Funniest

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

26 Broadway where's your sense of humor?
 

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.

Array
 

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
 

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.

 
Controversial

Just a few points/questions:

  1. There is nothing Trump can do that CNN would ever admit makes him a good president - even if he took every policy straight from HRC.

  2. Trump has been almost solely focused on policy and advancing his campaign promises, for which he was elected, while CNN and other news organizations have focused on Russian collusion and other non-policy related issues.

  3. Didn't all of the republicans run against Trump based on the fact he was not a real conservative? I don't understand how people can say that Trump is an extremist - don't you think Trump is trying to propose centrist plans that even the extreme republicans cannot support? Are all of the democrats so liberal that they cannot find three to support the health plan as it is, or ANY OTHER policy that Trump supports for that matter?

 
  1. That's not true or else polls wouldn't show him consistently losing support and favorability. If he did enough to get his approval even over 50% the narrative would change.

  2. Trump has been trying to advance some specific promises, but it is getting held up because between him and congress they aren't willing to give at all which is leading to gridlock. To get what you want in congress republican policies have to move center the same way liberal policies had to move center to get passed under the Obama administration. So all that's left is Trump not getting most of his promises through legislation but through executive orders or in the case of Gorsuch even altering the rules.

  3. I think he ran on the extremes of the Tea Party base honestly, I felt the ran more on the fact that he wasn't a real politician(which is true) and he did not have experience. I don't think he is proposing centrist plans, as the health plan leaves 22 million uninsured which isn't good for the middle-lower middle class constituents. I think that if he tried to actually fix the problems with Obamacare, which there are many problems with it, instead of repealing it and replacing it with a much worse option(or even repealing without any replacement to use) in terms of getting both sides behind it. It's not just that Democrats are too liberal and saying that is honestly really shortsighted because people on both sides are willing to come to compromise for the betterment of policy and our country. There's a reason republicans speak out against Trump as well, and it's not because they're "too liberal".

 

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/donald-trump-isn-normal-n… - 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

"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence." - Thomas Sowell
 

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.

 

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.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 
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.

 

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.

"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence." - Thomas Sowell
 

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.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

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 out media 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.

 

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.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

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.

"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence." - Thomas Sowell
 

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.

"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence." - Thomas Sowell
 

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.

 

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

lol yup

 
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.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

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...

 

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 saw that and thought it was hilarious that CNN's highest rated show comes after the Tucker Carlson replay.... just let that sink in.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

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...

 

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

 

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.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 
Esuric:
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.

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 

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.

 

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.

"A man can convince anyone he's somebody else, but never himself."
 

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.

"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence." - Thomas Sowell
 

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).
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).
jankynoname:
accuracy

Yeah sure, okay dude. Keep living up wherever you are in the clouds.

 

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.

 

"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.

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 

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.

Array
 
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.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

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.

Array
 

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.

Array
 

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

  1. they lost
  2. they hate trump
  3. they want to believe that there's some illuminati conspiracy going on

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.

Array
 

"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.

Array
 

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.

Array
 

“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.

Array
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

"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.

Array
 
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-sabotage-trump-backfire-2…

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

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.

Array
 
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.

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.

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_Mockingbird

Also, 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.

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.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

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.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

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.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

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.

"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
 

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 don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
 

The funny part about this is that Trump haters seem to forget that Hillary Clinton actually did try to hack the Russian election and publicly bragged about it. Shes just to god damn dumb and has an ego at least the size of Trumps to assume that there would be no reprimands for doing that. Who gives a fuck if the Russians hacked the DNC and dumped their dirty laundry to the world. Don't commit crimes and do shady shit to push a candidate through the primaries and there wouldn't be any story there. Everyone is obsessed with this "hacking" nonsense but is completely immune to the actual information that came out of it.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

And while we're having the debate, here is how Fox chose to cover the news that an un-elected, unqualified family member of the President took his place temporarily at the table at the G-20 global leaders summit. CNN and MSNBC might be left-leaning but Fox is bordering on state-run media propaganda at this point.

"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
 

but the people whose employee simulated a beheading in ISIS execution style of the President... is just left-leaning?

fox and msnbc are probably both biased as shit too, but come on cnn fucked up in such enormous ways it is almost insane, trying to dox some random person on the internet too?

also thebrofessor in other CNN news, they recently removed their app from the app store, and then re-uploaded it (or updated it or something along those lines) to remove all the 1 star ratings. now people are leaving even more 1 star ratings than before and some are pretty funny.

 

You mean an educated businesswoman who was asked to sit temporarily by other G20 members. A woman who is part of the Presidents team and is pushing paid family leave for woman and women's issues in business.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/341129-merkel-defends-ivanka-trump-for…

Merkel, who served as the host leader of this year's summit, said at a news conference that it was up to individual nations to decide who represented them, Bloomberg reported.

"The delegations themselves decide, should the president not be present for a meeting, who will then take over and sit in the chair,” Merkel said, according to the report.

“Ivanka Trump was part and parcel of the American delegation, so that is something that other delegations also do. It’s very well known that she works at the White House and is also engaged in certain initiatives.”

The topic at hand reportedly concerned one of Ivanka Trump's projects, the World Bank finance initiative for women entrepreneurs.

--- God forbid you knew what you were talking about.

 

Quod et eaque est minus beatae magni nobis. Quaerat sequi perspiciatis distinctio suscipit soluta et. Quis fugit impedit quos sit et.

Velit in est dignissimos. Esse qui ea et. Sit temporibus quod quibusdam aut. Rerum ut aut est maxime ea neque dolorem.

Array
 

Accusantium eum reiciendis fugiat soluta. Sequi repellendus eveniet in ut autem velit. Earum quia quis explicabo distinctio nostrum voluptate quis facilis. Et excepturi eaque qui ab iste.

Et sunt assumenda natus aliquam illum occaecati excepturi nesciunt. Vitae laudantium ipsam ducimus quia dignissimos facilis. Consequuntur magni qui asperiores ut commodi. Sequi pariatur impedit voluptates et quis asperiores. Voluptas minus ipsum saepe officiis quia.

Laborum nisi doloremque minima. Id quo quaerat rem sequi nemo rem. Officiis cumque debitis at natus quisquam deleniti dolorem.

Minus at vel quo minima ab. Quasi voluptate quisquam earum aut natus dolores. Quisquam hic eos aliquam non aut est natus. Esse dolores voluptatem eaque commodi incidunt eveniet.

"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
 

Ab qui exercitationem aliquid nostrum. Voluptatem laboriosam praesentium maxime. Asperiores similique aut neque in minima quo dolores. Qui quaerat tempora et molestias ab aut est.

Pariatur alias fugit dicta sequi. Consequuntur repellendus qui consequatur eius distinctio suscipit et. Sequi iusto voluptates praesentium mollitia.

Voluptate nulla quibusdam rem molestiae sit quae. Tempore minus doloribus pariatur sit possimus est. Repellendus quo deserunt dolorem perspiciatis.

 

Corrupti nihil sed nam hic molestias consequatur debitis. Eos ut nisi assumenda quam. Nemo et eum voluptatem impedit expedita. Ducimus aliquam amet non ut. Quisquam culpa porro nam rerum. Quis ipsam et pariatur maxime.

Nemo est soluta animi distinctio rem. Eos praesentium mollitia aperiam a sit quis est. Nostrum eum aut numquam ea accusamus nisi.

Ex porro rem aut harum repudiandae libero rerum ex. Veniam consequatur ab rerum quae repellendus animi reiciendis. Ut rerum rerum et veritatis. Alias et ab voluptas dolorem. Quisquam quaerat quis dolore illo soluta incidunt.

"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”