Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 12:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 13:19:55 GMT -5
Regardless of your political views, watching Trump talk and act during this crisis is disappointing, even though I still shouldnt be shocked. He literally told Pence not to call states/governors that arent appreciative of him of their help. Like, people's lives are at stake and youre going to make it about you. That would be like a doctor going to work and refusing to help anyone until they tell him how much he's appreciated. Whether youre for him or against him, its amazing and disappointing what he gets away with as President.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 29, 2020 13:59:01 GMT -5
A new poll shows 15% of Bernie supporters will vote for Trump against Biden and 5% won't vote. I don't see Cuomo getting that 20%. If Biden drops out at the convention and his delegates don't go to Bernie, I think that number will rise. Back when FDR was running campaigning wasn't like it is now. If Bernie can sway his voters to Cuomo if he gives concessions to Bernie's ideas once Bernie gets out on the first ballot, maybe? I mean just because you put something into the party platform doesn't mean they have to follow through with it. So it's basically worthless to do something with that. If I were Bernie, I'd try to get a good VP pick for Cuomo.
|
|
|
Post by LaParka on Mar 29, 2020 21:17:25 GMT -5
Living in NY Cuomo is to the Corona-virus as to what Rudy was to 9/11 they stay focused on the task. They put everyone first before their own political agendas, which is the human thing to do. When Rudy ran for president because he was America's Mayor it didn't pan out. This is the first good thing that Cuomo has gotten under his belt in a while. I wasn't a fan of Bush, Clinton, I've detested Trump since I was a younger, since the property his family owned in Staten Island that he was in charge in was run down and he was considered a slum lord.
|
|
walkingturtles
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2018 19:54:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by walkingturtles on Mar 30, 2020 11:06:05 GMT -5
Regardless of your political views, watching Trump talk and act during this crisis is disappointing, even though I still shouldnt be shocked. He literally told Pence not to call states/governors that arent appreciative of him of their help. Like, people's lives are at stake and youre going to make it about you. That would be like a doctor going to work and refusing to help anyone until they tell him how much he's appreciated. Whether youre for him or against him, its amazing and disappointing what he gets away with as President. And in the era of political hate, most of those governors are in states would never win. Trump attacking California only stirs up his own base. He knows that. So when Trump attacks NY or Cali, his support grows in other places that reject those places, like the Midwest. Look I’m in Louisiana and we have a very conservative Democrat as Governor, yet We will vote Trump in November. Trump has downplayed what is going on but is doing it because of trying to keep the economy floating. And yes, the Democrats have played partisan politics since this started, they have no moral high ground and really no platform to run against him.
|
|
|
Post by rkmo: 9 Month Warning on Mar 30, 2020 11:17:55 GMT -5
Regardless of your political views, watching Trump talk and act during this crisis is disappointing, even though I still shouldnt be shocked. He literally told Pence not to call states/governors that arent appreciative of him of their help. Like, people's lives are at stake and youre going to make it about you. That would be like a doctor going to work and refusing to help anyone until they tell him how much he's appreciated. Whether youre for him or against him, its amazing and disappointing what he gets away with as President. And in the era of political hate, most of those governors are in states would never win. Trump attacking California only stirs up his own base. He knows that. So when Trump attacks NY or Cali, his support grows in other places that reject those places, like the Midwest. Look I’m in Louisiana and we have a very conservative Democrat as Governor, yet We will vote Trump in November. Trump has downplayed what is going on but is doing it because of trying to keep the economy floating. And yes, the Democrats have played partisan politics since this started, they have no moral high ground and really no platform to run against him. As if labeling concerns of CoVid a "liberal hoax", attacking media members and Democratic mayors/governors during briefings that draw huge ratings (as he himself boasts), not inviting Dem lawmakers that were essential to pass the "relief" bill, not committing to abide by Dem-insisted Congressional oversight to ensure that taxpayer money isn't misappropriated by this Administration or the companies to which they provide it, and attempting to keep stock market numbers high solely to aid his own reelection isn't playing politics in this crisis?
|
|
walkingturtles
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2018 19:54:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by walkingturtles on Mar 30, 2020 12:50:40 GMT -5
And in the era of political hate, most of those governors are in states would never win. Trump attacking California only stirs up his own base. He knows that. So when Trump attacks NY or Cali, his support grows in other places that reject those places, like the Midwest. Look I’m in Louisiana and we have a very conservative Democrat as Governor, yet We will vote Trump in November. Trump has downplayed what is going on but is doing it because of trying to keep the economy floating. And yes, the Democrats have played partisan politics since this started, they have no moral high ground and really no platform to run against him. As if labeling concerns of CoVid a "liberal hoax", attacking media members and Democratic mayors/governors during briefings that draw huge ratings (as he himself boasts), not inviting Dem lawmakers that were essential to pass the "relief" bill, not committing to abide by Dem-insisted Congressional oversight to ensure that taxpayer money isn't misappropriated by this Administration or the companies to which they provide it, and attempting to keep stock market numbers high solely to aid his own reelection isn't playing politics in this crisis? I think it is laughable that Dems could provide oversight for misappropriated tax payer funds, the faux propaganda and scare tactics used by the media, Dem lawmakers refused to allow Republicans during the “peach-mint” proceedings, and stock market numbers help out many people, who have accounts and retirement things of that nature. Look we won’t agree, and that is why this country is balkanizing.
|
|
|
Post by rkmo: 9 Month Warning on Mar 30, 2020 13:46:23 GMT -5
As if labeling concerns of CoVid a "liberal hoax", attacking media members and Democratic mayors/governors during briefings that draw huge ratings (as he himself boasts), not inviting Dem lawmakers that were essential to pass the "relief" bill, not committing to abide by Dem-insisted Congressional oversight to ensure that taxpayer money isn't misappropriated by this Administration or the companies to which they provide it, and attempting to keep stock market numbers high solely to aid his own reelection isn't playing politics in this crisis? I think it is laughable that Dems could provide oversight for misappropriated tax payer funds, the faux propaganda and scare tactics used by the media, Dem lawmakers refused to allow Republicans during the “peach-mint” proceedings, and stock market numbers help out many people, who have accounts and retirement things of that nature. Look we won’t agree, and that is why this country is balkanizing. Just wanted to get your stances on the record, for posterity.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 30, 2020 15:57:05 GMT -5
As if labeling concerns of CoVid a "liberal hoax", attacking media members and Democratic mayors/governors during briefings that draw huge ratings (as he himself boasts), not inviting Dem lawmakers that were essential to pass the "relief" bill, not committing to abide by Dem-insisted Congressional oversight to ensure that taxpayer money isn't misappropriated by this Administration or the companies to which they provide it, and attempting to keep stock market numbers high solely to aid his own reelection isn't playing politics in this crisis? I think it is laughable that Dems could provide oversight for misappropriated tax payer funds, the faux propaganda and scare tactics used by the media, Dem lawmakers refused to allow Republicans during the “peach-mint” proceedings, and stock market numbers help out many people, who have accounts and retirement things of that nature. Look we won’t agree, and that is why this country is balkanizing. The bottom 80% of the country owns 8% of the stock market. NYSE is a very lousy way to demonstrate economic health in the US.
|
|
|
Post by bWo on Mar 30, 2020 21:50:31 GMT -5
"The media tries?" Hahaha. All they've been "trying" is to bring Trump down for the last 3 1/2 years. No matter how well things were going, it was constant slings and arrows. Did you (obviously you didn't) pay attention to Russiagate? What was the media "trying" there other than to convince America that the only way Hillary could have lost is with outside interference. How'd that work out for the media? What was the media trying to do during his impeachment trial other than convince America Trump was guilty until proven innocent? Was that fair and honest journalism? How'd that work out for the media? Were they right? What about just recently when Trump said they've had some success with (whatever the drug was called) the anti-malaria drug that they were going to look into and the media asks him, "Do you think it's right of you to be spreading FALSE HOPE like this?" Yeah. Not HOPE...….. FALSE HOPE. What's the media trying to do there? No matter what he says the left twists his words and tries to spin it. If Trump walked on water the left would say he can't swim. If those on the left were "right most of the time" Trump would be out of office several times over. He's not though, because they AREN'T "right most of the time." They're petty, sore losers and Trump calls them out to their face. They can either admit he's right (never gonna happen) or they can just continue the fake news campaign and do things like completely ignore the fact that China is blaming America for the sickness and death this virus has brought to the planet. Is the media "right" for doing that? "(obviously you didn't)" - By being condescending, I don't know what you're trying to prove. We weren't talking about the Muller report, or whatever Fox News buzz word you want to call it. Don't forget to start calling it the Lamestream media. You made a statement that Trumps antics are childish and then I showed you an example with proof that he was and your rebuttal is to ignore it and then go on some rant about something we weren't talking about? Deflection and misdirection helps prove your point I suppose?
I know I can sit here until I'm blue in the face and give you examples across all forms of media from both sides with examples of what happened that proved he was crooked in that report and how Barr helped cover it up. What will it get me? Nothing, you'll just quote random words for emphasis and spew out whatever terms are buzzing about on right-wing media. And likely none of your replies will contain anything to back up what you're saying, you'll just be on the defensive that you're right and anyone who challenges you is wrong.
I responded to the statement, "the media tried." No misdirection or deflection. Does the media present all the facts and let the public come up with an honest/educated opinion? Or does the media let their political bias/agendas sway their coverage? One is trying, the other is not.
So, I'll make it real easy for you, show me, with sources, proof that the media is petty, sore losers and Trump calls them out. I did give an example of Trump being petty and calling someone out, but because its hard to show Trump in a positive way about it we won't make reference to it, right? You'll start talking about Russiagate and Hillary because that well is always full when you need misdirection.
There's Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in tears talking about illegal immigrant children being separated from their families because their criminal parents decided to try to break the law and enter the country illegally. This was of course because of Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. Problem is the same thing happens to (legal citizens) American children if they don't have any relatives and their criminal parents break the law and go to jail. No tears for them? No coverage? No blame? No poops given?
Objective media? Hmmmm.
Do you want to use an example like this:
Make sure you use an earlier Tweet of his that contradicts him. Its OK for him to be on both sides because its in his favor in your argument to say so, right? This Tweet no longer is valid because they're going against him, but when he's going against someone then its OK, right?
Did you get this emotional when Obama contradicted himself? Or is this just a Trump thing?
Also, when you say "If those on the left were "right most of the time" Trump would be out of office several times over." You do know the media isn't the justice system and the media can't kick him out of office, right? Don't forget he was impeached, not removed from office, but he was impeached.
So he wasn't removed from office. Bingo.When I say the media tries that goes both ways for the meaning, Fox News tries to spin it: Fox News - Senate acquits Trump on abuse of power, obstruction of Congress charges Look at the first two paragraphs of their article: "The Senate overwhelmingly acquitted President Trump on both articles of impeachment against him Wednesday afternoon following a brief trial, in a historic rejection of Democrats' claims that the president's Ukraine dealings and handling of congressional subpoenas merited his immediate removal from office. Several Congressional Democrats, speaking to Fox News, were dejected on Capitol Hill late Wednesday, even as they said they hoped to weaponize the acquittal votes by several moderate Republicans in swing states."
Did the Senate really "overwhelmingly" acquit him? Did they really "weaponize" votes? What? You'll focus on the emphasis words, but not the content.
"President Trump was acquitted Wednesday by the Republican-controlled Senate of charges that he abused the powers of his office and obstructed Congress as it probed his attempts to pressure Ukraine into political investigations — capping a tumultuous, three-week impeachment trial that leaves his fate in the hands of voters in November.
Democrats fell far short of the two-thirds majority required to remove Trump from office, as senators voted 52 to 48 to acquit him on the abuse-of-power allegation and 53 to 47 to clear him of obstruction."
See the difference in trying? One adds emphasis where its not needed, the other tries to report and tell you exactly what happened and give more information. So quote me all you want, make sure you use sources to back claims up, but the media tries.
The Washington Post. You mean the paper that smeared Nicholas Sandmann because he was wearing a MAGA hat? Did they "try?" Or did they get triggered by the hat and end up having to run an apology and are facing a lawsuit over their made up coverage?
If they're your example of honest reporting when it comes to Trump, "sources" aren't going to make any kind of difference.
|
|
|
Post by rkmo: 9 Month Warning on Mar 30, 2020 22:13:04 GMT -5
"'Sources' aren't going to make any kind of difference."
Says it all, right there in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Mar 30, 2020 23:19:53 GMT -5
"'Sources' aren't going to make any kind of difference." Says it all, right there in a nutshell. This. Absolutely this. Part of my job involves grading essays, and in relation to that verifying that students are using appropriate academic sources especially since most research is conducted online now rather than a book which has gone through an editorial process. Are some news sites not totally up and up? Sure. Fox and CNN are great examples. Most of what they're saying is the same, but the ways that they reach their conclusions is based on how the writers and higher ups want to have it spun. Trump signed the stimulus bill, and Fox heralded him for doing so. But when Obama did something similar, Fox labeled him a "socialist" and that "Republicans would never allow that if they had the numbers." Next time a massive disaster occurs, and a Democrat is in the White House, CNN will praise the heck out of them while condemning the bill Trump just signed. See? We're getting the same news about the stimulus bill, but there are very different spins before we get to the end. Vetting your sources is the most critical tool I try to instill in my students. One, no Wikipedia. Two, don't use op-ed pieces. Three, don't use something like "bobscivilwardotcom" as a source. And fourth, understand that NO NEWS, AND NO HISTORY is 100% unbiased. You can easily spot bias with, say, CNN and Fox. But pull up Al Jazeera? It's much harder because it isn't blatant. At that point, you analyze the tone the writer uses to determine whether they're slightly on the left, right, or if they're legitimately in the middle. Sources are VERY important. To say otherwise is just an example of denial of your surroundings and awareness. When Trump says "fake news" and millions believe him without ever considering the possibility that he's lying just because they don't only report the positives of his administration? That's denial, and herd-mentality. Same could be said if the next Democrat President says the same of Fox. Closing your mind to the ideas of others is the epitome, if not the exact definition, of ignorance. Don't be like that.
|
|
|
Post by Kill Em' All on Mar 30, 2020 23:45:24 GMT -5
MAN F ALL OF YOU just kidding hope ya'll staying safe and washing your hands. I think if were talking on logistic standpoint, Trump is going to win reelection. I am a Centrist with some flirty feelings to social Libertarian ideals. I feel Biden has blocked any solid advance by Bernie, by using some strong rationale about probability with Bernie's ambitions not being able to pass in Washington. However, Biden has made a complete ass out of himself. However, I haven't followed the election in a month. So, I don't know if my idea will change. I curious to see how the climate will be in November; I only sense worse then 2016. I think if Bernie harnesses the virus and what's going on with it he could use it as strong platform to win 2020. I am very curious to see things play out disregarding my own views.
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Mar 31, 2020 9:26:13 GMT -5
I think it is laughable that Dems could provide oversight for misappropriated tax payer funds, the faux propaganda and scare tactics used by the media, Dem lawmakers refused to allow Republicans during the “peach-mint” proceedings, and stock market numbers help out many people, who have accounts and retirement things of that nature. Look we won’t agree, and that is why this country is balkanizing. The bottom 80% of the country owns 8% of the stock market. NYSE is a very lousy way to demonstrate economic health in the US. I don't see how this doesn't sink in with more folks. It's kind of shocking to me that anyone would really care about their own bottom line based on what traders are doing. You know, because it likely has absolutely nothing to do with it. Trickle down economics has always been, and will always be, nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 31, 2020 10:40:10 GMT -5
Cuomo is trying to cut $400 million in Medicaid. He's using prison (slave) labor to produce stuff. His handling of the subway is horrendous. That's just three bad things he's done recently that people are overlooking because he's on TV talking about the virus.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 31, 2020 10:42:37 GMT -5
Also, sources do depend on the place. Obviously you wouldn't want to cite FOX or CNN. WaPo is owned by the world's richest man and will push his interests. We must look for independent journalists and not TV opinionists.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 31, 2020 11:28:46 GMT -5
Also, sources do depend on the place. Obviously you wouldn't want to cite FOX or CNN. WaPo is owned by the world's richest man and will push his interests. We must look for independent journalists and not TV opinionists. In 2016 you had a trend of saying sources were biased and that you wanted neutral, unbiased sources, but I don't remember you ever listing anything or anyone as a credible source you'd like to use. You had the history of seeing something and just saying it was bias, without providing a backup to that claim. People, myself included, made a post with either a link or claim and you would just reply that it was bias and leave it at that.
Can you please list sources you feel are acceptable rather than just listing the ones you feel aren't? The company that owns Politifact share a big donor with the Clinton Foundation. So I'd be iffy about what they say. Ken Klippenstein is a journalist I trust. He's a leftist but I trust him because he always gets FOIA documents and people in government leak stuff to him. Politico sometimes has some good stuff. I also go to the Drudge Report to get a lot of news. It's basically a news aggregator but it's also broken some news including the Lewinsky affair.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 31, 2020 12:09:53 GMT -5
The company that owns Politifact share a big donor with the Clinton Foundation. So I'd be iffy about what they say. Ken Klippenstein is a journalist I trust. He's a leftist but I trust him because he always gets FOIA documents and people in government leak stuff to him. Politico sometimes has some good stuff. I also go to the Drudge Report to get a lot of news. It's basically a news aggregator but it's also broken some news including the Lewinsky affair. Thanks for this. Politico is a good one for sure.
But you feel Drudge is OK as someone who wants unbiased/neutral sources? Their marks are pretty low.
www.allsides.com/news-source/drudge-report - This one was particularly bothersome because it says "[Matt] Drudge met Andrew Breitbart in Los Angeles during the 1990s and became his mentor, with Breitbart later helping to run the Drudge Report." Yikes. Drudge just complies news from different sites. He rarely posts his own news and when he does it's breaking news that he got the scoop on. The first link uses Politifact which I have already said I don't trust. The second link uses "community feedback" to gauge whether a news site is good. If a bunch of liberals were flooding it with bad reviews then of course that site will say Drudge is bad. It also says in their own research, "This initial instinct is consistent with a 2005 UCLA study which found the Drudge Report has a Lean Left media bias."
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 31, 2020 13:30:51 GMT -5
Drudge just complies news from different sites. He rarely posts his own news and when he does it's breaking news that he got the scoop on. The first link uses Politifact which I have already said I don't trust. The second link uses "community feedback" to gauge whether a news site is good. If a bunch of liberals were flooding it with bad reviews then of course that site will say Drudge is bad. It also says in their own research, "This initial instinct is consistent with a 2005 UCLA study which found the Drudge Report has a Lean Left media bias." Don't forget to include the next paragraph from the second link:
"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Websites," said study author Tim Groseclose, the study's lead author, formerly faculty at UCLA and currently Adam Smith Chair at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."
So the site is OK so long as you don't include the guy who the site is based on and some of his material? Can't we use that logic to Washington Post? Since you don't like them since they're owned by our Supreme Overlord Jeff Bezos. They're OK to be used so long as we turn a blind eye to any biased, factually incorrect material we may not like?
You also say mediabiasfactcheck.com uses Politifact, but they also have a bunch of other sites linked, but since they have that small connection by means of posting a link you write it off?
I don't know, that logic seems to be pretty irrational and inconsistent. I get they're an aggregator so I see the appeal in that, but if you want something neutral, I don't feel you should have to turn a blind eye or ignore parts of the site to make you feel good.
Drudge barely writes though as I said. He doesn't even write articles. He breaks news at times and just writes what the news is. Maybe he has in the past but the breaking news I've seen him post is just what the news is and he doesn't opine. I haven't been going to the site for terribly long (compared to how long his site has been a thing). If you go to his site you'll just see headlines and links to other news articles. None of them are linked to anything he writes. Snopes isn't bad all the time but they have their moments. They use sources that are biased such as Mother Jones who hilariously enough was a socialist but the actual site hates Bernie and loves Hillary. Clara Jeffery, the editor in chief, is a gigantic Hillary supporter. One thing Snopes does is it'll say some degree of true or false but it's sometimes off. They'll say something is "mostly true" when the claim is completely true but they'll add a caveat that wasn't in the original claim. When arguing with someone a mostly opinion gives them leverage to say the claim isn't actually true. Factcheck.org is run by the Anneberg Foundation which " has been cited for funding Climate change denial." The Lewinsky one is just their biggest one which is why I listed it. Are there any news sites that have a 100% perfect record when it comes to reporting? I'm sure they all have had wrong info and one point or another. Could you give me a different news aggregator then?
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Mar 31, 2020 17:23:48 GMT -5
You know what's shocking, Obama didn't endorse Biden. That is the ultimate betrayal.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Mar 31, 2020 17:52:44 GMT -5
You know what's shocking, Obama didn't endorse Biden. That is the ultimate betrayal. Lack of faith in an utterly doomed candidate. Obama might have been a relatively ineffectual President, but in the last few years he's shown to be a pretty shrewd political operator behind-the-scenes.
|
|