CNN - doesn't like getting 'bullied' by Trump and cries wolf and plays the victim after months of nasty comments towards the president, then doxxing some kid and bullies him into not making fun of their shitty reporting. You can't make this stuff up
He isn't some kid, this myth has been debunked. I disagree with CNN's actions but let's state it how it is, he is a middle aged man. You claiming he is a kid lets me know you didn't look into what you're talking about enough or you are just pushing a false narrative.
Good to know that violent anti-semitism falls under "making fun of shitty reporting"
Actually the original meme was created by a kid, just not the version that Trump posted. That was a remix that was made by some middle aged dude who synced the original with the audio from the piece and resized it and did further editing. Both sides are technically right and wrong. Also anyone who stands on the "that reddit guy is a racist, misogynist, anti-Semite" is a fucking idiot that doesn't understand reddit or the internet for that matter. The dude was posting in a place that was specifically designed as a place for people to post the most ridiculous off-color jokes and other shit that doesn't fly in civilized society. No one there takes that shit seriously, that's the whole point.
Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays
Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
lmao, that sounds like a fucking excuse @heister you will never find me post shit like he posted anywhere on the internet. Also, idgaf about the original meme. We are specifically discussing the guy that CNN tracked down, he is not a kid, period.
Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.
The point was that CNN was wrong, they claimed to have tracked down the original meme maker. Which was wrong, they found a guy who took the original meme and then made it better. The thing is that meme had existed for months and no one cared, they only cared when Trump pushed it to the forefront and then tried to connect Trump to the dumb shit this guy said by a non existent connection.
CNN was going to doxx a guy because he put their logo on a wrestler and Trump fake punched him out.
The American version of the BBC got so upset about a joke video that they tracked someone down, threatened to reveal who they are unless they apologized. Let that sink in.
CNN is a joke. The Onion has better reporting. And the best thing is they did it to themselves.
Every news station has bias and sensationalizes unnecessary things to get ratings. You can't call CNN fake news without doing the same for Fox News. And really Trump just looks childish and unpresidential with all this petty bs on Twitter. Like instead of being sitting around and tweeting about media companies/members that don't think your a good president, do something that will MAKE them see you as a good president.President's of the past have been too worried about losing their base by working across the aisle but in reality more people are centrist than extreme conservative or liberal. Trump could become a great president by doing what those before him haven't done and pivoting center and working with both parties to actually make america great, but I digress.CNN isn't fake news(should be on the same line as the guardian in this graph), Fox News isn't fake news(just partisan), Trump should worry about being president, making good policy that benefits all america, and not tweeting things to incite the extreme right and promote distrust.
Just a few points/questions:
Let's just get one thing clear: the 22 million people the CBO cites are not people left uninsured to die on the streets. The 22 million people represent how many fewer people will have coverage, which includes people who have insurance now because they are forced to buy it or pay the penalty. Right now there are only 10 million people on Obamacare, which means that unless you think enrollment is going to double (the low hanging fruit are already covered), the majority of people will choose not to have coverage by their own free will - the same way the cast their vote.
Additionally, I think that an argument can be made that there is no correlation between number of people covered and health of a nation. For the first time in a long time the average life expectancy in the US has ticked down this year, as well as the average health of newborn babies. It is not like all of a sudden a bunch of sick people decided to have babies and healthy people have not - lets focus on quality, not quantity.
Let's just get another thing clear: sure, that might represent people that don't purchase it, but even if it's say 1 million people that end up without healthcare and are forced into crippling debt because of healthcare costs on top of even 100,000 people that die without Obamacare (which there are many documented cases of people that would die without it), I can't sleep on that. Might be the empathy part of me but Americans dying because I need a slight tax cut doesn't make me feel good inside.Also, I don't see how you can make that argument, many middle-lower middle class people decide to not get the treatment they need because they can't afford it. Sure Obamacare doesn't affect the health of the people making enough to afford healthcare, but there are a lot of people that it would affect and their health would decline. LET'S focus on quantity because you said it's the health of a nation not the health of those that make over $X dollars.
Thank you for making your conscious clear.
Empathy to me is teaching the man to fish, not giving him a fish. Create the incentive to live healthy and people will live healthy; create the incentive to live a sedentary/idle life without work and you have an unhealthy lifestyle, no matter how much health coverage you have. Would your empathy compel you to bring an obese friend to the gym or the doctor (if you actually cared)?
I apologize, didn't mean for the empathy comment to be a demeaning statement against you if it came across that way. But, apples to oranges an obese friend and a friend who has MS but can't get the care they need because they can't afford it are way different. $10 dollar gym memberships cannot and should not be compared to $100,000 dollar treatments.
I agree there should be help for people that truly need it, but there are not 22 million people in the US with MS, or debilitating medical problems. Obamacare and the taxes that are levied on the general american population are largely used to support able-bodied people living at and above the poverty line. There are almost 17 million more people on Medicaid today than there were in 2013! Do you seriously think there are that many more people in this country now that need the same coverage as somebody living with MS (that is also not already covered)?
The incentives here are completely misaligned. The bill that the republicans passed takes care of the people that need it (or at least attempts to), by giving states the ability to identify people and areas that need the most help. The problem with the federal government is that policy makers believe its one-size-fits-all and that is just not the case. Obesity, smoking and sedentary lifestyles are the biggest threat to long term health in this country, and the only way to combat that is to create incentives to live a healthy lifestyle. Our goal should be as few people on medicaid as possible - it should truly be a safety net - and only consist of those people that cannot truly support themselves or their family.
Jesus fucking Christ, the ignorance exists here of all places. Do people really not understand how the health care system in the country works at all? Insurance =/= care, these numbers that keep getting bandied about are complete horseshit and don't have any relation to reality. The entire law is a giant redistribution scam that isn't even what most people think it is. The redistribution isn't going to help the poor get better healthcare because when you are poor it doesn't matter that you have health insurance when you still can't afford to use it because you have a 6k yearly deductible and don't give me the bullshit about free yearly check ups. If you can't afford to pay for insurance you sure as fuck can't afford the opportunity cost to actually use the benefits. It is just a scam to bring millions of more people into the health insurance market to pump up the premiums paid.
I really wish Hillary had won. Obamacare is crashing and unless fixed, will completely fail. Republicans are trying to fix it and are getting demonized.
Dems passed a shit bill that has utterly failed. It has created yet another bankrupt from day one entitlement and they have the gaul to complain.
Forget Obamacare. Pass tax reform and other meaningful reforms. Let Obamacare keep chugging along without one Republican touching it. Let this albatross implode and all the people who champion it can choke on its corpse.
If only Russia hacked the shitty Obamacare bill. It might have been better.
good lord you're still trusting the polls the news puts out after what happened on election day?
I'm starting a company that sells sailboat fuel will you invest? It's a really unserved market
National polls were accurate. The aggregated state polls were in the margin of error. Criticism of the polls are misplaced. The methodology is statistically sound. The margin of errors are just much larger within individual states. Media coverage of the polls often fails to recognize this due to mathematical ignorance.
they heavily over-sampled democratic voters according to Podesta emails
You're entirely wrong and misinterpreting. The statistical term for this is "stratified disproportionate sampling," It's not done to skew the polls. It's to gauge attitudes of specific voter groups. Campaigns do internal polling and do this. Polls done by independent researchers do not do stratified disproportionate sampling.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read in my entire life. Campaigns will do internal polling and purposefully over sample certain groups in order to understand stratified groups. The DNC has no control or influence over independent pollsters.
really no influence?
You, along with the morons who do ignorant analyses of these Podesta emails are poisonous. You are displaying a profound misunderstanding of the purpose and scope of internal polling for political campaigns. Campaigns will apply stratified sampling in this way in order to understand what demographic groups to target.
Do you really not understand this? Do you not understand that political campaigns conduct independent polls for their own purposes separate from the polls that universities and polling organizations conduct? These emails refer to internal polls that HRC's campaign conducted to understand various voter groups. Both parties apply this methodology and have for decades. You can look up the methodologies of independent pollsters. It's in the public domain.
DeepLearning:This is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read in my entire life.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read in my entire life.
Dumbest fucking thing because it blatantly refutes the bullshit you posted previously?
DeepLearning: The DNC has no control or influence over independent pollsters.
The DNC has no control or influence over independent pollsters.
Yes, they did. Also we know that major media outlets were directly taking talking points from and coordinating with the DNC.
It's dumb because it demonstrates an ignorance of the fact that campaigns apply internal polling using methodologies that are not intended to be used for election forecasts but rather to understand stratified samples.
University and polling organization methodologies are in the public domain. They are highly standardized. Feel free to look them up.
Lol get the fuck out of here. Political polling is a bullshit science. You can statistically correct it for bias but you can't correct it for the sample population itself. If you select improperly weighted populations, count people who lie and use self selection bias because quite frankly if you are spending the time talking to pollsters you are either stupid or have nothing better to do. Polling for these kinds of things is basically a lot of guessing, hope and prayers.
Polls are pure reflections of how people perceive the coverage of an event or position. If you see non stop coverage like "hey he is a bad guy because we say so" people who tune in will adopt that position because they have be told that is how others think, regardless of the reality of that.
Trump isn't a tea party conservative, hell he isn't really even a conservative. The reason he won had nothing to do with policy. For decades since the end of Regan's 1st term the country has basically be in a coasting malaise where politicians were grooming Americans into accepting a different place in the world. Trump was the first person to run for President since Ross Perot who actually was talking about American exceptionalism. Perot popularity is what led the Democrat and Republican parties to agree upon "election reform" that basically forced third parties to have a minimum polling support to be considered for a national ballot placing. Rather than having to go and collect signatures in every state to get on the individual ballots. The vast majority of people who voted for Trump did so because of how he talked about America not because he wanted to build a fucking wall.
Hahahahahaha! This fuggin guy seriously mentions "polls". Holy chit that's good, as if you couldn't have learned something about polls from this past election or even Brexit.
DJT's support with his base is absolutely as high as ever, and whether you agree with it or not he has been working tirelessly to put his campaign promises into action.
Fareed zakaris GPS show is on cnn.
And while he is generally critical of trump, he has on occasion extended favorable appraisals of the administration (missile strike on syria after chemical attacks, willingness to challenge nato allies on defence spending)
Great. HRC approval ratings were almost as low as Trump's. Are you saying CNN would be as critical of her because of her approval rating (asking if you agree with the other response to (1) above)?
Idk about any of that.
All i know is that you stated that CNN never covers trump favorably.
Which i disagreed with because thats false
OK. well lets do some math here - he has what, two hours every Sunday for his show? Surely he did not dedicate the entire two hours each weekend, but even if he did lets just go through the figure on the 2 topics you bring up (since we are taking words here so literally).
CNN is a 24 hour news network. As of this writing, its been 4,005 hours since Trump was inaugurated and officially became president (we could go back to his election or even year of campaign, but I will give you favorable numbers here). Fareed gave Trump maximum 4 hours of good coverage.
CNN has given Trump good coverage for 0.1% of the time since he has been elected. Your convictions exist only in your head.
if I HAD to choose from the 3 mainstream news outlets (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) - I would undoubtedly pick CNN because despite their ideological leanings, the channel at least offers the most objective view of current developments.
For example, I don't see the equivalent of a Fareed on Fox.
Cool. Sometimes I realize I am super enlightened too, but then notice I am just daydreaming. Guess I need to get back to being my old, unwashed self.
Life of the hoi polloi, ugh.
Except that the chemical attack was bogus and the missile strike was just as much bullshit as well because it basically did nothing and if you read the reports about the munitions that were used they were basically forced to use them because they were reaching the end of their service life.
It has been proven that the Sarin gas found at the claimed site was 1) not any known type in the Syrian arsenal and 2) was detonated there at a later date than the actual bombing of the site. Based on how the gas interacts with explosive munitions experts were able to say with almost 100% assurance that the gassing was done at a different time and was most likely done by a rebel group.
Huffington Post is considered "analytical"?
Maybe they should put The Odyssey Online in the same bucket
don't pay too much attention to the infographic, it has NYT and WaPo as non-partisan. this was merely an example of how people used to view CNN
yeah but frankly, CNN is still the lesser of the three evils (the others being MSNBC and Fox)
I've seen that chart a few times, conveys the message well but the positioning of several names is highly suspect. Got a few bones to pick (mini-rant):
a) All news organizations in the center circle, with maybe the exception of Reuters, are center left or left. I'm pretty conservative, but still always read the NYT, WaPo, etc. quite often to get the other side of the story. But post-election I swear a good deal of their journalists and opinion writers have become so unhinged/hysterical. Check out this piece in the Globe (a paper along the same vein): http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/03/dona... - I could go line by line and shit all over the author's logic. The hyperbole is embarrassing, as is the author's complete disregard of history, not to mention referencing Orwell's 1984 while clearly not having a goddamn clue what it is about. Yes I may be biased but I really think the print media, which has always been more restrained than the TV garbage, decided to throw caution to the wind post-election and fly their progressive colors loud and proud. Even the FT which I'm all about has turned decidedly more towards the center left (but I still <3 you bae).
b) The "center left" sources as indicated on the chart (Vox, Slate, etc) . . . hmm. Slate is HuffPo lite, and all Vox does is pontificate . . . sorry, I meant explain the news . . . poorly. And then the gall with the placement of the Guardian, you shittin me?! That paper might as well just go full on red and merge with Workers World.
c) Whoever made that chart does not read the Economist; while I love the magazine dearly, I'd say it is centrist with a slight tilt toward the left. The only way it is conservative is if you are Bernie Sanders.
d) Obligatory "Fox, CNN, and MSNBC all suck" as do the Huffington Post, Breitbart, etc. The last two are for all intensive purposes equivalent, being garbage. Half of their stuff is just way over the top biased in one direction or the other, and the other half of their product is often outright bullshit.
PS - Edward Luce you are one smug bastard, and I don't like you.
Trump took TWO scoops of ice cream, is this grounds for impeachment?
I'm glad to see the media being called on their shit. I think going after a private citizen for making a silly meme is what will do it for most people - I have some pretty liberal friends that were shocked by that.
Yeah not trying to sound like a snob or anything, but most mainstream media sources are dogshit.
There isn't a single contentious issue out there simple enough to be covered in 1000 words or less.
By all means, people should read the mainstream publications to stay updated on a daily basis.
But to be truly informed on economics, foreign affairs, impending policy decisions, etc. requires digging into primary sources (the actual contents of a bill itself rather than whatever Fox/HuffPost say about it) or reading long-form articles / whitepapers from respected thinktanks and agencies.
Imagine the $ you could make if you started an actual non-partisan news channel that just reported facts and stats.
probably none, because it'd be boring as shit
There are actually several podcasts that do this and they make decent money by doing a value for value model where the fans directly financially support as well as do research and production work.
TippyTop11:Imagine the $ you could make if you started an actual non-partisan news channel that just reported facts and stats.
I actually don't think this would be possible to do. The media doesn't tell you what to think, they tell you what to think about, by virtue of what topics they focus on. Subtle but crucial difference
Simply by presenting certain facts and stats and events over others (since it wouldn't be feasible to cover every single thing), and because certain types of information are more closely related to certain ideologies, such a news outlet would unavoidably lead to a bias
I hate to say it, but a show like Hannity and Colmes (back in the day) was pretty interesting. Until Colmes was ousted, they did try to present both sides on that show. I think we need more of that, rather than claiming to be bipartisan which isn't possible to do. Just make sure it's run by a more moderate organization as opposed to Fox News
Did you make this graph? lol If you did, it looks good... I like it! It condenses basically how I feel about news outlets too haha, nicely done.
Is Al-Jazeera just not popular in the US? I personally love getting my news from there, I find that it's a great place to find non-partisan news that's also reputable (although reputable and non-partisan seem to be synonymous these days). Nobody seems to know about this news outlet though.
I did not make the graph. al jazeera is not popular, nor is RT, but I agree it's good to get a non US/western perspective on news every now and again
Al-Jazeera actually produces some solid content, provided they aren't covering any Qatar-related news.
South China Morning Post is another good foreign source (for now I guess), and as long as you take it with a grain of salt, I find China Daily worthwhile to get the Chinese govts official view on things.
RT, on the other hand, is (and has been) an essential cog in the Kremlin's propaganda / disinformation campaign to undermine the west. It has zero credibility as a news source; don't even bother with it.
Yeah, I knew that about RT so I tend to take it with a grain of salt. I have not heard of South China Morning Post or China Daily though, thanks for sharing.
Come on, give RT a little credit for being the only network that gives Ron Paul any airtime. That, and they got some smoking talent.
Hah OK then lets agree to disagree, I have pretty strong convictions about Russia's recent role in the world and don't want to hijack the thread (or argue about it for that matter).
RT has as much credibility in covering world news as any MSM outlet does, hell these days I'd argue even more because they actually cover stories that the MSM here won't even discuss. No one thinks that their view is completely objective but it is far from pure propaganda. Voice of America on the other hand is pure propaganda.
The Times is unbiased in order to hide their liberal tilt. I do think they have a mission of unbiased reporting that somehow gets lost in the busy daily starbuck activities of its reporters.
At what point is it unethical to be 'nonpartisan'? What would either party have to advocate for in order for everyone to be like, you know what, maybe we shouldn't be treating X and Y as if they are morally or intellectually comparable policies?
I'm curious to hear more about your thoughts on this. I'm of the opinion that good journalism has a duty to report the facts as well as analysis from different points of view. an example of a news story I'd like to see:
legislation comes outmedia outlet picks main facts (how much it increases spending, how it's paid for, what its goal is)interviews of high ranking officials from both parties (say comments from both pelosi and ryan)analysis from a couple of think tanks, just the facts, no spin./end of segment
however, where this gets cloudy is if there is blatant partisanship, seeking opinions and validation from those who share the opinion of the journalist.
as the saying goes, with great duty comes great responsibility, and since people believe the news to be factual, I have a difficult time with the notion it's ok for the news to blur the line between fact and opinion (leading to partisanship).
Nuanced analyses from think tanks, etc. take time to develop. There are news articles from CNN/NYT/WaPo/etc. that I would say mostly conform to the ideal reporting style that you've described. You just have to be willing to sort through the large volume of quick takes that have become necessary in the social media age. Journalists also run into the problem of one side being unwilling to comment on a story. I've definitely seen tons of stories regarding major legislation where officials from one party declined to comment.
The broader point I was trying to make is that there comes a point in which it is both absurd and unethical to treat certain views as merely an alternative analysis. If Richard Spencer was elected to office and advocated for the peaceful ethnic cleansing of non-white people from the U.S., would it be the journalistic responsibility of the media to report on that policy objectively? Similarly, if a member of antifa was elected to office and advocated for the firing of all police officers, should the media have to report on that idea seriously as well?
Agree or disagree, it seems that the media has taken this stance towards Trump and the GOP as a whole. In their view, the needle has been pushed so far that that it's no longer ethical to report on GOP rhetoric/policies with an objective tone.
If the media has indeed become more partisan towards democrats, is it because the media has changed or the policies/rhetoric of the two political parties? While it's certainly a combination of both, I tend to think it's mostly because of the latter.
I understand you're using hyperbole to make your point, but I do see what you're driving at. what I believe is the root cause is the fact that the mainstream media is usually located in liberal cities with liberal employees (easy to network if you share beliefs), so it's impossible to eliminate bias.
what I take issue with is kinda what you're alluding to, that the media cannot conceive a way to ethically report on Trump's policies objectively. first of all, I didn't vote for him, but I understand why people did. people feel left behind from globalization and saw Trump as a way out. to make any non-liberal point of view appear as illegitimate is unethical, and that's what I feel the media is doing.
as to your last question, definitely the latter.
In my version of a perfect news world the news group would run two segments on every major story the first part would be what you said and the second part would be the writer or news persons editorialized take on the piece. These sections would be clearly marked so that readers can easily understand where the journalism ends and where the editorialization begins.
I think that's what many progressive journalists have convinced themselves of - they believe they have the moral high ground and that their ideology/policies/etc. are assuredly the correct ones - thus it is ethical and appropriate for them to try and "lead" the audience to particular conclusions, in fact, it would be irresponsible of them not to.
First off, WaPo needs to be moved to Skews Liberal/Hyperpartisan Liberal. Almost everything they have published has been extremely left leaning. NPR and NYT need to be moved closer to Skews Liberal given their left leaning bent. Otherwise, it's a pretty good infograph.
CNN is an interesting case though because of this whole Gifstorm. While I won't get into the intricacies of this, it is something that reflects the reality of the world we're in. Part of the reason why no one trusts the Media is because there is no Dan Rather, Woodward and Bernstein, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Walter Winchill, or Robert Novak out there today with a truly fair and balanced newscast. What's happening with CNN further exacerbates the problem and really highlights the issue of media bias. We know Fox News and MSNBC are going to skew to the right and left, and the idea of CNN is that it's supposed to be right in the middle. I honestly don't think we need reforms on the Press, but I think we need more accountability from the Press. This entire situation has really highlighted the problem of bias creeping into the news and we need to find a way to reduce that to produce a more fair and unbiased news broadcast that people can actually listen without seeing the blatant bias in.
You're being too kind to the NYT; that paper has gone off the fuckin rails post-election.
Their non-political coverage is still pretty good. I think everyone has gone off the rails for the most part post-election. In general, I will still read the business section of the NYT and watch for the global news. For the political coverage, I will avoid it at all costs.
The more you know:Walter Winchell was the epitome of fake news. He was a mouth piece for McCarthy in the 50s and accused anyone he didn't like as a communist sympathizer. His name at the time was synonymous with libel.
Oh, I'm aware of Winchell's ties to McCarthyism. You also forgot he was a mouthpiece for FDR during the early days of WWII when he was one of the first, if not the first, outspoken critic of Hitler and the rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe. That wasn't the point I was making by referencing him though - his contracts with various media companies all had indemnities that would hold them harmless for the things Winchell said, which meant it was all on him. Contrast that to CNN and the way the GIFstorm is playing out. No one (in particular Andrew Kaczynski for the initial "CNN reserves the right to reveal his identity" tweet, and Chris Cuomo for tweeting and then deleting a tweet that said he wondered if CNN made the right call not revealing who the guy was) is being held liable for what was said at CNN. CNN head honcho Jeff Zucker is playing the victim card, coming after Trump for constantly "bullying" CNN despite their consistently negative coverage of him dating back to the election. The falling out from this entire deal, simply because no one wants to take responsibility will have a ripple effect, particularly with the AT&T/Time Warner deal. Winchell, for all his failings, gossip mongering, and accusations, was on his own when he made his accusations, which is something that puts him in rarefied air as far as I'm concerned.
Winchell also changed the face of media, some for the good, some for the bad. However, he was able to wield his popularity for causes he believed in and, despite his infamy, managed to do some good with the power he wielded.
Frieds:First off, WaPo needs to be moved to Skews Liberal/Hyperpartisan Liberal. Almost everything they have published has been extremely left leaning. NPR and NYT need to be moved closer to Skews Liberal given their left leaning bent. Otherwise, it's a pretty good infograph.CNN is an interesting case though because of this whole Gifstorm. While I won't get into the intricacies of this, it is something that reflects the reality of the world we're in. Part of the reason why no one trusts the Media is because there is no Dan Rather, Woodward and Bernstein, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Walter Winchill, or Robert Novak out there today with a truly fair and balanced newscast. What's happening with CNN further exacerbates the problem and really highlights the issue of media bias. We know Fox News and MSNBC are going to skew to the right and left, and the idea of CNN is that it's supposed to be right in the middle. I honestly don't think we need reforms on the Press, but I think we need more accountability from the Press. This entire situation has really highlighted the problem of bias creeping into the news and we need to find a way to reduce that to produce a more fair and unbiased news broadcast that people can actually listen without seeing the blatant bias in.
guys, the entire world is to my left and everyone's views should be updated to reflect mine
FOHFLady: Frieds:First off, WaPo needs to be moved to Skews Liberal/Hyperpartisan Liberal. Almost everything they have published has been extremely left leaning. NPR and NYT need to be moved closer to Skews Liberal given their left leaning bent. Otherwise, it's a pretty good infograph.CNN is an interesting case though because of this whole Gifstorm. While I won't get into the intricacies of this, it is something that reflects the reality of the world we're in. Part of the reason why no one trusts the Media is because there is no Dan Rather, Woodward and Bernstein, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Walter Winchill, or Robert Novak out there today with a truly fair and balanced newscast. What's happening with CNN further exacerbates the problem and really highlights the issue of media bias. We know Fox News and MSNBC are going to skew to the right and left, and the idea of CNN is that it's supposed to be right in the middle. I honestly don't think we need reforms on the Press, but I think we need more accountability from the Press. This entire situation has really highlighted the problem of bias creeping into the news and we need to find a way to reduce that to produce a more fair and unbiased news broadcast that people can actually listen without seeing the blatant bias in.guys, the entire world is to my left and everyone's views should be updated to reflect mine
Anyone who thinks NPR is "left" has literally no perspective
Actually I believe it is the opposite, the reason no one trusts the media is because literally every reporter and anchor believes they are the next Woodward and Bernstein and they rush to get their story out as fast a possible with out verifying anything. The sheer number of retractions that WAPO does everyday should alarm everyone and seriously impact their credibility. The problem is that people don't want news, they want their biases confirmed. Also people don't trust the news because quite frankly the media has spent the better part of a decade lecturing to the American people as well as just people in general that we are all stupid idiots who can't possibly know what we think is important and therefore we must have the people on TV tell us what we should think.
I don't see the media changing. This country is very tied up in one's own beliefs. Individuals are all more empowered and are exploiting that. It's a behind the scenes driving force causing the political climate, not the other way around. With that happening, our institutions got infected, so there's not something that can be done to change it from the outside. We're stuck in this dynamic, at least until cooler times prevail. Social society (feminism) is hitting its pubescent stage. Once this undercurrent dies down, politics will be boring again.
It's really terrible actually. I used to subscribe to SlingTV so that I could get two channels: ESPN for sports & CNN for news. I've finally cut ties with SlingTV because I see absolutely zero value in CNN these days because the slander is just blatant at this point with really no substance beyond the hollow propaganda they are trying to push. Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper need to get out of there before their careers are forever stained by the shit they're forced to report on.
CNN was old reliable right up until the end of the 2016 election. John King should have won a fucking Emmy for how well he was working that Microsoft Surface electoral map on election night. Wolf Blitzer's orchestration of the entire night kept me absolutely glued, commercials and all, until the wee hours of the evening.
I digress... I'll stick to chewing on the loose coffee grinds at the bottom of my cup while reading the cynical ZeroHedge which although bombards me with shitty ads, ultra-bearish sentiment and it's fair share of tin-foil hat losers, it's the quality of journalism that I'm looking for when diving into a topic. I've also got the Bloomberg app on my Roku which has a "Best of the Week" compilation of all, high-level, business news which I throw on weekend mornings to catch up on anything I may have missed.
So for now, fuck mainstream media. It's wasting my time.
Agree 100%. Since the election I've cancelled my WSJ, Economist and NYTimes subscriptions. The constant bashing, smugness and "sky is falling" mentality is tiresome. So for now I get my news from Zerohedge and Twitter.
Also, does anyone even watch CNN anymore?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/06/cnn-slides-to-13-in-cable-rankings/Looks like no...
it's sad that most americans get their news from Fox & MSNBC. talk about echo chambers
thebrofessor:it's sad that most americans get their news from Fox & MSNBC. talk about echo chambers
Read through this thread if you want to be sad about Americans.
It's not really sad as more indicitiave of the state of existence that people are more worried about having their world view confirmed than they are about learning anything.
Dont u dare bash my beloved Economist.
Actually, though, im interested to hear about qualms that anyone might have with it. I find that it is perhaps the best source to stay updated weekly on developments around the world spanning anything from politics/economics to scientific advancements.
It is unabashed defender of the global liberal order, which often leads it down the path of trump bashing, but have you truly found this bad enough to justify cancelling the subscription?
Truly interested, just to see if im missing something/am a blind lamb. How are 140 character tweets and sensationalist zerohedge articles any better?
I was a longtime subscriber myself. Your point that it covers international affairs more completely than almost any other (somewhat) mainstream outlet is a valid one, too. In particular, I don't remember reading about the apparent surrender of power by the military junta in Myanmar anywhere else, but the Economist covered it thoroughly.
In my case, I unsubscribed shortly after I woke up to the death and destruction that neoconservative foreign policies (i.e., regime change through external meddling) have rained across the globe, especially in the middle east and Africa, and when it subsequently became apparent that the Economist's editorial position tends to lean toward tacit approval of these misadventures. A few examples:
They supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.They endorsed Mohamed Morsi in Egypt (and as I recall, generally favored the so-called Arab Spring).They seem to support the ongoing muddle in Afghanistan.They've always shown a bias against Bashar al-Assad and advocate regime change.
I recognize I'm cherry picking examples that support my point, and there are probably many counterexamples you could offer up where the Economist has leaned toward nonintervention. And don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge them the fact that they do take their own stance on matters (of course, would prefer that they did so with a little less holier than thou, ivory tower arrogance -- not that that's a valid reason to unsubscribe). But for me, out of principle I didn't want even my measly $200 annual subscription money going toward supporting the viewpoints I outline above; and that's the same reason I unsubscribed from Foreign Affairs (along with the latter being the propaganda arm of the Council on Foreign Relations).
I used to love the Economist as well, would read it cover to cover every week (or at least try). But they became quite negative on Trump, constantly bashing his policies because his policies don't agree with the magazine's views. If I could get a version of the Economist that removed all US political articles, I would. But I have a hard time giving $$ to something that keeps pushing a view that I don't agree with.
140 character tweets and Zerohedge articles give me just the news on whats happening, not someone's opinion on the news, which is what the Economist has turned into. Zerohedge articles are sensationalized, yes, but a quick skim of their article headings is a great way to keep up to date on what's happening.
fair enough, definitely see where you guys are coming from. I still believe, though, that The Economist does an excellent job of entertaining conflicting viewpoints. For example, in this week's issue, TE commends Trump for correctly identifying Germany's massive trade surpluses as a source of global economic instability - even if he goes about addressing the problem in a crude and awkward manner.
I personally need more analysis and substance when I read up on current events, which obviously introduces greater risks of journalistic biases.
However, I believe this risk is justified purely because I don't know enough about the happenings of the world to completely and independently draw meaningful conclusions, simply from scanning headlines.Frankly, most average civilians who don't see behind closed boardroom/ congressional/judicial/cabinet doors, wouldn't be able to either.
Maybe I need to "get woke", but i'm not going to automatically assume everything mainstream is part of the conspiracy.
The new editorial team has basically come out and said that they are a left as HuffPo. It's not a good choice for a magazine that was one the standard for world economic news.
I saw that and thought it was hilarious that CNN's highest rated show comes after the Tucker Carlson replay.... just let that sink in.
Economist is trash now. WSJ is ok in the financial section, rest I toss. NYTimes has always been good for nothing but toilet paper. I'll maybe read the wine or book section. WasPo hahahah, worthless.
is CNN really trying to dox someone for making a gif of them? I heard it was some 15 year old kid but I don't know what is actually going on with that story... if anyone knows lemme know cause that sounds weird as hell lol
also, Salon and Breitbart (please never read these, i can't even look) are like the exact same thing but different sides of the aisle. these have to be the worst...
links in the OP
yeah but does anyone know what actually happened and who the real guy was? someone told me it was some 15 year old kid who was going to go on the news and clear things up, then i have been hearing a bunch of other weird shit about it
don't know what is going on haha
TLDR is basically this,
Some dude on Reddit started bragging about how Trump tweeted his meme out. That guy was tracked down and basically blackmailed by CNN (who claims they didn't threaten him but basically said they did in their article about it) said he is a middle aged man. CNN then tried to play the guilt by association game with Trump and this guy who posted some terrible shit on Reddit in a place that is specifically designed for terrible shit. That failed then they tried to claim the guy apologized of his own accord by saying that he reached out to them after he deleted all of his stuff on Reddit and begged them not to dox him. People then began to accuse CNN of blackmailing the guy and it pissed a bunch of people off. CNN then went on a huge tirade about how they didn't threaten the guy at all even claiming the guy said that he was never threatened by CNN, which may be accurate but the threat was basically implied when they reached out to him multiple times before he took down all of his Reddit history and then said basically "If he ever posts things we don't like on the internet again we will dox him".
amazing, add that to CNN's other latest and greatest hits, what a masterpiece
It's not sad at all that Trump is mocking CNN. It's quite literally fake news. A mouthpiece for the democrats.
This is the organization that, beyond publishing numerous objectively false stories (Russia took down power grids, Trump removed MLK bust, Comey never told Trump he wasn't under investigation, the dossier, etc.), illegally gave Hillary Clinton debate questions before a debate. Talk about trying to influence an election.
This is an organization that spent literally more than 95% of its air time pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories with no actual evidence whatsoever. This is an organization that pushes anti-Trump propaganda based on hearsay from unnamed sources (sometimes from just one unnamed source).
It's fake news. Simple as that. It's not journalism.
Can't CNN just go back to six months of non-stop coverage of MH370? Those were the good ole' days.
Esuric:It's not sad at all that Trump is mocking CNN. It's quite literally fake news.
It's not sad at all that Trump is mocking CNN. It's quite literally fake news.
It "quite literally" is not.
Fake news is deliberate misinformation and hoaxes.
Biased news is not #FakeNews just because you don't agree with the bias.
It quite literally is.
Edit: they broke the most basic principles of journalism to push a narrative that had no evidence and which they (at least some) knew was untrue. They did it for ratings, as we now know and because of bias.
James O'Keefe is a conservative activist who edits corny "gotcha" videos. He's been arrested and successfully sued for his tactics and has both taken donations from the Trump Foundation and worked with Brietbart.
Hardly a credible source here, let alone proof that CNN is "fake news"
CRE:James O'Keefe is a conservative activist who edits corny "gotcha" videos. He's been arrested and successfully sued for his tactics and has both taken donations from the Trump Foundation and worked with Brietbart.Hardly a credible source here, let alone proof that CNN is "fake news"
This is the most dishonest form of argumentation imaginable. He literally has key CNN personnel admitting that the story was bullshit, a witch hunt for ratings and admitting their biases. It could be the head of the KKK behind the camera. It could be Trump himself. It doesn't make its content any less true/real.
Do you really not understand this or are you just that dishonest of an individual?
It really is shocking, isn't it. Someone did an analysis on Trumps CNN coverage and I believe it was nearly 100% negative.
People blame Trump for the downturn of trust in the media and judiciary. No one blames the media who puts out trash or liberal judges denying an order that was affirmed 9-0 by the SCOTUS.
I like the infographic in principle, but I do believe it is fundamentally flawed.
The 2016 elections ushered in a sea change with respect to how average voters view the left/right, neoliberal/conservative dichotomy. In fact, not just ushered in a sea change, but I would argue discarded it entirely. Trump rode in on a wave of nationalism. His ascendance was the upshot of the American people's rejection of the tide of neoconservatism/globalism that had been on the rise since the Reagan assassination attempt (after which, G.H.W. Bush assumed the defacto role of president). In retrospect, unless you start splitting hairs. the respective policies of G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama have been virtually identical with respect to foreign and domestic policy, where it matters. Even with Trump in the White House, there's a clear demarcation between mainstream Republicans -- McCain, Ryan, Graham, et al -- and the Trump faction. To wit, ask yourself how different a hypothetical McCain presidency would have been from a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency? I'd venture, not a whole lot.
The graph would mostly stay unchanged if you replaced "Liberal" with "Globalist" and "Conservative" with "Nationalist", except that most of what lies in the middle of the road per the graph would need to shift about two clicks to the left. In particular, The Economist needs to fall under Hyper-Globalist.
Side note -- in practice, Trump's foreign policy has demonstrated shades of neoconservatism, particularly in the middle east. I'll give him another year or two to see what materializes out of his rhetoric.
All of this. SB'd
It seems as though, many who were leaning in a particular direction are now far leaning and those in the center have picked their sides either right or left. Unfortunately few (if any) news organizations are actually in the center, even the WSJ is slightly right leaning since "Big T Dawg" took office. NPR I would say is also far left from center w/ regards to their political coverage.
I think we need to re-categorize what a "News" organization really is. At the end of the day you begin to realize that no one is really providing any news. They're media platforms that are spitting a political agenda. The street goes both ways... CNN spends 90% of their on-air minutes talking about Trump colluding with Russia, and Fox spends 90% of their on-air minutes talking about CNN talking about Trump colluding with Russia.
It's like that ole quote, "If you don't read the news you're uninformed, if you read too much news you're misinformed."
Edit:I would love to see a graph depicting where the news organizations think they lie on the political spectrum. I think we would all share a good laugh.
Nothing new here. CNN is just an extension of Langley. They peddle all kinds of crap and simulated events in order to drive ratings and distract people from what is actually happening. I'm okay if a network wants to be partisan (e.g. Bloomberg, Fox) as long as that is clear and easily to adjust for. But when a network literally fabricates events and facts in order to progress a certain narrative, then it just becomes propaganda. That's part of why I like to read South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, and RT (along w/ Infowars, Zerohedge type sources which are often much closer to the actual mark of objectivity and accuracy than the mainstream sources).
How did you make that connection between CNN and Langley? Genuinely curious, as I've always kept up with natsec news/rumors but haven't heard that come up.
Hard to pinpoint exactly how I realized this but it's pretty clear when you start to pay close attention to how they report the "news" (*and more importantly what they fail to report). My personal view is that CIA is involved in staffing and staging the various false flag events and the deepstate controlled media assets are responsible for disseminating and curating the narrative for the viewing public.As a side note, I have a lot of respect for some of the agents who work there; e.g. Anderson Cooper is a phenomenal intelligence professional. I mean the guy is really good. Note that he supposedly "interned" at CIA for two summers in college. He's also a Vanderbilt which leads to the obvious question of "why this"? Also highly likely he's ex Skull & Bones, but best not to go down that rat hole. In any case, the deep state/mainstream media incest is fairly well documented at this point so I'm sure you can find other connections if you're interested.
jankynoname:But when a network literally fabricates events and facts in order to progress a certain narrative, then it just becomes propaganda. That's part of why I like to read South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, and RT (along w/ Infowars, Zerohedge type sources which are often much closer to the actual mark of objectivity and accuracy than the mainstream sources).
But when a network literally fabricates events and facts in order to progress a certain narrative, then it just becomes propaganda. That's part of why I like to read South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, and RT (along w/ Infowars, Zerohedge type sources which are often much closer to the actual mark of objectivity and accuracy than the mainstream sources).
jankynoname: RT (along w/ Infowars, Zerohedge type sources which are often much closer to the actual mark of objectivity and accuracy than the mainstream sources).
RT (along w/ Infowars, Zerohedge type sources which are often much closer to the actual mark of objectivity and accuracy than the mainstream sources).
Yeah sure, okay dude. Keep living up wherever you are in the clouds.
Realize that I am probably out of consensus on this. And that's fine.
In other news it looks like Yellowstone is about to blow...
Vox with a real hot take today:
i guess somehow they twisted those words into meaning... nevermind i can't even attempt to figure out their thought process
"Four legs good, two legs bad."
gonna have to give that book another read haha
Before I say this, I just want to say I definitely don't like Trump. Now, with that being said, I just love the hypocrisy on the left. When Trump shits on NYT, CNN, etc. everyone thinks he wants to be a tyrant and revoke our freedom of speech. But when Obama would go up and shit on Fox News, the left straight up couldn't get enough of it; they loved every fucking second. Obama may have shit on Fox more eloquently, but he definitely still shit on them often.
woah woah where is Telemundo at on that graph?
a la derecha
"Fake news" is news that is fake, like "pizza gate" or whatever, not news that has a political bias opposite your own or news that is constructed erroneously and then later is retracted.
CNN may not be consistently stellar reporting, but it is not fake.
What do you call constantly reporting something that isn't "there" (Russia), with even their own reporters saying its just for ratings.
Goes beyond poor reporting when you know it isn't true. Sounds "fake" to me.
Russia isn't there huh? Cue Eric Trump Jr. releasing his new e-mails lmao. You sycophants will not accept that there is definitely a there there. I mean we are choking on Russia smoke right now but people want to claim there is no fire, it's both sad and hilarious at the same time.
p.s. I will comment on this thread more extensively when I get above water at work. Went to Thailand this past week so I'm swamped today.
BobTheBaker:Russia isn't there huh? Cue Eric Trump Jr. releasing his new e-mails lmao. You sycophants will not accept that there is definitely a there there. I mean we are choking on Russia smoke right now but people want to claim there is no fire, it's both sad and hilarious at the same time.p.s. I will comment on this thread more extensively when I get above water at work. Went to Thailand this past week so I'm swamped today.
It's like Lenin said, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. This seems to be the mantra that democrats live by. Misinformation, hearsay, rabid moralising, manipulation of statistics, shaming, ridicule, etc. Anything but the truth.
Correction - the media has been spewing Russia smoke for 6 months.
Yes I read his email. Some tabloid reporter duped him into a meeting with a lawyer from Russia. He took the meeting, it turned into a ruse, so the meeting ended. If that's all the Democrats have, its going to be a fun 2018.
I'm not going to comment further on the Russia subject. Claim what you want. It's sad that we've become so partisan that people have been come entirely uninterested in facts. Then @Esuric goes on his usual rah-rah burn the liberals shtick. Shit's a joke. We will continue to get more information on Russia as investigations go further, I think it will be an interesting exercise to watch how long the denial can last. "Duped" wtf are you talking about? He knowingly took the meeting with the lawyer in order to obtain damaging information on HRC. To act as if this is a fabrication by the media when Flynn got fired for his lies related to Russia, Sessions had undisclosed meetings with Russians, Trump Jr. lied and is now backtracking regarding meetings with a Russian specifically related to HRC, Trump openly asked the Russians to release Clinton's missing e-mails, and the Russians hacked the DNC to help Trump and hurt Clinton might be the most thorough exercise in obliviousness I've ever witnessed. This shit is yahoo! comments level discourse at this point.
Well, to be honest you started the name calling - Sad!
I have a serious question for you. Why are you so interested in the Russia investigation? Is it because you're honestly concerned that the Russians tried to meddle in the election? Or is it because you want to see Republicans suffer?
The answer to the question is exactly why the majority of Republicans will go "meh", and the majority of Democrats will keep beating this drum senselessly and start frothing at the mouth over every little "breaking news" regarding the subject.
My motive is entirely irrelevant. What is important here is the facts. Fact is Russia hacked the DNC, fact is Flynn was fired for undisclosed Russia ties as well as ties to other governments, fact is Trump openly requested Russian help in the form of releasing HRC's missing e-mails, fact is Sessions was forced to recuse himself over undisclosed meetings with Russians, fact is Eric Trump Jr. solicited information from Russia in order to damage HRC. These are all undisputable facts. BTW, I would be just as worried if this was HRC rather than Trump.
I stopped reading after "Russia hacked the DNC".
That's not a fact and has not been proven.
I've enjoyed most of your posts (haven't paid much attention to the political ones tbh) but I'm curious on this point. why do you care if russia meddled in our election? maybe I'm looking at this too simply, but what I've noticed is the following:
hillary had some skeletons she wanted to hide
russia had the means to find & release this information (I haven't done the research so dunno if this is accurate, but just assume for the moment it is)
hillary's emails were released, people judged them however they judged them, just like they judged trump however they judged him. difference is he didn't really have anything hidden, just some publicly available non-politician-y stuff from 70 years as a blowhard fratdaddy.
in simple terms: the american people received not so glamorous information about both candidates before the election which (in my opinion) distracted us from the real issues but gave us tastes of their real character (trump is a jackass, and hillary can't be trusted). the american people judged them and voted accordingly. how is more information bad?
my assessment of this is that libs are mad because
but again, this is simply dissemination of information in my opinion. what am I missing?
What skeletons? I mean the e-mails were innocuous bullshit, most not even involving HRC but associates talking about and around her. I would care if any government meddled in our democratic process, much less Vladimir Putin. That it might not only be meddling but also collusion from an opposition candidate? That is a massive problem.
The Clinton method:
1) bleach-bit emails2) hammer phone to pieces3) deny
The Trump method:
1) Tweet emails for transparency
"Transparency" lmao you have to be joking or delusional. Dude lied about the meeting originally and was caught so he got out in front of the coming shit storm and released the e-mails. Behaving as if it was some fucking benevolent act has to be a troll. Stay willfully ignorant to push your partisan bullshit bro, anyone who still believes Russia wasn't the perpetrator of the DNC hack cannot be taken seriously at this point. I'm done with lunch I have to get back to work.
You seem angry.
a really easy way to clear it all up is to have the DNC allow their servers to be inspected, has this happened yet?
also watch out bobthebaker has compared disagreeing with him to actual violence on this site before lol
I see your point about caring if gov't meddles in our election process, but if you think about it, all they're trying to do is sway opinion, something the media does on a daily basis. what's unethical about reflecting an opinion by releasing information? the fact that it's from a foreign country, or the fact that it's against the more popular candidate?
I think what's happened here is people are mad that hillary lost, can't believe that she lost, are hunting for reasons why, and believe that russia rigged our election because there's no other explanation of why trump won (hyperbole, yes). what I think most americans fail to realize (reps as well) is that transparency is beautifully democratic. so is free press. disseminate as much information as you want and let the people decide.
now, if Russia messed with vote counting, voter registration, polling places, then yes I'm all for you, but I haven't seen accusations of that, just that they tried to influence the minds of voters.
Problem with this is then, in theory, any government could hack individuals in order to get damaging information about them and use it to sway elections in their favor. Additionally, if you are talking transparency then they should've hacked and released all information on both individuals. When you hack on individual and disseminate information piece by piece to damage said individual that has nothing to do with transparency. Again, a foreign government hacked a candidate they dislike to influence the American public to vote for the candidate they preferred. This is unacceptable in my opinion, feel free to disagree.
I do disagree. the media's reporting is one sided by and large (which I hate btw, the whole point of this post), so I see no issue with Russia releasing info on their preferred candidate's opponent. what we're disputing is whether or not this matters, not the facts it seems. agree to disagree
"The emails are simply put damning as a legal matter," explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. "The text of the emails provide very clear evidence of participation in a scheme to involve the Russian government in federal election interference, in a form that is prohibited by federal criminal law."
Yea dude, nothing to see here, media is just making stuff up. It's a liberal conspiracy. There is no smoke, a nothing-burger, not even worth a thought much less the effort it took to type this post.
BobTheBaker:I'm not going to comment further on the Russia subject. Claim what you want. It's sad that we've become so partisan that people have been come entirely uninterested in facts. Then @Esuric goes on his usual rah-rah burn the liberals shtick. Shit's a joke. We will continue to get more information on Russia as investigations go further, I think it will be an interesting exercise to watch how long the denial can last.
I'm not going to comment further on the Russia subject. Claim what you want. It's sad that we've become so partisan that people have been come entirely uninterested in facts. Then @Esuric goes on his usual rah-rah burn the liberals shtick. Shit's a joke. We will continue to get more information on Russia as investigations go further, I think it will be an interesting exercise to watch how long the denial can last.
Uh huh. We're all eagerly waiting.
BobTheBaker:"Duped" wtf are you talking about? He knowingly took the meeting with the lawyer in order to obtain damaging information on HRC.
"Duped" wtf are you talking about? He knowingly took the meeting with the lawyer in order to obtain damaging information on HRC.
Yeah no shit he did. He wanted dirt on Clinton. She ran the dirtiest political campaign in modern American history. They wanted counter dirt. This is not illegal. It's not unprecedented. It's not even uncommon. This fake outrage on the part of the left about campaigns doing opposition research just highlights how full of shit they are.
The same team that stole debate questions. The team that illegally stole Trump's tax returns, resorted to hot mics, illegally leak classified information, etc. I could go on..
BobTheBaker:To act as if this is a fabrication by the media when Flynn got fired for his lies related to Russia, Sessions had undisclosed meetings with Russians, Trump Jr. lied and is now backtracking regarding meetings with a Russian specifically related to HRC, Trump openly asked the Russians to release Clinton's missing e-mails, and the Russians hacked the DNC to help Trump and hurt Clinton might be the most thorough exercise in obliviousness I've ever witnessed.
To act as if this is a fabrication by the media when Flynn got fired for his lies related to Russia, Sessions had undisclosed meetings with Russians, Trump Jr. lied and is now backtracking regarding meetings with a Russian specifically related to HRC, Trump openly asked the Russians to release Clinton's missing e-mails, and the Russians hacked the DNC to help Trump and hurt Clinton might be the most thorough exercise in obliviousness I've ever witnessed.
Democrats and Republicans meet with individuals of Russian descent and members of the Russian government quite frequently. This isn't uncommon during campaigns or in administrations. Clinton was heavily involved with Russia on multiple levels.
The fact, though, is that there isn't a single shred of evidence demonstrating that (a) Russia actually hacked the DNC, (b) Russia leaked the hacked emails to WikiLeaks, (c) that Russia intentionally tried to benefit the Trump administration in anyway and (d) that there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
There is zero evidence, and if there is, I challenge you to present it. The actual evidence. Present it.
"The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of value"
He knowingly solicited valuable information from a foreign national in contribution tot he Trump campaign. Pretty fucking textbook illegal. (a) CIA/ FBI/ NSA all agree that Russia hacked the DNC but you disagree, cool, I will go with the alphabet boys before @Esuric the supply sider. (b) follows (a) b/c why would they hack the DNC NOT to leak it. (c) follows (a) & (b) if you can exercise basic logic. Anyway, the investigations continue and the stories pile up, time will prove who is right and who is wrong on this. It certainly hasn't swung the way of "there's nothing there" at any point though.
BobTheBaker:"The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of value"He knowingly solicited valuable information from a foreign national in contribution tot he Trump campaign. Pretty fucking textbook illegal. (a) CIA/ FBI/ NSA all agree that Russia hacked the DNC but you disagree, cool, I will go with the alphabet boys before @Esuric the supply sider. (b) follows (a) b/c why would they hack the DNC NOT to leak it. (c) follows (a) & (b) if you can exercise basic logic. Anyway, the investigations continue and the stories pile up, time will prove who is right and who is wrong on this. It certainly hasn't swung the way of "there's nothing there" at any point though.
lol such a clown. First, you haven't demonstrated that Russia actually provided the "contribution of value" that you allude to. I'm still waiting on the evidence, shit head.
Next, interesting definition of 'value' you're using there (it's not actually interesting. I'm accusing you of intentionally obfuscating the term for political purposes). That statute refers to kickbacks - tangible items of value - not intangible, ethereal notions of value.
It's so funny too because the Clinton foundation slush fund literally received billions of dollars in donations (actual value) while she was campaigning (funny how charitable donations to that organization have collapsed since she lost the election). It's also funny because we now know that the DNC literally colluded with the Ukrainian government, on Ukrainian grounds, during the election to beat Trump.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabo...No outrage there right? But here we have actual proof.
Here dude. Educate yourself. You're being brainwashed and it's not a good look for you:
Did you read? THEY DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING PROVIDE ANYTHING OF VALUE. SOLICITIATION IS AGAINST THE LAW REGARDLESS OF THE RESULT. How you somehow think damaging information on the opposition, which campaigns pay private parties large sums of money to obtain, isn't of value I have no idea. I love how you're trying to discredit the CIA/ FBI/ NSA in favor of a politician, because politicians are much more trustworthy lol. Funny how everything becomes "but but HRC" with you, because you can't defend your viewpoint on their merits alone. I am done responding to you, calling me fucking brainwashed, you aren't worth my time.
BobTheBaker:Did you read? THEY DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING PROVIDE ANYTHING OF VALUE. SOLICITIATION IS AGAINST THE LAW REGARDLESS OF THE RESULT. How you somehow think damaging information on the opposition, which campaigns pay private parties large sums of money to obtain, isn't of value I have no idea. I am done responding to you, calling me fucking brainwashed, you aren't worth my time.
Did you read? THEY DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING PROVIDE ANYTHING OF VALUE. SOLICITIATION IS AGAINST THE LAW REGARDLESS OF THE RESULT. How you somehow think damaging information on the opposition, which campaigns pay private parties large sums of money to obtain, isn't of value I have no idea. I am done responding to you, calling me fucking brainwashed, you aren't worth my time.
Way to dodge, once again, every single point made in my response to you.
BobTheBaker:"The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of value"
The statute, when it refers to "item of value," is not referring to ethereal, metaphysical objects of value, such as opposition information. It's referring to material value. You know, like the millions that Clinton accepted from foreign governments via the Clinton Foundation slush fund.
BobTheBaker:CIA/ FBI/ NSA all agree that Russia hacked the DNC but you disagree, cool, I will go with the alphabet boys before @Esuric the supply sider.
CIA/ FBI/ NSA all agree that Russia hacked the DNC but you disagree, cool, I will go with the alphabet boys before @Esuric the supply sider.
This is not logical argumentation. Referring to what an individual or organization says is not proof. I know this truism is lost on many in this age of mass misinformation, but truth exists independently of belief. It doesn't matter if 100% of the people/organizations believe that the Earth is flat. It doesn't make it true. Similarly, it doesn't matter if 100% of the intelligence agencies say that Russia hacked the DNC. It doesn't make it true.
This is especially important when the parties in question have extremely questionable track records. Remember Iraq and WMDs? Again, fucking educate yourself. You're being brainwashed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_MockingbirdAlso, I'm not a supply sider. Supply siders are Keynesians who buy into the aggregate demand framework. Not me. Sorry.
BobTheBaker:(b) follows (a) b/c why would they hack the DNC NOT to leak it. (c) follows (a) & (b) if you can exercise basic logic. Anyway, the investigations continue and the stories pile up, time will prove who is right and who is wrong on this. It certainly hasn't swung the way of "there's nothing there" at any point though.
(b) follows (a) b/c why would they hack the DNC NOT to leak it. (c) follows (a) & (b) if you can exercise basic logic. Anyway, the investigations continue and the stories pile up, time will prove who is right and who is wrong on this. It certainly hasn't swung the way of "there's nothing there" at any point though.
No evidence, RIGHT?
It's like Lenin said, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. This seems to be the mantra that democrats live by.
I hope the Democrats and media keep obsessing over this pointless Russia story, I really do. They still haven't figured out why they lost, but yeah, Russia!
As for why outlets like NYT, WaPo etc. appear to be moving further left with their political reporting, we have to remember that we are in an entirely different political context. Trump has changed things by publicly undermining news outlets, the whole making fun of the disabled reporter, and attacking countless other individuals at nearly every outlet except breitbart. He has made this fight personal for not just those individuals but the media at large, and so it's no surprise to me to see these outlets shifting left specifically in their reporting about trump, his admin, and other politicians who strongly support him. I don't think it would be the same for another conservative president (it wasn't for bush). Perhaps you can argue chicken or the egg here, but as I recall all other recent presidents were at some point exposed to some bad, unprofessional, or generally in poor taste language, but they never brought the fight to the ground the way trump has (literally though, after last weekend).
Secondly, while I do think there has been some overall leftward movement by NYT et al., I think the polarization of politics has shifted the baseline in many cases where it simply seems some outlets are moving left with their reporting, certainly in comparison to the places the Tea Party, the Blaze, Breitbart, and talk radio have taken the conversation to since the start of the Obama era. Fox has also noticeably drifted right during that time period as well IMO.
You might want to revisit your timeline there, the media made it personal with Trump long before he made it personal with them. I personally have no issue with him personally fighting with the media, you have to realize that basically since he announced his run they have collectively done nothing but run hit pieces on him.
If you want to understand what is going on, study the concept of the Overton Window.
THE REAL Question I have is how do smart people like Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer and the rest of those clowns buy into the agenda. I get a little bit of partisanship, but their coverage is bananas. Zero valuable information. Ive heard more informed discussions at vagina monologues. And those fuckers are nuts.
Wolf Blitzer is a hack who will say anything he is told to, and Anderson Cooper is a company man (CIA) and has always been. He always backs up the CIA regardless of the situation.
I invite any Trump apologist on this thread to tell me what Russian news would cause them to withdraw support of the President. Today we have emails published by Trump Jr. himself containing the lines "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" and half the country who screamed BENGHAZI for five years wants us to move on immediately and focus on the "real issues".
The party of so-called patriotism is aiding and abetting treason, full stop. This website is supposedly full of the smartest six-figure-earning kids Wall Street has to offer, and some of you can't see the forest for the trees. I voted GOP for the first 8 years of eligibility, but never, ever again.
when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
I think we're just interpreting these events differently. I didn't vote for Trump, still probably won't vote for him in 2020 (I think he's intellectually dishonest with his job promises, and I identify as more of a fiscal cons), but my whole thing is I don't see anything wrong with Trump Jr's emails. you seem to interpret this as "hacking the election," whereas I interpret it as Russia, who has a common enemy with Trump in HRC, disseminating information to the public.
what would cause me to pivot on this is if, as I mentioned above, if there's evidence of actual election fraud. release of information and trying to sway opinion is not fraud, meddling with votes is fraud.
Thanks for responding. Hacking = changing vote totals, which we have not yet seen any evidence of (though apparently Russia tried in several states to access voter machines. They are certainly guilty of "meddling", and the Trump camp colluding with a foreign adversarial government to spread misinformation, or collect opposition research, certainly qualifies as treason to me.
I think it's the definition and magnitude of meddling that's the question here. if Russia thinks Trump is good for Russia, it's in their self interest to meddle, just like if America thinks Saddam Hussein is bad for America, it was in our best interest to meddle.
meddling is something Americans do on a regular basis, my question is when does a meddle become fraud or some other illegal action, and that's what the media is failing to state. they simply promote conspiracy theories without actually saying what they really mean (we think Russia is the reason Trump got elected, we just can't prove it).
I think you are conflating two ideas 1) Russia meddled in our election; and 2) The Trump camp welcomed and assisted them. #1 happens all over the world, and I have no doubt we do the same elsewhere. #2 is treason
if you're talking the letter of the law here, I'm undereducated in that, I'm more interested in the philosophical/ethical implications. my entire point of the comments I've made today is that both sides were self interested in promoting their images of themselves and influencing the american people to vote for them (which is what campaigning is). the disagreement seems to stem from the fact that one party got it from a foreign country with whom we were at odds for decades and that party won. but enough about that, I've made my point.
because I'm not up to speed, and this is not a snarky question, how does welcoming information leaks qualify as treason? I was always under the impression that treason is giving enemies classified information (like Snowden), which even in that situation, one can't dispute that it's illegal, but we can dispute whether or not it ought to be illegal.
thebrofessor:if you're talking the letter of the law here, I'm undereducated in that, I'm more interested in the philosophical/ethical implications. my entire point of the comments I've made today is that both sides were self interested in promoting their images of themselves and influencing the american people to vote for them (which is what campaigning is). the disagreement seems to stem from the fact that one party got it from a foreign country with whom we were at odds for decades and that party won. but enough about that, I've made my point.because I'm not up to speed, and this is not a snarky question, how does welcoming information leaks qualify as treason? I was always under the impression that treason is giving enemies classified information (like Snowden), which even in that situation, one can't dispute that it's illegal, but we can dispute whether or not it ought to be illegal.
Here is what we know, factually and irrefutably:
1) Trump JR, Manafort, and Kushner (at the very least) were told that the Russians were pushing for Trump and that they had potentially classified information they wanted to leak about HRC to the Trump team. It's also pretty clear in hindsight the Russian team told the Trump team they were looking to "influence" the election, but the Trump team has continued to play the "we are all idiots you can't make inferences" defense
2) The Trump team outwardly said they wanted this information. Days after the email but before the meeting Donald announced publicly he would be dropping a bombshell on HRC.
3) That members of the Trump team have continually lied about meetings with the Russians during the election, as well as any knowledge of Russian interferences, including Donald Trump himself.
What's been proven in the public eye suggests illegal activity, but there hasn't been a smoking gun yet. That's because welcoming and using classified Intel, knowing and encouraging The leaks of classified Intel to wikileaks (Which is essentially a state actor at this point), and encouraging these actions with promises of raising sanctions all would be illegal under campaign finance laws even if they never received actual information (Not treason, though, that term gets thrown around too much).
thanks for the reply. seems to me that if Trump's team may have gotten chalk on their shoes, we just haven't found the smoking gun of if they actually crossed the line.
thebrofessor:thanks for the reply. seems to me that if Trump's team may have gotten chalk on their shoes, we just haven't found the smoking gun of if they actually crossed the line.
Yea, there is a decent case now you could charge Trump JR. With a felony under campaign finance laws for soliciting contributions from foreign nationals (services/information count), but you couldn't be sure you'd convict him unless we find out there were further conversations. Manafort and Kushner are probably in the clear based on the public info currently.
If we find out that there was government level deal making happening (quid pro quo) then it would be a violation of the Logan act which doesnt allow non government employees to attempt to negotiate for the United States. And if there is evidence that there was specific instruction by the Trump team to commit certain crimes, like hacking the DNC and releasing classified info, now you have a violation of the espionage act.
There are a lot of insinuations and possibilities, and I wouldn't personally be surprised if they went as far as to violate the espionage act, but we definitely need more evidence to keep coming out to get that far. At the very least, they got to the line of violating campaign finance laws and likely went over it just enough to get away with it. But we'll continue to hear more, I'm sure.
I've seen nowhere that you can charge TrumpJr for a felony. I'm pretty sure "information" does not count as a valuable contribution.
Happy to be shown more information though.
m8:I've seen nowhere that you can charge TrumpJr for a felony. I'm pretty sure "information" does not count as a valuable contribution.Happy to be shown more information though.
Relevant statute here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20DTJR very likely violates section G. Donations and contributions are specifically stated as "...or other things of value". Which in legalese specifically extends the statute beyond monetary contributions (and has, in the past, been used to mean services, which things like information gathering would easily fall under). You'll likely need more to convict him, but there is enough probable cause you could charge him and likely get an indictment (indictments are an extremely low bar, just having to prove that potentially a crime could have been committed to a majority 51% of a panel). Conviction, on the other hand, I imagine would be hard without further evidence.
Me personally I'd have a very hard time making the leap from information to "other thing of value". The spirit of the clause below seems to be on monetary value. Services does not include information, in my opinion. Me giving you information is not a service if you don't pay me for it.
(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Yeah I'm sure dirt on HRC that no one else has isn't worth anything of monetary value..
Remove the "dirt on HRC" part. So you're saying you can't accept ANY information whatsoever from a foreign government, at all. That doesn't make sense.
1.) why would you throw out the "dirt on HRC" part, it's an integral factor...2.) If that information can be used to help your campaign it is inherently of value. I mean that is a pretty easy conclusion to make.
1.) why would you throw the "dirt on HRC" part out, it's an integral factor... Why does the content of the information matter at all? You guys are trying to say information is equal to monetary value under the legal terms. You can't say it counts in one instance and doesn't in the other. My point is information is disseminated all the time. If I tell you something, that doesn't mean I provided you with a service. That's the whole crux of your argument and it doesn't make sense.
2.) If that information can be used to help your campaign it is inherently of value. I mean that is a pretty easy conclusion to make.Who is to decide whether or not the information helps or hurts a campaign? You're jumping to conclusions. What if the lawyer provided information, but DonJr already knew about it. So it provided him with no value whatsoever. What say you then?
1.) The information conveyed was specifically related to "dirt on HRC". This is valuable information for the opposition, period. Your mental gymnastics won't change that. Something can definitely count in one instance and not count in another, a 3 point shot counts when the game clock is still running and doesn't count if you get the shot off after the buzzer. Information can count as valuable in one situation and not count as valuable in another. I don't think anyone with any honesty that employs basic logic can argue that damaging information that isn't already public on an opposition candidate during an election isn't valuable. I mean, you mean to tell me those "grab them by the pussy" tapes couldn't be sold to TMZ or some other media outlet for thousands of dollars before they came out? Of course they could've been. This is common fucking sense but you simply don't care to exercise common sense. It doesn't favor your narrative.
2.) Don Jr. soliciting the information in the first place is a crime, the outcome of the meeting is irrelevant. Whether he knew about it or not he solicited something of value from a foreign national. There is no point in talking about the result as the intent itself is illegal.
I honestly don't know why I came back on this thread to waste my time with individuals who simply don't give a fuck about the truth. Thankfully, we have a special counsel and investigations to sort this out not some WSO partisan shill playing lawyer.
So you can't ask a foreign government for information? Interesting. Because that's what you're saying.
I'm just reading the law and interpreting it. The law as stated is intended to cover contributions or donations, not information.
You seem to like to resort to attacks and name calling. Doesn't help your cause, but you do you.
The law as states covers things of value. Damaging information on an opposition candidate is a thing of value. I mean what is so difficult to grasp about that? You started with a post stating this whole Russia thing is a myth, a media creation. Evidence that clearly displays the intent to collude is presented. You go on to try and explain away said evidence with legal technicalities. You simply don't care about the truth. As for My "name calling" - I don't usually engage in such childish nonsense but I am in such disbelief by the garbage people are typing out in this thread that I'm out of character at the moment.