Obama is blaming Fox News for Hillary's loss in the election

[PokerGuy]

Most of the people who voted were for Hillary. Trump managed to dupe all those red state rubes.

Yep, more of the typical blathering. Blame everyone else, rubes, racists, whites blah blah blah, just make sure you never ever take a look at your own candidate as being a possible cause of any issues. Never do that.

As for the racism thing its easy to pin on Trump when he hired a white supremacist supporter to be his chief advisor and work out of the White House. The Klan must be so proud.

lol, more of the white supremacist / klan / hitler / racist drivel. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh golly gee, when a channel was introduced to an area that previously only had liberal media outlets, conservative votes increased. Shocking, who would have thought that! That study was based on areas where fox was newly introduced, it says nothing about them making a significant difference in terms of reducing the illary vote because they bashed her. If that was the case you'd have seen the same impact on obummer and that simply wasn't the case.

So at first you said people who watched Fox were going to vote for Trump regardless and then I showed you how Fox affected vote totals, which strongly implies that Fox viewers at some point change from Democratic (or other) voters to Republicans. Of course you measure places where it is newly introduced, that's how you get a good scientific test... that's just common sense. I never cease to be amazed at how vehemently people try and deny empirical research and the number 1 claim is that it always somehow doesn't apply. Fox appears to have an effect on voting, period.

Also, why do you use those names like 'illary' and 'Obummer'? I'm all for a good nickname to make fun of someone, but those are terrible.

 

[Lash444]

Yep, more of the typical blathering. Blame everyone else, rubes, racists, whites blah blah blah, just make sure you never ever take a look at your own candidate as being a possible cause of any issues. Never do that.

lol, more of the white supremacist / klan / hitler / racist drivel. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

You don't listen very well. Nobody here says that Clinton was perfect. That wasn't what the topic of this discussion was about. If we only hired 100% pure politicians we would never have any. How do you explain though that Hillary is somehow deemed the crooked one, when most of her scandals were either disproven or dismissed and then you elect Donald Trump? On what planet does a person have to be from where that is even a wash? I could see your side of the argument if this had been Romney she ran against. Sure, in the name of the almighty dollar he has destroyed a lot of lives through offshoring, but we could all make reasonable arguments who was a worse individual. Trump has been involved in 2000 lawsuits. His stories of scamming contractors are plastered all over the internet. He filed bankruptcy and screwed investors, and just settled a court case where he screwed $150 million out of college students and paid a fine of $25 million.

You even said it yourself that he is "THE WORST, MOST DISLIKED CANDIDATE IN HISTORY". Either he isn't the worst or most disliked, and he is voted in, or some outside factor convinced a bunch of stupid rubes that Hillary's supposed scandals were unconscionable and that you would be a traitor to the country to let her take the WH. Which one is it? We aren't saying everyone fell for that shit, but quit trolling and admit that a large percent of the right's base are a bunch of knuckle-dragging idiots who are duped by Fox News and Breitbart. Its not even debatable.

 

[PokerGuy]

So at first you said people who watched Fox were going to vote for Trump regardless and then I showed you how Fox affected vote totals, which strongly implies that Fox viewers at some point change from Democratic (or other) voters to Republicans. Of course you measure places where it is newly introduced, that's how you get a good scientific test... that's just common sense. I never cease to be amazed at how vehemently people try and deny empirical research and the number 1 claim is that it always somehow doesn't apply. Fox appears to have an effect on voting, period.

Looking at how voting was changed when fox was first introduced to areas in the 90's says NOTHING about how fox may or may not impact current voting. Before fox was introduced there was only lib media. Then people were given a conservative-bias alternative to the lib-biased media, of course I'd expect to see some impact of that change. Duh. You're basically taking a study of something completely different and misrepresenting the conclusions and pretending they apply to the discussion. In your mind, people pointing out that the research you cite actually does not apply to the discussion at hand is "denying empirical research!".

Very simple question: if fox had such a big impact, please explain how come it impacted illary but not obummer?

Also, why do you use those names like 'illary' and 'Obummer'? I'm all for a good nickname to make fun of someone, but those are terrible.

Your opinion that those are terrible is duly noted...... and still does not matter

 

[fskimospy]

Looking at how voting was changed when fox was first introduced to areas in the 90's says NOTHING about how fox may or may not impact current voting. Before fox was introduced there was only lib media. Then people were given a conservative-bias alternative to the lib-biased media, of course I'd expect to see some impact of that change. Duh. You're basically taking a study of something completely different and misrepresenting the conclusions and pretending they apply to the discussion. In your mind, people pointing out that the research you cite actually does not apply to the discussion at hand is "denying empirical research!".

If you think research showing Fox's effect on voting patterns doesn't apply to voting patterns... uhmmm...okay.

Very simple question: if fox had such a big impact, please explain how come it impacted illary but not obummer?

Did you even read the research you declared inapplicable? It would seem the answer to that is obviously no. Fox doesn't have a huge impact, but they have one. There are lots of other factors in play.

Your opinion that those are terrible is duly noted...... and still does not matter

You don't have to care! They're just cringeworthy, that's all.

 

[HomerJS]

Yep, more of the typical blathering. Blame everyone else, rubes, racists, whites blah blah blah, just make sure you never ever take a look at your own candidate as being a possible cause of any issues. Never do that.



lol, more of the white supremacist / klan / hitler / racist drivel. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Excuse me but Bannon admitted it. You just choose to ignore.

 

[PokerGuy]

How do you explain though that Hillary is somehow deemed the crooked one, when most of her scandals were either disproven or dismissed and then you elect Donald Trump? On what planet does a person have to be from where that is even a wash?

I could see your side of the argument if this had been Romney she ran against. Sure, in the name of the almighty dollar he has destroyed a lot of lives through offshoring, but we could all make reasonable arguments who was a worse individual. Trump has been involved in 2000 lawsuits. His stories of scamming contractors are plastered all over the internet. He filed bankruptcy and screwed investors, and just settled a court case where he screwed $150 million out of college students and paid a fine of $25 million.

You even said it yourself that he is "THE WORST, MOST DISLIKED CANDIDATE IN HISTORY". Either he isn't the worst or most disliked, and he is voted in, or some outside factor convinced a bunch of stupid rubes that Hillary's supposed scandals were unconscionable and that you would be a traitor to the country to let her take the WH. Which one is it? We aren't saying everyone fell for that shit, but quit trolling and admit that a large percent of the right's base are a bunch of knuckle-dragging idiots who are duped by Fox News and Breitbart. Its not even debatable.

Look, you are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind that it's just your opinion. Obviously a lot of voters disagree with your assessment. He was absolutely irrefutably the most disliked, and politically probably the worst (in terms of baggage, saying politically damaging things etc), but to a great many (including me), he was still much better than the alternative. That says a lot about the alternative. Your whining about "stupid rubes", "knuckle dragging idiots" and such says more about you than it does them. I can't stand illary, she's a crooked liar and a scumbag and I would never vote for her, but I don't automatically assume anyone who voted for her must then also be a crooked scumbag liar. It's possible for people to have different opinions on candidates. Lefties seem to have a hard time with that concept.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you think research showing Fox's effect on voting patterns doesn't apply to voting patterns... uhmmm...okay.

Oh, so the context doesn't matter, 'cause "voting patters are voting patterns" right? That research applies to areas that didn't have a conservative news outlet that got one. Of course that is going to change things. Relevant research would have to look at the impact in the current marketplace (you know, reality) and what impact (if any) fox's bias has on the voting habits of the viewers. For someone so motivated to show how everyone else is blinded by their biases you have a humongous blind spot for your own.

Did you even read the research you declared inapplicable? It would seem the answer to that is obviously no. Fox doesn't have a huge impact, but they have one. There are lots of other factors in play.

Yes, I did read it (which is why I know it has no relevancy whatsoever to the discussion at hand). It answers nothing because that situation is not applicable unless you're talking about voters in a specific area that didn't previously have fox that now have gotten access to fox (which is what the research looked at). In other words, the research looked at "before fox was available" vs "after fox was available". That says nothing about "where fox has already been available".

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, so the context doesn't matter, 'cause "voting patters are voting patterns" right? That research applies to areas that didn't have a conservative news outlet that got one. Of course that is going to change things. Relevant research would have to look at the impact in the current marketplace (you know, reality) and what impact (if any) fox's bias has on the voting habits of the viewers. For someone so motivated to show how everyone else is blinded by their biases you have a humongous blind spot for your own.

Yes, I did read it (which is why I know it has no relevancy whatsoever to the discussion at hand). It answers nothing because that situation is not applicable unless you're talking about voters in a specific area that didn't previously have fox that now have gotten access to fox (which is what the research looked at). In other words, the research looked at "before fox was available" vs "after fox was available". That says nothing about "where fox has already been available".

There doesn't seem much point in once again refuting your usual contortions where you try to find a way that obviously applicable research magically doesn't apply. It's the same thing every time. Seriously, I can't remember a single time you've been confronted with empirical research where you didn't try this same song and dance, it's tiresome.

 

[buckshot24]

Excuse me but Bannon admitted it. You just choose to ignore.

Admitted what?

 

[trenchfoot]

For me, the trend has already become quite clear. Trump has been/will continue to promote the bullcrap trickle down policies that the GOP has been pursuing for decades, of which the very wealthy have been making suckers of their GOP working class constituency. It still amazes me that no matter how harmful this "theory" is to the working class members of the GOP, that they are willing to enable their political leaders to not only continue practicing this economically devastating ruse on themselves, they are now going to further diminish their chances for a better future for themselves and their children because.......the thrill of winning is all that matters? That it's more important to believe a shitload of lies coming from their side rather than facing the facts that the other side is presenting to them?

The Bush 43 mess of an administration already proved beyond doubt that this fallacious "theory" being propagandized by the GOP elite is nothing more than a cash grab and hoarding scam that re-distributes the wealth of the nation to the very wealthy who created and operate this very successful scheme of theirs.

So we decided to give Obama the dirty filthy job of cleaning up the ruinous mess that the trickle-down-the-hole-we-go Bush admin left behind them and after eight years, things are looking up again.

And because of that the voters decided that that just won't do and we need another eight years of damaging trickle down bullshit to fix what didn't need fixing?

But wait a minute.....I forgot that it's much more important to build a wall and keep the Muslims out and stop those gays from gaying and stop the heathen sinners from destroying the nation from within and *whisper* the minorities...you know, those folks *whisper* *wink-wink*

So Trump waves the flag as a distraction while he accelerates the trickle upward theory of prosperity.

Yeah, my bad, what was I thinking.

 

[buckshot24]

For me, the trend has already become quite clear. Trump has been/will continue to promote the bullcrap trickle down policies that the GOP has been pursuing for decades, of which the very wealthy have been making suckers of their GOP working class constituency. It still amazes me that no matter how harmful this "theory" is to the working class members of the GOP, that they are willing to enable their political leaders to not only continue practicing this economically devastating ruse on themselves, they are now going to further diminish their chances for a better future for themselves and their children because.......the thrill of winning is all that matters? That it's more important to believe a shitload of lies coming from their side rather than facing the facts that the other side is presenting to them?

The Bush 43 mess of an administration already proved beyond doubt that this fallacious "theory" being propagandized by the GOP elite is nothing more than a cash grab and hoarding scam that re-distributes the wealth of the nation to the very wealthy who created and operate this very successful scheme of theirs.

So we decided to give Obama the dirty filthy job of cleaning up the ruinous mess that the trickle-down-the-hole-we-go Bush admin left behind them and after eight years, things are looking up again.

And because of that the voters decided that that just won't do and we need another eight years of damaging trickle down bullshit to fix what didn't need fixing?

But wait a minute.....I forgot that it's much more important to build a wall and keep the Muslims out and stop those gays from gaying and stop the heathen sinners from destroying the nation from within and *whisper* the minorities...you know, those folks *whisper* *wink-wink*

So Trump waves the flag as a distraction while he accelerates the trickle upward theory of prosperity.

Yeah, my bad, what was I thinking.

Regressing I see. Sad.

 

[soulcougher73]

You know your candidate is shitty if they can lose to Trump. That pretty much sums it up.

 

[OrByte]

For me, the trend has already become quite clear. Trump has been/will continue to promote the bullcrap trickle down policies that the GOP has been pursuing for decades, of which the very wealthy have been making suckers of their GOP working class constituency. It still amazes me that no matter how harmful this "theory" is to the working class members of the GOP, that they are willing to enable their political leaders to not only continue practicing this economically devastating ruse on themselves, they are now going to further diminish their chances for a better future for themselves and their children because.......the thrill of winning is all that matters? That it's more important to believe a shitload of lies coming from their side rather than facing the facts that the other side is presenting to them?

The Bush 43 mess of an administration already proved beyond doubt that this fallacious "theory" being propagandized by the GOP elite is nothing more than a cash grab and hoarding scam that re-distributes the wealth of the nation to the very wealthy who created and operate this very successful scheme of theirs.

So we decided to give Obama the dirty filthy job of cleaning up the ruinous mess that the trickle-down-the-hole-we-go Bush admin left behind them and after eight years, things are looking up again.

And because of that the voters decided that that just won't do and we need another eight years of damaging trickle down bullshit to fix what didn't need fixing?

But wait a minute.....I forgot that it's much more important to build a wall and keep the Muslims out and stop those gays from gaying and stop the heathen sinners from destroying the nation from within and *whisper* the minorities...you know, those folks *whisper* *wink-wink*

So Trump waves the flag as a distraction while he accelerates the trickle upward theory of prosperity.

Yeah, my bad, what was I thinking.

excellent post.

I credit another poster on these boards for using the term, "Reality Distortion Field" around republicans. Perfectly defines the role that Fox News plays for the american public.

Remember republicans, he promised to prosecute Hillary (not going to happen), build a big beautiful wall (already backtracked), ban muslim immigrants (not going to happen...again) and several others things that he promised you. And none of it is going to happen. Trump, and his fox news distortion field, lied to you.

remember it.

 

[trenchfoot]

Regressing I see. Sad.

ouch, ya got me, ya dirty rat.

But you and me, we both know it's what you didn't admit say that really matters, right?

 

[Lash444]

You know your candidate is shitty if they can lose to Trump. That pretty much sums it up.

Back in 2012 republicans gained more seats in the house even though congress's approval rating were some of the lowest in history. And this is nearing the end of a recession caused by a republican president.

It should have been a slam dunk. Now you can blame those losses on redistricting and low democrat voter turnout, but you still have to admit that there are a great swath of people out there who clearly wouldn't know so how to vote for their best interests unless you filled out their ballots for them.

How bad your candidate is or isn't doesn't matter a wink, if people refuse to educate themselves on eaches merits.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[trenchfoot]

You know your candidate is shitty if they can lose to Trump. That pretty much sums it up.

I think that's partly true. But the lesson Trump taught me was that I should never again underestimate a screaming, ranting and raving, narcissistic, conceited, arrogant douchbag that's willing to give up his self respect and morals in a situation where no one else will in order to beat out his competition.

edit - AND I should also never underestimate a voting demographic who are more than willing to believe in a guy like that.

Simply amazing.

 

[OrByte]

I think that's partly true. But the lesson Trump taught me was that I should never again underestimate a screaming, ranting and raving, narcissistic, conceited, arrogant douchbag that's willing to give up his self respect and morals in a situation where no one else will in order to beat out his competition.

edit - AND I should also never underestimate a voting demographic who are more than willing to believe in a guy like that.

Simply amazing.

And another lesson I've learned is instead of governing (which both Democrats AND Republicans are elected to do) just obstruct for 4-8-12 years and the public will eventually vote you in to majority roles for the house and senate AND the white house.

sounds grand doesn't it?

 

[trenchfoot]

Back in 2012 republicans gained more seats in the house even though congress's approval rating were some of the lowest in history. And this is nearing the end of a recession caused by a republican president.

It should have been a slam dunk. Now you can blame those losses on redistricting and low democrat voter turnout, but you still have to admit that there are a great swath of people out there who clearly wouldn't know so how to vote for their best interests unless you filled out their ballots for them.

How bad your candidate is or isn't doesn't matter a wink, if people refuse to educate themselves on eaches merits.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

In support of your views, and as I've borne personal witness to, the dull facts of the matter, no matter how truthful, no matter how convincing they are, will always get buried by an overpowering avalanche of simply worded lies and catchy truthy jingles that are repeated over and over again by ideologically driven and very talented word alchemists and magicians.

 

[trenchfoot]

And another lesson I've learned is instead of governing (which both Democrats AND Republicans are elected to do) just obstruct for 4-8-12 years and the public will eventually vote you in to majority roles for the house and senate AND the white house.

sounds grand doesn't it?

Sadly, it worked so well we ended up with a megalomaniac who just so happens to be a chronic liar and showman extraordinaire for a president.

 

[OrByte]

The exchanges yesterday between the Trump and Clinton campaigns at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government are extremely telling and are relevant to many threads/conversations here at AT P&N

I recommend everyone take a look at the two opposing viewpoints coming from the campaign staff.

it is amazing eye-popping stuff coming from the Trump campaign.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ains-they-were-campaigning-against-facts.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Back in 2012 republicans gained more seats in the house even though congress's approval rating were some of the lowest in history. And this is nearing the end of a recession caused by a republican president.

It should have been a slam dunk. Now you can blame those losses on redistricting and low democrat voter turnout, but you still have to admit that there are a great swath of people out there who clearly wouldn't know so how to vote for their best interests unless you filled out their ballots for them.

How bad your candidate is or isn't doesn't matter a wink, if people refuse to educate themselves on eaches merits.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Righties keep trying to say that Trumpism is somehow rational when it has nothing to do with that. Trump's pitch is raw emotion. They're working overtime to rationalize the whole thing, to find "reasons" other than the fact that Trump set 'em to howling at the moon.

The truth never mattered at all.

 

[SP33Demon]

Fox News is a propaganda machine the purpose of which is to supply a socially sanctioned sense of community for idiots to feel proud of their idiocy. Without social support and encouragement idiots soon learn to keep their idiocy to themselves. Fox News is a ballroom where lip stick adorned swine can gather to dance. In this way they rot America from within. They make us proud to be garbage, low life, scum-sucked swill. And the beauty of it all is that once you fall for it, you will never ever want to know it. Who wants to see their shit. That's why it's so important for conservatives to love liberals, the repository of their projections, the place they see themselves. It's the only way they can ever begin to mend and heal themselves. If any of you want to kiss me, I'm wearing my lipstick.

Your self hate is projected into this diatribe against Fox/conservatives. Let the hate flow, moonbaby. Give me a kiss you sexy thang

 

[SP33Demon]

Righties keep trying to say that Trumpism is somehow rational when it has nothing to do with that. Trump's pitch is raw emotion. They're working overtime to rationalize the whole thing, to find "reasons" other than the fact that Trump set 'em to howling at the moon.

The truth never mattered at all.

Maybe hillary should've gotten more emo then, because her campaign didn't have a gd clue on who to get their "message" out to, let alone with the emotion that Trump evoked. BTW the 2 campaigns met and it was a shitshow as expected.
http://time.com/4588449/campaign-managers-conference-2016-election/

 

[master_shake_]

people should take some fucking responsibility.

god dammit she lost because she was a choice.

not because of the news.

fuck off.