US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

"Hate" and "utmost contempt" are the same thing Skybird. But then again you knew that...

Every Golden Retriever is a dog, but not every dog is a Golden Retriever. You twist simple facts into alternative facts like Trump. Just that Trump is a relatively new phenomenon to me. From you I know it since many years.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Every Golden Retriever is a dog, but not every dog is a Golden Retriever. You twist simple facts into alternative facts like Trump. Just that Trump is a relatively new phenomenon to me. From you I know it since many years.

Well come on, now you're just fake news. What are you, a librul?!

[vienna]

Trump:

"I tell you, this is a golden retriever! Listen, I am well known as an authority on dogs, and this is a golden retriever! If you think otherwise, you're just being duped by the Obama/Clinton conspiracy against me!!...

...oh, and my dog may have had contact with a Russian wolfhound, but I'm gonna deny it..."...








<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Every Golden Retriever is a dog, but not every dog is a Golden Retriever. You twist simple facts into alternative facts like Trump. Just that Trump is a relatively new phenomenon to me. From you I know it since many years.

The simple fact is that your entire argument is based on anonymous sources promoted by a hostile media and you're just mad that your opinions aren't being respected. You can play semantics games if you want but that's what you are doing.

[August]

Hey wouldn't it be a hoot if at the end of all this they end up inditing Clinton instead?

Originally Posted by August

The simple fact is that your entire argument is based on anonymous sources promoted by a hostile media and you're just mad that your opinions aren't being respected. You can play semantics games if you want but that's what you are doing.

Anonymous sources where no problem to you when they were in favor of your own views. Now when they are against your views, you demonize them?
How do you expect to be taken serious in any political debate when your hateful bias is already glowing in the dark?

And for heaven's sake, stop speaking so very loaded. You do it all the time!
You may not respect anyone's opinions, however, stop talking as if your ignorant point of view applies to anyone else.
But then again Sky and me are just some pesky foreigners, eh?

Also, the semantics-game was started by you!
You lost, and now you complain that the game was played in the first place.

Another classic August!

[Buddahaid]

Oh please. This will only get worse.

[August]

Yeah you're right.

[vienna]

An interesting op-ed piece on those who stand to stand to be more adversely affected than most by the Trump implosion:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...518-story.html




<O>

[Dowly]

In other US politics news:

FCC votes to start rolling back landmark net neutrality rules

The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to begin undoing a key decision from the Obama era that could relax regulations on Internet providers.

For those who don't know what the fuzz is about:

Originally Posted by vienna

An interesting op-ed piece on those who stand to stand to be more adversely affected than most by the Trump implosion:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...518-story.html




<O>

Ouch!
Almost made me feel sorry for the people that work for him. Almost.
The comments are brilliant, though, they remind you about the intellectual level of your regular trumpkin, blubbering about "fake news" mixed with some conspiracy theories, obviously without reading a single word besides the headlines.

Good thing we still have reliable sources like Breitbart and Alex Jones that bravely fight these damn libruls and their hostile media trying to destroy America!

[Rockstar]

Speaking of hostile media. This study just reinforces my belief media outlets tailor their content for a select audience. In otherwords in order to gain viewers they just tell them what they want to hear so they tuned in.

And in the case of foreign media such as ARD which seemingly has no desire whatsoever to report news but rather attempt to divert the attention of home viewers from their own miserable internal state of affairs.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harv...mp-media-bias/

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Speaking of hostile media. This study just reinforces my belief media outlets tailor their content for a select audience. In otherwords in order to gain viewers they just tell them what they want to hear so they tuned in.

And in the case of foreign media such as ARD which seemingly has no desire whatsoever to report news but rather attempt to divert the attention of home viewers from their own miserable internal state of affairs.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harv...mp-media-bias/

Haha, so much for bias and desires, Rockstar.
Did you care to read the study at all?

"Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

Weird, sounds very different from your "analysis". And please, provide an example for the following:
"And in the case of foreign media such as ARD which seemingly has no desire whatsoever to report news but rather attempt to divert the attention of home viewers from their own miserable internal state of affairs."
I am most curious to see some proof for that accusation. And how much ARD do you watch, I wonder?

[August]

Interesting article: This is what Republican self criticism looks like:

A Never Trump movement, I think it is fair to say, had absolutely no influence on the 2016 election. In theory, elites may have convinced a few key Republican voters in swing states to stay home or to vote for Hillary Clinton; but in reality they were far outnumbered by huge numbers of new Republican voters who saw in Trump hope that they did not in far more experienced and sober men of character.

Like it or not, a Rubio or Cruz nominee likely would have not won these swing voters and thus likely would have lost the election, and with it ensured at least 12 and likely 16 years of a hard progressive government.


Finally, there was something deeply wrong in the Republican Party that at some point required a Trump to excise it. The Republican Party and conservative movement had created a hierarchy that mirror-imaged its liberal antithesis, and suggested to middle class voters between the coasts that the commonalities in income, professional trajectories, and cultural values of elites trumped their own political differences. How a billionaire real estate developer appeared, saw that paradox, and became more empathetic to the plight of middle-class Americans than the array of Republican political pundits is one of the most alarming stories of our age.


Trump was not so much a reflection of red-state Americans’ political ignorance, as their weariness with those of both parties who ridicule, ignore, or patronize them—and now seek to overturn the verdict of the election.

http://amgreatness.com/2017/05/17/ni...s-never-trump/

[Rockstar]

Haha, so much for bias and desires, Nipplespanner.
Did you care to read what I wrote at all?

What I wrote is called an opinion. This thread is riddled with them so why are you singling me out to provide proof for an opinion? Im no different than you or anyone else here I find a link to an article I agree with and paste it. So I'll start providing proof when you do. OK? Until then take your demands and pack sand.

As for your question yes I read it. I understand and agree completely, "there is no agreed upon reality which to compare". In fact that very thought ran through my mind before I even got to that portion of the article.

But regardless wether one thinks one media outlet is more fair and balanced than the other in its reporting. The numbers clearly show some media outlets when they report on Presidential matters really havent had a good thing to say about him. Except of course when he let loose a barage of cruise missles then everyone likes him.

Take it whatever way you want I wont demand proof of your opinion I just dont care about it.