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.
Al Gore didn't parade around the country for weeks before Election Day telling everyone the only way he could win is if Bush cheated, that his supporters need to go to "certain areas" to make sure there was no voter fraud, and that he's probably going to lose because there is a gigantic multinational conspiracy against him.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Tannhauser42 wrote: Speaking of the "daily reality", there's a poll out that shows that Fox News viewers really do live in a different world. I tried to reformat the article to make it a little easier on the eyes than a whole bunch of lines.
Spoiler:
Fox News viewers really do see the world differently.
New data shows that Fox loyalists, when compared to the public at large, are far more pessimistic about America's future; are far more critical of President Obama's performance; are far more fearful of Hillary Clinton; and are more forgiving of Donald Trump. The sharp differences in opinion extend to beliefs about political corruption, voter fraud and media coordination with campaigns. Fox fans, when compared to fans of other networks, are far more likely to express concern about November's election results being manipulated. They are also more likely to agree with the sentiment that divisions in the United States are deeper than in the past.
The data -- from a new national poll by Suffolk University -- shows deep divisions, indeed. And it demonstrates why 21st Century Fox patriarch Rupert Murdoch recently told the Wall Street Journal that it would be "business suicide" to change Fox's editorial direction.
Related: Rupert Murdoch speaks out about contract talks with Megyn Kelly
Overall, the poll finds that the country is split about Clinton, with 46% of all respondents having a favorable view of her versus 47% unfavorable. Among people who rate Fox News as their most-trusted source of news, however, sentiments are much more solidly anti-Clinton, with 84% viewing her unfavorably, versus just 13% favorably. Similarly, 54% of all Suffolk respondents approve of President Obama's job performance, versus 41% who disapprove. But among Fox loyalists, the numbers are radically different, with 16% approving of the president's performance and 80% disapproving.
During the Obama presidency Fox News positioned itself as a voice of the opposition. Fox's most popular shows, like "The O'Reilly Factor," reinforced these sentiments. If Clinton is elected president, Fox's audience will expect more of the same. Fox News says it reaches many independents and some Democrats. But several surveys, including Suffolk's, shows that Fox's base is passionately pro-Republican, aligning with GOP positions and GOP candidates.
Suffolk's polls ask many of the same questions that other pollsters ask during presidential election years -- but add a layer of questions about media consumption on top. The Suffolk pollsters ask: "What TV news or commentary source do you trust the most?" In the most recent poll, 270 of the 1,000 respondents said Fox -- the single highest result of any of the networks named in the poll. This reflects Fox's tight grip on conservatives. More than 70% of the respondents who chose Fox described themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative." 154 respondents said they trusted CNN the most. The rest chose MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, C-SPAN or PBS. A small number chose Comedy Central.
The smaller the numbers get, the wider the margin of error, and the less reliable the data becomes. But Suffolk's poll is clear about the divergence between Fox loyalists and others. An example: Only 14% of people who say they trust Fox the most say the country is headed in the right direction. 81% say it's on the wrong track. The divide is not nearly so extreme among other respondents. For example, 55% of people who rate CNN as their most-trusted source say "right direction," and 35% say "wrong track."
Suffolk's polling can't answer the obvious chicken-or-egg question. Do people have these views because they watch Fox, or are they drawn to Fox (with its "fair and balanced" slogan) because they already have these views? In many cases, the opinions of self-described "conservative" and "very conservative" people overlap quite closely with Fox loyalists. In Suffolk's most recent poll, 74% of people with conservative views, 73% of people with very conservative views and 84% of people who trust Fox the most say they have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton.
Overall, 61% of respondents have an unfavorable view of Trump, while 31% said their view of him is favorable. Among Fox's partisans, the numbers are flipped, with 68% reporting a favorable view of the candidate and 23% reporting an unfavorable view. Keep that number in mind: 23% unfavorable. Among people who say they trust CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or PBS the most, Trump's unfavorable number ranged between 69% and 88%. (The second-lowest unfavorable rating for Trump, at 65%, came from people who said they trust Comedy Central the most.)
When asked "if the general election was held today... for whom will you vote or lean toward," 83% of Fox loyalists said Trump and 11% said Clinton. On the flip side, 77% of CNN loyalists and 94% of MSNBC loyalists said Clinton.
People who trusted Fox the most were also far more likely than people who trusted CNN, MSNBC or other channels to say that recent revelations from hacked emails released by Wikileaks raise conflicts of interest for Clinton if she is elected president. 85% of Fox fans said yes, according to the poll, compared with 45% of CNN fans and 15% of MSNBC fans.
Some of these findings are just predictable examples of polarization. But the poll also shows that Fox loyalists are more susceptible to claims of election corruption. Suffolk asked, "If the candidate you support loses," will you feel that "the other candidate won fair and square and deserves the support of all Americans," or that "corruption cost your candidate the election, and the new president shouldn't be seen as legitimately elected?" 43% of Fox loyalists cited corruption, versus 28% of overall respondents. 65% of Fox loyalists in the poll said they are worried that election results could be manipulated, far higher than the 38% overall response. Only 12% of MSNBC fans and 19% of CNN fans said they shared the concern. Conversely, only 31% of Fox loyalists agreed with the view that the election results can be trusted to be fair and accurate, compared with 77% of CNN viewers, 85% of MSNBC viewers, and 57% of overall respondents. Among people who are worried about the security of the election, many Fox fans expressed concern about the news media trying to "change the election results" -- possibly a result of Fox's anti-media tone.
Fox allies might say the poll findings show that other channels have a liberal bent. Fox critics might say that the results illustrate the echo chamber of conservative media. "The conservative entertainment news complex has constructed an alternative reality so all-encompassing that the chance of conservatives happening on any sort of good news is virtually nil," USA Today contributor and National Memo columnist Jason Sattler wrote on Thursday. "Hosts teach their viewers how to debunk anything Democrats might claim as an accomplishment and make sure they believe six terrible things about Obama before breakfast."
Suffolk's pollsters asked, "When it comes to the economy, do you think we are in an economic recovery, stagnation, recession, or depression?" Overall, 38% of respondents said a recovery; 35% said stagnation; 12% said recession; and 8% said depression. CNN and MSNBC regulars were more bullish. But Fox viewers were the opposite. Only 11% of Fox loyalists said America is in an economic recovery; 50% said stagnation; 19% said recession; and 13% said depression.
Suffolk conducts the national polls on a regular basis, including questions about media consumption. The Washington Post noted that the data for the past 15 months shows that "people who trust Fox News the most have consistently viewed Trump positively, on net," compared to people who trust other networks the most.
It is certainly good to have some solid data to confirm things, though really most people outside of Foxcult already knew this.
I'm seriously considering calling off work the day after the election, because even after explaining how population density works many of my coworkers are still convinced that if they can drive through town and see nothing but Trump signs there's no way Hillary could win without cheating
After weeks of national controversy led by Donald Trump over supposed vote rigging and voter fraud, an actual case of voter fraud occurred in Iowa. It was committed by a Trump supporter.
Terri Rote was one of three people in Polk County reported to the police by the Polk County Auditor’s office for voting twice in the November election. Rote was the only one arrested so far, and told Iowa Public Radio that she decided in “the spur of the moment” to vote a second time at a satellite voting location because she feared her original ballot would be switched to Hillary Clinton because of vote rigging. Simpson College professor Kedron Bardwell then noticed an old tweet from the Iowa Caucus where Rote was waving a Trump sign.
A quick glance at Rote’s Facebook page shows she frequently posts rather racist commentary and links to racist videos and articles. One of her photos appears to show a Confederate flag flying on her house. The majority of her non-game related posts show an obsession with black people and what damage she believes they’re doing to the country.
Most of her posts originate from racist or right-wing sites that promote conspiracy theories. And while much of her Facebook comments are derogatory to black people, she also seems to enjoy any video where a black person is defending or endorsing Trump. She also posts often about her support of Trump, as well as how much she despises Hillary Clinton.
Rote rather proudly accepts the “deplorables” label that Clinton named many Trump supporters as.
[Update: A reader also sends along this Iowa Workforce Development unemployment insurance appeal that shows Rote was fired from a Des Moines McDonald’s for calling a fellow employee a “n**ger,” arguing with customers and refusing to do simple tasks.]
Rote’s decision to commit voter fraud and her social media postings bring up a number of interesting angles to this story. First, obviously, is the irony that Republican-induced fear about voter fraud would cause a Republican to actually carry out voter fraud herself.
Second, the entire ordeal shows how difficult voter fraud is to carry out. Those who did were quickly identified and stopped. The process works, and the Polk County Auditor pointed out that there are systems in place to catch it in the very few instances it occurs.
Third, Rote’s social media postings seem to point to another reason why attempted voter fraud is so rare: no sane, normal person would try it. You risk prison and a huge fine, and for what? An extra vote or two for your candidate? In a statewide race where the winner will probably prevail by tens of thousands of votes? But if you read through most of Rote’s postings, it seems she might have some personal issues aside from the racism. If a more rational-sounding person had tried to vote twice, it would be a little more worrisome.
Rote appears to… not have it all together, and may have gotten needlessly whipped up in the extremes of this election, and now faces a felony charge. It will be easy for some to quickly hate this woman (and many are already attacking her on Facebook page), but it seems like she needs some help more than anything else.
This also serves as a perfect example of why leaders like Trump or Governor Terry Branstad shouldn’t engage in speculation about the election being influenced by voter fraud, or that the media is rigging the election. Many criticized Branstad for not giving a more strident defense of election integrity and for pivoting so quick to how the media could rig everything. Branstad probably thought he was just spinning the news to his party’s favor, but that most people wouldn’t actually believe the entire electoral system was rigged. The problem is that some people who hear your message may not have the ability to process it rationally.
However, Democrats should be careful about crowing too loudly about a Republican committing voter fraud. The two other people accused of voting twice haven’t been announced yet – it’s possible it’ll be two Democrats. And anyone who is honest knows that neither party engages in intentional voter fraud, so any of these cases don’t represent the party at large (the bigger problem, of course, is voter suppression).
The main lesson here is how extreme rhetoric has real-life consequences. Terri Rote may be going to jail and probably will have real difficulties getting a job after all of this, considering her name and mugshot are plastered in news articles across the country. Yes, she seems to be a rather unrepentant racist, but people don’t learn this on their own, nor do they take such incredibly stupid illegal actions without being influenced by something. Political leaders should keep that in mind as they choose how they speak and conduct themselves in political discourse.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
It is indeed interesting the insane stuff people will perpetuate. And from the must trusted source there is, 4chan, no less.
EDIT: Oh god it actually gets better when to read the 4chan archive. Only a right wing nutter could read an obvious troll thread from /pol/ no less, which basically exists for no other reason than to outrageously politically incorrect for kicks, and actually believe it. It's 4chan's user generated version of the Onion.
There's only one story that originated on 4chan that is worth reading, imo.
You need to look up the Mad Max Ogre Thumb thread. Just do it.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
The thing that I don't understand is why, if you want Trump rather than Clinton to win and you think your vote for Trump is being converted to a vote for Clinton, you would go back and vote for Trump again. It doesn't make any sense.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing that I don't understand is why, if you want Trump rather than Clinton to win and you think your vote for Trump is being converted to a vote for Clinton, you would go back and vote for Trump again. It doesn't make any sense.
It makes total sense.
Someone dumb enough to think that their one vote is actually going to be switched over to the other candidate in a US election right now is clearly dumb enough to think that if they vote again it'll all even out!
I mean come on. If they were actually smart they'd vote a third time! The second vote just negates the first, so you have to vote thrice for it to actually count
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/30 21:11:35
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing that I don't understand is why, if you want Trump rather than Clinton to win and you think your vote for Trump is being converted to a vote for Clinton, you would go back and vote for Trump again. It doesn't make any sense.
Well we are talking about Trump fans so...
Finnish news sitates ABC and Washington posts polls that have Clinton lead by mere 2% ATM. Before polls by same sites had 12% lead. Hopefully those 2 polls aren't that reliable.
That said, a tape showing Trump raping and killing a choirboy and a goat, not necessarily in that order, might have less effect than a letter saying the FBI was considering investigating the Clintons' accountant's pool boy's cousin's cat for sending a sext.
American the beautiful!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/30 22:12:33
Hillary eMail. The gift that keeps on giving. The question is, will any of this have an impact on the vote? Be aware that the author does have a bias as he has several anti-Clinton books on the market. Having a bias doesn't mean he's fabricating any of this nor does it mean he's just presenting facts as they are known. Read it with a critical eye.
EXCLUSIVE: Resignation letters piling up from disaffected FBI agents, his wife urging him to admit he was wrong: Why Director Comey jumped at the chance to reopen Hillary investigation
• James Comey revived the investigation of Clinton's email server as he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents, sources say
• The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn't recommend an indictment against Hillary
• He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents
• Comes was also worried that Republicans would accuse him of granting Hillary political favoritism after the presidential election
• When new emails allegedly linked to Hillary's personal server turned up in Abedin and Anthony Weiner's computer, Comey jumped at the excuse
James Comey's decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.
'The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn't recommend an indictment against Hillary,' said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week.
'Some people, including department heads, stopped talking to Jim, and even ignored his greetings when they passed him in the hall,' said the source. 'They felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist.'
According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice.
He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.
'He's been ignoring the resignation letters in the hope that he could find a way of remedying the situation,' said the source.
'When new emails that appeared to be related to Hillary's personal email server turned up in a computer used [her close aide] Huma Abedin and [Abedin's disgraced husband,] Anthony Weiner, Comey jumped at the excuse to reopen the investigation.
'The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,' the source continued. 'And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state.
'He talks about the damage that he's done to himself and the institution [of the FBI], and how he's been shunned by the men and women who he admires and work for him. It's taken a tremendous toll on him.
'It shattered his ego. He looks like he's aged 10 years in the past four months.'
But Comey's decision to reopen the case was more than an effort to heal the wound he inflicted on the FBI.
He was also worried that after the presidential election, Republicans in Congress would mount a probe of how he had granted Hillary political favoritism.
His announcement about the revived investigation, which came just 11 days before the presidential election, was greeted with shock and dismay by Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the prosecutors at the Justice Department.
'Jim told me that Lynch and Obama are furious with him,' the source said.
As I revealed in my latest New York Times bestseller Guilty As Sin Obama said that appointing Comey as FBI direct was 'my worst mistake as president.'
'Lynch and Obama haven't contacted Jim directly,' said the source, 'but they've made it crystal clear through third parties that they disapprove of his effort to save face.'
Laughing Man wrote: Could you repost the article for those of us without a subscription to the Journal?
The tl;dr summary:
They searched the computer for issues related to the sexting. They found emails from Clinton. They don't have a search warrant from them, haven't looked at them, have no idea what may be in them, no idea if they are already included in all the emails they already have, and they have no idea when, and if, they will actually review them.
But despite protocol and recommendations from higher ups they publicly announced that they have new emails, even though they don't know what they say, or if they are indeed even new.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/31 00:07:48
d-usa wrote: They searched the computer for issues related to the searing. They found emails from Clinton. They don't have a search warrant from them, haven't looked at them, have no idea what may be in them, no idea if they are already included in all the emails they already have, and they have no idea when, and if, they will actually review them.
But despite protocol and recommendations from higher ups they publicly announced that they have new emails, even though they don't know what they say, or if they are indeed even new.
Or, as Whembly categorized it, a fresh criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Seeing as his position is an appointment, I see him out of a job after the election.
This was likely regardless of who won the election. Even before the most recent shenanigans, he was ill-loved by both sides - HRC is not going to want a Bush appointee that Obama hates, and Trump would never keep on the guy who, in his mind, let HRC skate. Much like Ted Cruz, he's picked the worst of all possible options. The idea that they made this announcement solely to assuage his bruised ego as Breotan's article implies just makes it worse.
I don't know for sure I agree with the idea "the DOJ doesn't announce investigations into a presidential candidate within 60 days of an election" as a blanket rule. If a candidate is being investigated as an axe murderer, I'm not sure that's something they should sit on for 2 months or so. That being said, this seems like the worst sort of political hatchet job - they literally said they have no idea what they have, but we're investigating. Even a lot of Republicans are pretty pissed about this, and I think rightly so.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/30 23:51:50
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
3000
