IGX

Please not the Freidman quote. Jfc. You shitlib boomer neoliberals and neocons strip mined the entire country. All for nothing you idiots.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-f ... 00213.html

Imma need a few more threads to be convinced. Please continue.

Trump plagiarized Bane in his inaugural address. I'm sure the laughing will stop soon, b.

The Trump saga fascinates me. If you think of it his election should be a good thing: in spite of every media outlet being against him, in spite of being an outsider, non-professional politician, his own party not being particularly enamoured by him and not having nearly as much financial support Trump managed to win. This event takes me - cold blooded cynic - aback: this myth called democracy actually can sometimes work!

What the fuck is wrong with everybody? Does anybody really think that Clinton is a valid alternative to Trump? Or is it the fear of the unknown - swapping a professional two-faced (rather ten-faced) liar for someone who speaks his mind? Or is it the insecurity complex that set in since primary school when a bully took your lunch money?

Charles Bukowski said: "The common vote guarantees a common leader who then leads us to a common apathetic predictability." Once in a while this pattern breaks up, and that's what happened now. But instead of at least being curious everyone is terrified of the President who doesn't fall into the familiar. Or are you guys simply brainwashed by the media that has been consistently one-sidedly anti-Trump? (Not that anybody would ask the obvious why).

Chill, everyone. Where is famous American optimism? Nothing bad is going to happen. For the first time in many years your president is actually a controversial and therefore interesting figure. There is actually some uncertainty about the near future. It's good, idiots!

Sangoma wrote:in spite of every media outlet being against him...

Uhhhh, talk radio's legions, the Facebook echo chamber, Oreilly and Hannity and The 5 and the morning guys on the most popular news channel (Fox).

Sangoma wrote: Or are you guys simply brainwashed by the media

tell me you're trolling and are not truly so stupid that you mean that?

MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Our analysts found 184 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 39 positive statements (21%) vs. 145 negative (79%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63). Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.

This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate. Reporters also bluntly called out Trump for lying in his public remarks in a way they never did with Clinton, despite her own robust record of false statements.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/blatan ... 2016-11-03

When Liz Spayd started her new assignment as the public editor of the New York Times last summer. she was taken aback by the deluge of email criticizing the newspaper for “one-sided reporting” and “relentless bias against Trump.”
Her inquiries in the newsroom were met “with a roll of the eyes,” Spayd said, and the claim that all sides hate the Times because they are even-handed in their reporting.

“Imagine a country where the greatest, most powerful newsroom in the free world was viewed not as a voice that speaks to all but as one that has taken sides,” she said, before grimly asking, “Or has that already happened?”
Yes, indeed, it has. Behind all the Times’ fawning profiles of Clinton — and the denigrating pieces not only on Trump but also Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders — was a cozy understanding between Times reporters and the Clinton campaign, WikiLeaks has shown us, that getting Clinton elected is something of a collaborative effort.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10 ... trump.html

The sheer volume of Trump coverage, versus that devoted to Hillary Clinton, is amazingly unbalanced. Sure, he drives more clicks and ratings. Sure, this helped him in the primaries, though much of it was negative and Trump drove the coverage by dominating the dialogue and constantly granting interviews. But the press helped turn the general election into a referendum on Trump.

Take yesterday’s two-page New York Times spread on all the targets Trump has insulted on Twitter, from Maureen Dowd, Glenn Beck and Fox News to Macy’s and Major League Baseball. All his words, so it’s fair game. But where is the comparable compilation of all the insults from in Clinton camp emails revealed by Wikileaks?

I don't watch TV news, but I am exposed to it in the hospital tearooms. I cannot remember hearing anything positive about Trump. Nor the newspapers.

The Media's Visceral Bias Against Trump
A majority of voters agree: The media is biased against Trump
4 Recent Examples Show Why No One Trusts Media Coverage Of Trump

That's several minutes' worth of Google search of "media coverage of Trump". I know, I know, it's all Neolibs, Neocons or climate deniers.

the media research center that you cite is a conservative group, hardly unbiased. same is true of fox.

there were lots of documented actions he took that would lead one to question his fitness as a leader. one needn't be "brainwashed" to reject him, as the majority of voters did.

I believe that only 40% of the American population voted so he was elected by roughly 20%. The media tells us who's winning so everyone decides their vote doesn't count and then they don't show up.

I wasn't a fan of Hillary. But, I am a fan of public education, leaving everyone's personal lives the fuck alone (as long as those people can consent due to age, infirmity, intoxication, or being of the same species), and egalitarianism (kind of like a meritocracy, but not requiring one to prove that one deserves basic human rights).

It was just so very telling when Rick whats-his-face, who spend the past five years lobbying to dismantle the dept. of energy, stated in his confirmation hearings that (rough paraphrase) "now that I finally know what the DoE does, I think its important". Wow. The depth of absolute idiocy there is just mindblowing.

The thing is, the people screaming the loudest don't really represent most of us. Who is going to speak for the moderates, anyone? Anyone? I think the nature of a moderate leads one to not seek public office and that's a goddamned shame.

dead man walking wrote:the media research center that you cite is a conservative group, hardly unbiased. same is true of fox.

there were lots of documented actions he took that would lead one to question his fitness as a leader. one needn't be "brainwashed" to reject him, as the majority of voters did.

It's not particularly difficult to find dirt on anyone you need, and it's not the issue. The issue is the bias. As far as the "majority of voters" is concerned - wake up, my friend, this is life. In tennis you can win fewer points and win the match. There is a legal election system in your country, and it's not the first time when the elected candidate got fewer votes than his opponent.

But of course you know for sure that this system is no good and has to be changed. And you probably know exactly how it should be changed to be perfect. I am sure you also know how USA government should handle terrorism, relationship with Russia, international trade, immigration, education, health care and everything else - because... because you watch TV and read newspapers. Guess what, I know how to run a war, because I watched many war movies.

syaigh wrote:I believe that only 40% of the American population voted so he was elected by roughly 20%. The media tells us who's winning so everyone decides their vote doesn't count and then they don't show up.

I wasn't a fan of Hillary. But, I am a fan of public education, leaving everyone's personal lives the fuck alone (as long as those people can consent due to age, infirmity, intoxication, or being of the same species), and egalitarianism (kind of like a meritocracy, but not requiring one to prove that one deserves basic human rights).

It was just so very telling when Rick whats-his-face, who spend the past five years lobbying to dismantle the dept. of energy, stated in his confirmation hearings that (rough paraphrase) "now that I finally know what the DoE does, I think its important". Wow. The depth of absolute idiocy there is just mindblowing.

The thing is, the people screaming the loudest don't really represent most of us. Who is going to speak for the moderates, anyone? Anyone? I think the nature of a moderate leads one to not seek public office and that's a goddamned shame.

Syaigh, guess what, in Australia where voting is compulsory and voter turnout rate is close to 100% a lot of people are still not happy about the results of elections. Mindblowing idiocy? What else do you expect from a politician? And then again, where are the examples of idiocy from Hilary's crowd? Or you reckon she is surrounded by different kind of politicians?

I am not a Trump supporter, but I am fascinated by the storm his campaign and consequent victory caused.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Trump plagiarized Bane in his inaugural address. I'm sure the laughing will stop soon, b.

You have no idea what is coming.

nafod wrote:

Sangoma wrote:in spite of every media outlet being against him...

Uhhhh, talk radio's legions, the Facebook echo chamber, Oreilly and Hannity and The 5 and the morning guys on the most popular news channel (Fox).

This is the favorite US shitlib trick. Complete and total literalism. You said EVERY so they go crazy on it. When the point is the vast overwhelming majority of reporters, editors, presenters and news stories were anti Trump.

Note, not one shitlib disputed any of the excellent points Sangoma made or citations he provided.

Shitlib nafod just went NOT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE MEDIA WERE AGAINST HIM CHCKMATE.

And shitlib DWM just went THE SOURCE IS BIASED.

typical and pathetic.

syaigh wrote:I believe that only 40% of the American population voted so he was elected by roughly 20%. The media tells us who's winning so everyone decides their vote doesn't count and then they don't show up.

I wasn't a fan of Hillary. But, I am a fan of public education, leaving everyone's personal lives the fuck alone (as long as those people can consent due to age, infirmity, intoxication, or being of the same species), and egalitarianism (kind of like a meritocracy, but not requiring one to prove that one deserves basic human rights).

It was just so very telling when Rick whats-his-face, who spend the past five years lobbying to dismantle the dept. of energy, stated in his confirmation hearings that (rough paraphrase) "now that I finally know what the DoE does, I think its important". Wow. The depth of absolute idiocy there is just mindblowing.

The thing is, the people screaming the loudest don't really represent most of us. Who is going to speak for the moderates, anyone? Anyone? I think the nature of a moderate leads one to not seek public office and that's a goddamned shame.

Women shouldn't vote.

bennyonesix wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Trump plagiarized Bane in his inaugural address. I'm sure the laughing will stop soon, b.

You have no idea what is coming.

Neither did that nazi dude who got clocked at the protests.

syaigh wrote:I am a fan of public education, leaving everyone's personal lives the fuck alone (as long as those people can consent due to age, infirmity, intoxication, or being of the same species), and egalitarianism (kind of like a meritocracy, but not requiring one to prove that one deserves basic human rights).

Guess what dummy, that makes you a conservative. Washington D.C. has nothing to do with any of this. Public education should be managed locally (conservative position). Leaving personal lives alone? Conservative/libertarian position. Egalitarianism, meaning, promotion and success based on merit? Conservative position (libs wants the government to put its hand on the scale for their favored groups)

STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SEND MORE MONEY AND POWER TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

TerryB wrote:

syaigh wrote:I am a fan of public education, leaving everyone's personal lives the fuck alone (as long as those people can consent due to age, infirmity, intoxication, or being of the same species), and egalitarianism (kind of like a meritocracy, but not requiring one to prove that one deserves basic human rights).

Guess what dummy, that makes you a conservative. Washington D.C. has nothing to do with any of this. Public education should be managed locally (conservative position). Leaving personal lives alone? Conservative/libertarian position. Egalitarianism, meaning, promotion and success based on merit? Conservative position (libs wants the government to put its hand on the scale for their favored groups)

STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SEND MORE MONEY AND POWER TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

Listen you dense motherfucker. Egalitarianism and meritocracy ar not the same as i pointed out above. Republicans continually and repeatedly assault public education and effective teaching. No child left behind ring a bell? Ideologies, not money management is how we start to make positive change.

Stop voting for people who are fucking idiots who dont like to read.

And for fucks sake, stop voting for people who want to legislate the bible unless you seriously like theocracies.

This is what being a liberal used to mean. If you think it makes me a conservative, you, my friend are a moderate liberal.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Trump plagiarized Bane in his inaugural address. I'm sure the laughing will stop soon, b.

You have no idea what is coming.

Neither did that nazi dude who got clocked at the protests.

Spencer fixed his hair after that. You see that middle aged fat fuck anti-fa? Please. Moar.

syaigh wrote:

TerryB wrote:

syaigh wrote:I am a fan of public education, leaving everyone's personal lives the fuck alone (as long as those people can consent due to age, infirmity, intoxication, or being of the same species), and egalitarianism (kind of like a meritocracy, but not requiring one to prove that one deserves basic human rights).

Guess what dummy, that makes you a conservative. Washington D.C. has nothing to do with any of this. Public education should be managed locally (conservative position). Leaving personal lives alone? Conservative/libertarian position. Egalitarianism, meaning, promotion and success based on merit? Conservative position (libs wants the government to put its hand on the scale for their favored groups)

STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SEND MORE MONEY AND POWER TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

Listen you dense motherfucker. Egalitarianism and meritocracy ar not the same as i pointed out above. Republicans continually and repeatedly assault public education and effective teaching. No child left behind ring a bell? Ideologies, not money management is how we start to make positive change.

Stop voting for people who are fucking idiots who dont like to read.

And for fucks sake, stop voting for people who want to legislate the bible unless you seriously like theocracies.

This is what being a liberal used to mean. If you think it makes me a conservative, you, my friend are a moderate liberal.

You are lying. You bring us this. All your talk is a cover for gays, trannys and pedophilia. Whatever it takes we will stop broken degenerates like you.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Trump plagiarized Bane in his inaugural address. I'm sure the laughing will stop soon, b.

You have no idea what is coming.

Neither did that nazi dude who got clocked at the protests.

I know he could whoop your ass but hahahahahahahahb

syaigh wrote:

TerryB wrote:

syaigh wrote:I am a fan of public education, leaving everyone's personal lives the fuck alone (as long as those people can consent due to age, infirmity, intoxication, or being of the same species), and egalitarianism (kind of like a meritocracy, but not requiring one to prove that one deserves basic human rights).

Guess what dummy, that makes you a conservative. Washington D.C. has nothing to do with any of this. Public education should be managed locally (conservative position). Leaving personal lives alone? Conservative/libertarian position. Egalitarianism, meaning, promotion and success based on merit? Conservative position (libs wants the government to put its hand on the scale for their favored groups)

STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SEND MORE MONEY AND POWER TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

Listen you dense motherfucker. Egalitarianism and meritocracy ar not the same as i pointed out above. Republicans continually and repeatedly assault public education and effective teaching. No child left behind ring a bell? Ideologies, not money management is how we start to make positive change.

Stop voting for people who are fucking idiots who dont like to read.

And for fucks sake, stop voting for people who want to legislate the bible unless you seriously like theocracies.

This is what being a liberal used to mean. If you think it makes me a conservative, you, my friend are a moderate liberal.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/youtube]