professor There's little need in having a discussion. Your viewpoint is that voters were duped into voting for Trump, my view is that voters chose the only available alternative (at national election time) to the strategy that preceded. Mine is based upon questions answered by actual voters, yours is based upon conjecture by the Atlantic based on strategic placement of dark news on social media. Could the voters be lying? -possible, could the conjecture from the Atlantic be wrong? - possible.
Reading Comprehension
JeffTilley
I'll do you one better. I will respond - without personal attack, without authoritarianism 'don't ever put words in my mouth again', and I will read the lines. Seems you're unwilling to specify or quantify. Whatever floats your boat. It's just called substantiation.
So, I believe there is media bias. How much? That's hard for me to say. I believe Fox News is reprehensible and unintelligible. I occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio just for some competition with Philly Sports Talk - both being mostly ridiculous but, it's good to know how others think, what they're 'fed', and try and comprehend how.
While I don't watch mainstream media - which for me would be ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS (traditionally) and might (?) now include CNN, MSN - MSNBC? See, I'm not really sure and that's why I'd requested you clarify. But, you're seemingly too agitated (I'm just speculating - not attempting to put words in your mouth). If I want "news" that I feel is somewhat objective (knowing full well that to any 100% extent, there is no such animal), I prefer NPR/PBS, BBC or at 11 p.m. EST, there's NHK World TV (a Japanese-PBS partnership). I believe the latter two to be less influenced by 'corporate money'. And, I don't think the other mainstream media outlets I mentioned (the traditional ones) are nearly so biased as Fox. So, there are my thoughts and opinions.
My take on the article I posted about Facebook influencing? I think Mr. Trump and his cronies/family members have already admitted their guilt and complicity with the Russians. I believe Hillary really screwed the pooch in her presentation of self, for starters. I find her to be 'shrew-like' (and, I didn't care for her husband either). Nonetheless, I believe they're both brighter, more learned, and more diplomatic than our current POTUS. I believe, in all the investigations of Hillary's emails, had she been messing with Facebook as had the Trump campaign, it would have hit the news - all the news.
Anything else?
Possible you might engage in a discussion?
johnnydoom
"...Mine is based upon questions answered by actual voters..."
What does that mean, your view ("mine")? Your view is based upon "questions answered by actual voters"? What questions?
I honestly do not know what this quoted statement means - infers? If my viewpoint was "that voters were duped into voting for Trump", you then mean what by "the strategy that preceded"? Whose strategy?
I understand that Trump was the winner of the republican primary and that party's candidate for POTUS.
Are you talking about the Romney strategy? The McCain strategy?
Please, for the love of God, don't tell me you're referring to the Obama 'strategy'.
- Edited
This post belongs over here as well.
What all this really indicates is we're now in a post fact based world. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan's famous quote 'that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts' is certainly not something the current occupier of the Whitehouse lives by.
Just the opposite actually.
The old adage that you get the government that you deserve is true. An ignorant electorate / citizenry thinks the Presidency is an entry level position. Since they know nothing beyond bumper sticker slogans, they elected an ignorant person who is in their own self image.
In response to P.J. O'Rourke's question (book titled) "How the hell did this happen?" Stupid is as stupid does.
I'd love to see your proof of collusion. And me agitated? There you go again. Perhaps you should grow up?
- Edited
professor Of course it was president Obama's strategy that I was referring to. That was the preceding administration.
JeffTilley Personal attack. No substance.
Later...
johnnydoom Pardon me. Just wanted to be clear hence, the request for clarification. I allowed for the possibility that you were reflecting on prior Republican party candidates.
So, thanks for the answer. It is now clear that you are on board with the Trump agenda. Ooops, he has no agenda of his own, just to tear at anything Obama accomplished. More of and worse yet, of the same.
You did however, fail to answer my question.
Quoting you to clarify: "...my view........ Mine (view) is based upon questions answered by actual voters..."
What questions (and answers) by actual voters shaped your view?
Personal attack? No, that was merely an observation. But you best go see a dermatologist about that thin skin. That was just an observation, too.
professor I did answer your question. It is in my post above (about #25), voter exit polls on the day of the presidential election. Also, and I'm very sure this will make you feel much better - I voted for Cruz in the primary election. But yes, I am on board with much of the president's agenda.
johnnydoom Got it. Found the post you're referring to. Thanks. I've said my piece on a number of Trump voters who'll regret they endorsed him.
A completely different subject but it's, truly beyond my comprehension that most don't already.
Regardless, we are now way off-topic. I believe the Facebook influence could have been significant.
professor A completely different subject but it's, truly beyond my comprehension that most don't already.
The conservatives out here can't comprehend how the entire lot of Soetoro supporters can't regret supporting him. It's the difference in ideology. Conservatives (true conservatives) want individual liberty. Socialists like Barry Soetoro and his supporters want government control of everyone's lives.
rsvman ... and Barry Soetoro has proven himself to be a complete hoax upon the U.S. The sheeple elected him and he did as much damage as he could while his tyrannical regime was at the helm.
rsvman "be that as it may" sounds like you agree with the statement.
Anyway...
- Edited
I see Professor is at it again
Do I agree with your article - could only read in part. The simple answer is yes. But, what is the biggest source of fake news today? Right now it is the Russian investigation. Here we are after months of investigation, a huge team of expensive lawyers at taxpayer expense, and endless innuendo and we still have no evidence of wrong doing. All the language is "possible," "may," "it appears," etc., after a while it becomes clear it is BS.
But, this type of BS has a way of wandering back to those throwing dirt. Now it appears there is a growing demand that Hillary and her connections to Fusion GPS be investigated. Fusion GPS is now in court trying to block a house subpoena requesting documents linked to the beginnings of the accusations in this investigation and the role of Fusion GPS and their donors. We are going to hear growing demand to investigate the sale of uranium to Russia, the Clinton foundation, etc. When you throw dirt, you best have clean hands.
You may find it interesting to google how much did CNN donate to the Hillary election campaign.
- Edited
Whoa..... Trump Jr., Manafort, Kushner and company met with the Russians to 'get dirt' on Hillary. Collusion may not be a crime, but they did at the very minimum attempt to 'collude'. My guess is what Mueller will prove is obstruction of justice. Trump admitted so in his Lester Holt interview. Plus he's on tape admitting to the Russians in the oval office that he fired Comey to get rid of the Russian thing.
For me there's too many coincidences like the release of the Podesta emails right after the Hollywood sexual assault admission. Don't rule out money laundering also. Trump couldn't get loans from American banks back in the 90's because he was a deadbeat and I think what they'll find is he was being financed by Russian oligarchs.
At the very least Flynn and Manafort are in serious trouble. Whether they give up Trump is another question. They probably know Trump will pardon them anyway. But, a presidential pardon does not immunize them from state prosecution.
- Edited
Damage? What do you think of the 'damage' being done by this pathological lying / sociopathic / extreme narcissist / xenophobic / misogynist / self grandiose / bigoted / con artist / incompetent / idiotic buffoon sitting in the oval office now?
Face it Trump voters. What you basically got for your vote was the equivalent to a subscription to Trump University. You were conned big time or as Trump says 'bigly'.
Take the tin foil hat off and come back to reality.
- Edited
Sneakylong At the very least Flynn and Manafort are in serious trouble.
Really? That is how they are being portrayed in the liberal media and if we drink their take I would agree. But, I don't drink I read. At this point in time I have not read one single statement of fact (not maybe, it appears, possible, etc.) of either men actually violating the law.
If you are aware of any actual violation of legal statues, please share. I have come to only glance at most liberal media sources. It is only when I catch a statement using words such as "evidence," "facts," or full statements in quotes that I read carefully. When I do I usually find they have ignored "the rest of the story." This continuously repeated experience has only moved me further away from wasting my time.