion dollars of "favorable free airtime" during the primary, that effectively drowned out the other candidates. Hence, the Clintons chose their form of destructor, poorly:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 15:35:30
tneva82 wrote: Though to be fair same goes for dems. Huge swathes of them will vote for whoever happens to have D next to their name.
While this is true, the difference between turnout for a strong Democrat and turnout for a weak Democrat is much more pronounced. When Democrats ran the grey blur John Kerry, he got 59m votes. Obama got 69m vote just 4 years later.
In comparison, when Republicans ran a good candidate in John McCain, he got 60m votes. Romney ran after that, and without the headwind that McCain suffered... and he managed 61m votes. Then this last election the great orange disaster managed 63m votes.
This why the old adage holds true - Democrats have to fall in love, Republicans fall in line. Democrats have a much bigger base, maybe 15 to 20% bigger, but turnout is much more fickle.
Yes I know. But didn't want to look like I was claiming that wouldn't happen for dems as well. That would be pretty dishonest.
Out of the ~130M-140M or so that votes wonder how much are actually floating? Ie can either decide to not vote or switch between parties? That would be interesting to know.
Party affiliation of the voter doesn't matter in presidential elections or mid term elections either. Every voter in the district gets the same ballot with the same choices on it. For presidential elections everyone in their respective state has the same president and Vice President candidates to choose from regardless of the voter's affiliation, Democrat, Republican, Independemt or 3rd party. The fastest growing political affiliation is registered Independent but Independents are still less numerous than the 2 big parties and win an Independent doesn't reflect your voting record. A voter can be an Independent and still consistently vote for one particular party's candidates, being Independent just means they're not an official Party member.
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Unacceptable behavior, to be sure, but not quite the network collusion implied though.
Not a big deal? This is way worse than biased reporting. I find it hard to think of a better way for a News agency to influence an election.
And it was more than Brazile:
From CNN: Brianna Keilar, Gloria Borger, John Berman, and Kate Bolduan.
...
The nascent Clinton campaign invited Jeff Zucker and Phil Griffin, the presidents of CNN and MSNBC, respectively. Zucker declined while Griffin RSVPed “yes.” Wikileaks’ release of emails from the Democratic National Committee showed then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduled or attempted to schedule private meetings with both executives.
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign slammed CNN on Wednesday after emails were released that the campaign claimed showed a reporter “colluding” with a Hillary Clinton aide to “attack” the Kentucky senator.
The CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, already has been suspended over a separate incident – a tweet last week criticizing a House bill limiting Syrian refugees. But her communications with then-Clinton State Department official Philippe Reines turned up Tuesday in a batch of emails obtained and published by Gawker.
In those January 2013 emails, Reines appears to give Labott suggestions for tweets. Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative American Commitment, first flagged the exchange about Paul.
Nice sources. Had to dig a bit to find those? In light of the subject, gak examples to support wholly inappropriate. But let's keep focus on the meat of the matter, here. I posted an article showing Faux News outright tweeting fake news. That is a million miles away from a reporter "framing" a story with a bent. Unfortunately this is what things have come to and neither are a benefit to the public's need for unbiased information, but they're miles apart.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 15:43:48
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Saudi Arabia is much, much more of a hotbed of “sharia-supremacism (aka, Radical Islamism)” (WTF dude, do you have even basic notion of what you are talking about? What's that “sharia-supremacism” you are talking about even?) than Iran. They are not impacted by the ban. Let me quote my previous message on Iran:
Sentinel1 wrote: All the countries involved with his E.O are yes Muslim, but each country is a complete and utter mess of political extremist opposites and government coups. The problem is you let one family in, they need a home, social security, language lessons, education lessons, school places etc and then said family want their 50 other relatives to join them in the same area. That makes a huge logistical nightmare through paper work and public funding.
That's very ignorant. Not ignorant as in “You are a filthy racist and you should feel bad about yourself”, no, I really mean that this is very ill-informed and far from the facts. Iran (it's the country I know best, I can't answer for others) has a pretty stable (unfriendly and unlikable as it is) regime, opposition that is mostly very moderate and friendly to the US, as a fairly good education system, and Iranian in the US (mostly concentrated around Los Angeles) are described as follow by Wikipedia:
Iranian Americans are among the highest educated people in the United States. They have historically excelled in business, academia, the sciences, arts, and entertainment – but have traditionally shied away from participating in American politics and other civic activities.
Quite recently, an Iranian-born woman working at Standford University, Maryam Mirzakhani, won the Fields medal (i.e. basically the Nobel Price in Mathematics). Now I guess she may have to move away from the US, but I'm sure she won't have too much trouble to get a position in the EU. It's all good for Europe really if the US decide to make such stupid, knee-jerk decision to satisfy the bigotry of it's uneducated masses. I'm still sad about this because being basically forced out of a country must be a quite traumatic experience, but I'll really reveal in schadenfreude when Trump's elector will see the new Apple, Google and co come out of Europe rather than the US.
As much as I hate the IRI, banning Iranians from entering the US was the dumbest move ever. If anything, it actually strengthen the regime, as Iranian Americans won't be able to visit their families in Iran anymore and bring outer news and ideas. And really, look up for the number of Iranian terrorists in the US to see how many terror attack this will prevent, but it's basically none at all.
This message will likely get me a new temporary ban but it was 100% worth it . This kind of information needs to be spread as far and wide as possible imo. Though some people will NEVER accept it, on purely ideological grounds.
The Iranian Islamists stay in Iran because they already have the Islamist government they want at home, and they work there to keep it Islamist despite popular pressure. Because they can do so without risk. Most Iranian emigrants are “liberal educated elite”. That's why you will have a hard time finding Iranian terrorists in the US. Those guys can't push for their government to be less Islamist without risk, they don't want to end up in Evin. But hey, who cares about facts that are not “alternate” these days?
tneva82 wrote: People get radicalized when they get detached from society. Lack of work, lack of social contacts, lack of feeling of being welcome. That's been common point with pretty much every terrorist so far.
That's plain out false. Trump will definitely feed the radical Islamist narrative that there is a war between infidels and muslims, sure, but that part I quoted is “alternate fact”, as in entirely, absolutely not true.
Just like cult don't need that. See how many rich people are part of scientology…
The only reason why Iran was on that list is because the huge majority of US citizen are completely uneducated on this and believe in stupid, harmful stereotypes. Idiocracy at its finest.
wuestenfux wrote: The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.
I think Dakka's moderation team should give me at least a dozen years before banning me for calling you a
Ahaha I won't say anything but I'll still get banned Dakka is wonderful . But still serves as a good example that this is not how things actually work. You don't give people “more time” to prove how awful they are when they have already proved it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Prestor Jon wrote: You're a coal miner in your early 40s and the mine you work at in W Va shuts down and lays you off. Pres Hillary Clinton gets legislation passed through congress that qualifies you for a college scholarship for retraining. You have a wife, 2 kids and a mortgage, what happens while you're enrolled at college for the next 2-4 or even 6-8 years? Where do they live? What do they eat? How do you pay your bills? Getting a scholarship doesn't take away a laid off coal miner's responsibilities and dependents.
Are you arguing for more welfare state? That's exactly why welfare is needed: something things get ugly and it's not your fault. As a society we think this is not a good thing so we want to mitigate this. But of course when things are fine it's easy to say you don't want to pay for others and pretend that it's their own responsibility to find a way to survive.
Voting Trump for better welfare? I think you were looking for Sanders or something.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Unacceptable behavior, to be sure, but not quite the network collusion implied though.
Not a big deal? This is way worse than biased reporting. I find it hard to think of a better way for a News agency to influence an election.
And it was more than Brazile:
From CNN: Brianna Keilar, Gloria Borger, John Berman, and Kate Bolduan.
...
The nascent Clinton campaign invited Jeff Zucker and Phil Griffin, the presidents of CNN and MSNBC, respectively. Zucker declined while Griffin RSVPed “yes.” Wikileaks’ release of emails from the Democratic National Committee showed then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduled or attempted to schedule private meetings with both executives.
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign slammed CNN on Wednesday after emails were released that the campaign claimed showed a reporter “colluding” with a Hillary Clinton aide to “attack” the Kentucky senator.
The CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, already has been suspended over a separate incident – a tweet last week criticizing a House bill limiting Syrian refugees. But her communications with then-Clinton State Department official Philippe Reines turned up Tuesday in a batch of emails obtained and published by Gawker.
In those January 2013 emails, Reines appears to give Labott suggestions for tweets. Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative American Commitment, first flagged the exchange about Paul.
Nice sources. Had to dig a bit to find those? In light of the subject, gak examples to support wholly inappropriate. But let's keep focus on the meat of the matter, here. I posted an article showing Faux News outright tweeting fake news. That is a million miles away from a reporter "framing" a story with a bent. Unfortunately this is what things have come to and neither are a benefit to the public's need for unbiased information, but they're miles apart.
I'm not defending Fox in that particular instance but I do think it's fair to point out that across the media spectrum we're seeing speed being prioritized over accuracy. Something newsworthy happens and everybody wants to be the first to report on it so they tweet and make reports that are very dubious in terms of accuracy but that's better than waiting for the facts to come out and getting "scooped." News agencies also tend to favor any narrative that supports an agenda over waiting to see what the facts show. If the media is going to willfully throw any gal out there and just hope it turns out to be true then people are going to distrust the media. It takes more work to be an informed citizen but it's very easy to be an affirmed citizen.
Well, there was that time CNN deliberatley cut the video feed from one of its guests when they brought up inconveinient (yet very on-topic) facts about Clinton during one of their broadcasts.
Also, hasn't the Washington Post recently published a handful of strait-out WRONG articles, then doubled down by insisting they are right? I think my favorite example was a writer insisting that subsonic 22LR ammo was a devistating round used by the military.
Also, refresh my memory here, but didn't someone get fired for unethical behavior, then immeidiately get hired by the Clinton Campaign in a rather cushy position?
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Unacceptable behavior, to be sure, but not quite the network collusion implied though.
Not a big deal? This is way worse than biased reporting. I find it hard to think of a better way for a News agency to influence an election.
And it was more than Brazile:
From CNN: Brianna Keilar, Gloria Borger, John Berman, and Kate Bolduan.
...
The nascent Clinton campaign invited Jeff Zucker and Phil Griffin, the presidents of CNN and MSNBC, respectively. Zucker declined while Griffin RSVPed “yes.” Wikileaks’ release of emails from the Democratic National Committee showed then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduled or attempted to schedule private meetings with both executives.
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign slammed CNN on Wednesday after emails were released that the campaign claimed showed a reporter “colluding” with a Hillary Clinton aide to “attack” the Kentucky senator.
The CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, already has been suspended over a separate incident – a tweet last week criticizing a House bill limiting Syrian refugees. But her communications with then-Clinton State Department official Philippe Reines turned up Tuesday in a batch of emails obtained and published by Gawker.
In those January 2013 emails, Reines appears to give Labott suggestions for tweets. Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative American Commitment, first flagged the exchange about Paul.
Nice sources. Had to dig a bit to find those? In light of the subject, gak examples to support wholly inappropriate. But let's keep focus on the meat of the matter, here. I posted an article showing Faux News outright tweeting fake news. That is a million miles away from a reporter "framing" a story with a bent. Unfortunately this is what things have come to and neither are a benefit to the public's need for unbiased information, but they're miles apart.
I'm not defending Fox in that particular instance but I do think it's fair to point out that across the media spectrum we're seeing speed being prioritized over accuracy. Something newsworthy happens and everybody wants to be the first to report on it so they tweet and make reports that are very dubious in terms of accuracy but that's better than waiting for the facts to come out and getting "scooped." News agencies also tend to favor any narrative that supports an agenda over waiting to see what the facts show. If the media is going to willfully throw any gal out there and just hope it turns out to be true then people are going to distrust the media. It takes more work to be an informed citizen but it's very easy to be an affirmed citizen.
It is a statement of the times, no doubt. I posted earlier that I remember the pre-dedicated news network days where broadcast news was boring, pretty much cookie cutter in relative comparison across the networks and the loss leader for said entities. Nowadays, it's viewership-hungry bottom lines driving sensationalism and expediency over accuracy and impartiality. When you have to go to 3 or 4 sites to vet a story, then there's a problem. I love what Canada did in the instance I noted.
Prestor Jon wrote: [it's fair to point out that across the media spectrum we're seeing speed being prioritized over accuracy. Something newsworthy happens and everybody wants to be the first to report on it so they tweet and make reports that are very dubious in terms of accuracy but that's better than waiting for the facts to come out and getting "scooped." News agencies also tend to favor any narrative that supports an agenda over waiting to see what the facts show. If the media is going to willfully throw any gal out there and just hope it turns out to be true then people are going to distrust the media. It takes more work to be an informed citizen but it's very easy to be an affirmed citizen.
The more I see "reporting" like the UVA rape case (that never happened) being hyped by once-legitimate news sources the less faith I have. In that paticular case it was shown that the reporter knew the reporting was wrong before publishing, and Rolling Stone itself knew it was wrong before they republished it, twice.
Either way we should agree that news casters should be bias and what they are both doing is wrong and should not be tolerates by the public. But giving one a pass because the other one did is also not helpful.
This whole this is now getting out of hand and we the people as a whole are suffering for it that news is now being withheld/blocked.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
The only reason why Iran was on that list is because the huge majority of US citizen are completely uneducated on this and believe in stupid, harmful stereotypes. Idiocracy at its finest.
That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ 
+ 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
about Trans restroom issues (on either side) because its a statistical nonevent.
. This kind of information needs to be spread as far and wide as possible 