So let me get this straight about the MSM

[nickqt]

When are they gonna report on the Clinton foundation transferring $1.8B from JP Morgan Chase, to a bank in Qatar? I just read this today. They're talking about it on Reddit and they have some links. I don't know if it's true, but time will bring it out. Hell, nothing surprises me anymore. Maybe the Clintons are setting up for an exit, just in case she loses the election. I know...ridiculous. I'm actually laughing.

Yeah, the Clinton Foundation is going to be their undoing, just like the Vincent Foster murder, Travelgate, and of course Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, the Email Server, Benghazi, Benghazi and Benghazi.

Don't stop believin'. Your handlers have spent too much time and money training you to believe whatever they decide to shit into your skull.

Make 'em proud.

 

[compuwiz1]

You don't know if its true? What do you do all day? Hang out at reddit and let others do the thinking for you?

A quick search:



http://www.politifact.com/global-ne...tar-promise-clinton-foundation-1-million-fiv/

Stay stupid!

I don't hang out at reddit at all. I was trying to check the veracity of the information and was directed by google to the reddit discussion, which has since been removed. As far as where I originally saw the story and You don't have to be a prick, here is the link:

http://www.eutimes.net/2016/10/hill...-to-qatar-central-bank-stuns-financial-world/

I said I don't know if it's real, but it's out there none the less.

 

[sportage]

The media has always given Donald a hell of a lot of free publicity.
On every TV news show, right wing and lefty biased, they would drop everything to cover an ongoing Trump rally.
There was a time, if we remember during the primaries, when Bush and Cruz and all the others were complaining of all the free coverage Trump was getting.
Now, suddenly that is a liability?
PleaSE.....

The media has kept things straight.
Caught and recorded every single lie out of Donald's mouth.
And the Trump people dare talk about Hillary lying?
Hillary has been vetted down to her toenails.
Trump on the other hand, has not.
I bet if they did a job on Trump and his past as they have on Hillary, Trump would set new records for lying and shady past dealings of a highly questionable nature.
All well worthy of congressional investigation.
Hell.... the sex on a bus scandal was just the tip of the ice berg.
Just imagine what else is out there of a sexual nature, and other than.

And if Trump were elected, congress would never investigate Trump as they have the Clintons.
Republicans would never investigate their own, and democrats just don't do things like that.
Nor do democrats block US Supreme Court justices from a republican president UNTIL HELL FREEZES OVER.

But should Hillary become president, expect the next 4 years to be nothing but congressional investigations and RE-investigation after investigation after RE-investigation.
Just thank the god of elections that hopeful we will have a democrat in the Whitehouse and senate controlled as well.

And speaking of district Gerrymandering...
NO ONE ever questions why the house is stuck in party control limbo.
THAT is something that REALLY needs to be investigated.
If there is anything "RIGGED" in this process, it is that lockdown republicans have on the US House.
No one ever asks why?
No one wonders why this is allowed to continue.
No one believes the house will ever change party control or that it is even possible.
If THAT is not a rigged crooked can of worms, then tell me what is?
The lock that republicans have on the US House is unAmerican and absolutely the most ongoing corrupt criminal activity in American history.
To say control cannot and will never change in a free democracy reflects the communistic system, not that of an democracy.

 

[agent00f]

I don't hang out at reddit at all. I was trying to check the veracity of the information and was directed by google to the reddit discussion, which has since been removed. As far as where I originally saw the story and You don't have to be a prick, here is the link:

http://www.eutimes.net/2016/10/hill...-to-qatar-central-bank-stuns-financial-world/

I said I don't know if it's real, but it's out there none the less.

Does it ever occur to you that less than scrupulous people just put lies "out there" because dummies lack the ability to distinguish what's real from what's out there? No a rhetorical question.

 

[compuwiz1]

Does it ever occur to you that less than scrupulous people just put lies "out there" because dummies lack the ability to distinguish what's real from what's out there? No a rhetorical question.

Of course I get that. There is a lot of propaganda out there, from both sides. You know it and I know it. As I said, I can't verify it, it's out there and so I figured let's see where it goes. Probably nowhere... I'm skeptical of the story. I just wanted to see what others here thought about it, or if they'd seen it.

 

[agent00f]

Of course I get that. There is a lot of propaganda out there, from both sides. You know it and I know it. As I said, I can't verify it, it's out there and so I figured let's see where it goes. Probably nowhere... I'm skeptical of the story. I just wanted to see what others here thought about it, or if they'd seen it.

You literally saw this on a site whose top headline is "Hillary Hitman Breaks Silence After 24 Years of Rape, Bribe, Debauchery, Crime, COVER-UPS".

Now try to ignore how much you really want that to be true, and put your thinking cap on and try to figure if that sort of thing might be written by the "scrupulous people who just put lies out there" for dummies who really want to believe such things.

 

[sontakke]

all republicans need to do is to change how president is elected by using the gerrymandered districts to be counted rather than the statewide votes. surely, they can try to get that amendment in and have it approved by supreme court while they still have the four votes.

 

[PokerGuy]

Seriously though, when the conservatives get angry about the bias of the MSM, which ones do they have in mind? I rule out MSNBC because it is not plausible to accuse it of bias when there is FOX. The NYT and the Washington Post are countered by the WSJ. (The WP is not even liberal in my opinion but that is a different topic) Then we have talk radio (Limbaugh, Hewit, Hannity, etc.), often with scary big ratings, and here I've thought the left is vastly outmatched by the right. So I am genuinely curious which ones the conservatives feel most betrayed by when they derisively call out the "MSM."

Basically, you have fox/breitbart/talk radio crap on the right, and then everyone else on the left. How far left depends on the outlet, from far left insanity like slate, huffpo or salon to just normal leftist drivel like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS etc etc.

Another factor that is getting bigger and bigger is that many / most people now get their "news" and commentary from social media. All the major social media outlets -- facebook, twitter, google etc are all obvious major supporters of the dems, and they do everything they can to push the lefties, from messing with newsfeeds, trending items, shadow banning or outright banning people based on political views, censoring topics etc etc etc. It's not a type of evil conspiracy where they all sit in a room and decide to do something, but rather that they support one political ideology and use their media platform to support it. No conspiracy needed, just the facts.

 

[fskimospy]

Basically, you have fox/breitbart/talk radio crap on the right, and then everyone else on the left. How far left depends on the outlet, from far left insanity like slate, huffpo or salon to just normal leftist drivel like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS etc etc.

Another factor that is getting bigger and bigger is that many / most people now get their "news" and commentary from social media. All the major social media outlets -- facebook, twitter, google etc are all obvious major supporters of the dems, and they do everything they can to push the lefties, from messing with newsfeeds, trending items, shadow banning or outright banning people based on political views, censoring topics etc etc etc. It's not a type of evil conspiracy where they all sit in a room and decide to do something, but rather that they support one political ideology and use their media platform to support it. No conspiracy needed, just the facts.

Remember though, the facts reached through actual empirical research on media bias say that you're wrong. Whenever you're confronted with this uncomfortable fact though you just declare that researchers are biased against you too.

I'm sure you must realize in some level that what you're saying is an opinion that's immune to evidence and is deeply irrational. You emotionally want to believe the reason you hear news that contradicts what you want to think isn't because you're wrong, it's because it's someone else's fault for being biased.

It's circular reasoning, perfectly attuned to someone being in the bubble.

 

[dank69]

Of course I get that. There is a lot of propaganda out there, from both sides. You know it and I know it. As I said, I can't verify it, it's out there and so I figured let's see where it goes. Probably nowhere... I'm skeptical of the story. I just wanted to see what others here thought about it, or if they'd seen it.

Yeah there is a lot of anti-Trump propaganda out there. Of course we have to redefine propaganda to mean "actual video of Trump saying stupid things," but there is a lot of it out there.

 

[evident]

This is another false equivalency. MSNBC may push a certain ideological agenda, but i dare you to question the reporting they do. On the other hand, Fox pushes the right wing media agenda with pure lies and propaganda. Their arguments aren't consistent and their reporting is lacking, just look at the extent of their never-ending "reporting" of Benghazi.

False equivalency is very bad too. Just look at how much Trump's issues as a candidate, not talking about the sexual assault stuff, but his basic lack of understanding of anything is glossed over, and when he doesn't drool over himself like in the second debate people will declare that he won it.

I'll be honest that I don't watch much cable news but you seem to be right about msnbc's reporting.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah there is a lot of anti-Trump propaganda out there. Of course we have to redefine propaganda to mean "actual video of Trump saying stupid things," but there is a lot of it out there.

There's more to it than that. The media entertains bullshit speculation & sensationalism, something Repubs are glad to provide by the train load. Birtherism. Fast & Furious. Benghazi. IRS. Emails. It's damned near all we heard about for the last 8 years other than Repubs circumventing the State Dept for Bibi & raving about the diplomatic achievement of the Iran deal.

Bullshit can have unintended consequences, particularly when too many people believe in it. As much as Repub leaders want to disown Trump they can't disown the base who loves him. It's their base, their people, the people who've listened to them for years, the people who've been induced to vote for trickle down economics via adoption of a variety of issues. Most people can't get that crazy on their own. It took a lot of help from Rush, Coulter, Hannity, Drudge, Breitbart & a host of others. They built this.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f; I don't necessary think that specific correlation is causal, since complex human language seems to have evolved in substantial part for the purpose of rationalizing/justifying an altered reality, and there's no reason to believe liberals are worse at this than conservatives.

M: I am not personally aware of any research to justify the claim that language substantially evolved for the purpose of rationalizing/justifying an altered reality whereas I am aware of research that shows that conservatives more frequently rationalize away facts that refute positions that would cause emotional distress if accepted.

a: Esp. when it's phenomena which can be explained by the happenstance of contemporary research; we live in times when reality rapidly breaks with the past where conservatives live in their minds. This wouldn't necessary be the case in foregone times when reality stayed put with that past, and didn't correlate with the wishful future which humans have only recently developed the tools to make real.

M: I am reading this as if it were part of the former sentence with Esp probably meaning , especially ...... and the gist of the idea that the ever increasing rate of development in the benefits of technological advances that accrue as a result are more difficult for conservatives holding onto the past to accommodate to. If that is your meaning, I agree but that only affirms rather than denies that conservative rationalize more than liberals do. The research on liberal conservative differences are all done on modern day people. I would suggest that the reason conservatives hold onto the past rather than evolve and adjust to new realities less facilely than liberals do is because their brains are anatomically different. Why they are different is not scientifically established. Some suggest genetics, I believe it's environmental and due to stress.


a: Politics whether in government or work or personal relationships can often be "disgusting" if we define that as deviance from some grand ideal. It's worth considering if that socially concocted ideal is the source of the misery you sometimes allude to.

M: I am not sure what you mean here. I believe that disgust is connected to poison prevention that gets tied, often improperly to concepts created by language, we vomit if we eat something that may be toxic, rotten, spoiled, etc., a response that because we can speak, gets tied to things we name. By so naming, we can call things that are not dangerous to eat disgusting and induce the gag response by so naming. We call each other disgusting when we want to prevent actions in public say from our children that would cause them to be called by such names. We condition them with fear they will be found disgusting if they behave in certain ways. For conservatives of today, being liberal is one of those taboo ways. If that or something like that is what you meant is worth considering, I would agree.

 

[jeff_in_MD]

Not sure why so many people are concerned about the liberal mass media. Both branches of the federal government are controlled by Republicans and conservatives. I think more governors are Republicans and so on. I personally think the liberal media is doing a poor job.

Sent from my P01MA using Tapatalk

 

[Moonbeam]

People rarely change of their volition which makes sense with how difficult it is to purposefully instigate. It's certainly possible as seen in occasion cases where they against the odds develop some skill they have little talent/instincts for, but it's evident that takes the kind of dedication not terribly common.

Talentless & unmotivated people generally end up taking the path of least resistance, and presumably the key is to create paths they slowly roll into some usefulness. The lemming analogy (and game) comes to mind. People might complain about the mundane nature of mandatory k-12 and whatnot, but in reflection it makes the best of a situation.

I believe that the innate desire of every person is to learn, that the acquisition of personal skill is a source of natural joy. I believe also that this is something that is almost universally destroyed by being put down and by the experience of traumatic emotional events and by competition. I believe we were born to love life and to live is to learn. But because we learn self hate it isn't what we teach.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not sure why so many people are concerned about the liberal mass media. Both branches of the federal government are controlled by Republicans and conservatives. I think more governors are Republicans and so on. I personally think the liberal media is doing a poor job.

Sent from my P01MA using Tapatalk

Fear 'sells papers' and revenue from advertising is looking for eyes. We are destroying our civilization for profit from the money made by pedaling fear. Fear alters the brain, destroys trust and social cohesion, creates paranoia and suspicion. It is our collective drug. But what to do? Gosh, we have to destroy ourselves because think about how many jobs and fortunes are built on fear. I mean, come on, what would you do with your life is we were secure. I know I'd just suffer endless anxiety attacks and nightmares. Trust me, you never ever want to relax. Thank God I live in a place with constant sirens screaming and police helicopters flying overhead. They are out there keeping me safe.

 

[boomerang]

Total Hillary supporter here and I think the current situation of having blatantly biased news sources is alarming. MSNBC for the libs, FOX for the right, Brietbart for the crazies. News w/o opinion is bad for ratings, but most people who don't know better watch/read these channels think that the opinion pieces are part of the news and definitely skews their way of thinking.

You sir, have earned my respect.

 

[agent00f]

I believe that the innate desire of every person is to learn, that the acquisition of personal skill is a source of natural joy. I believe also that this is something that is almost universally destroyed by being put down and by the experience of traumatic emotional events and by competition. I believe we were born to love life and to live is to learn. But because we learn self hate it isn't what we teach.

The other less discussed insight of Dunning & Kruger I mentioned recently is that we tend to think of other people as just like us. Suffice to say you seem a somewhat unique individual.

Fear 'sells papers' and revenue from advertising is looking for eyes. We are destroying our civilization for profit from the money made by pedaling fear. Fear alters the brain, destroys trust and social cohesion, creates paranoia and suspicion. It is our collective drug. But what to do? Gosh, we have to destroy ourselves because think about how many jobs and fortunes are built on fear. I mean, come on, what would you do with your life is we were secure. I know I'd just suffer endless anxiety attacks and nightmares. Trust me, you never ever want to relax. Thank God I live in a place with constant sirens screaming and police helicopters flying overhead. They are out there keeping me safe.

For example, it might not be your own experience, but fear in this case is what creates the rather strong social cohesion between trump & fans.

Trump appears to understand this better than his detractors.

 

[jman19]

Twenty-four hour cable and internet news has - for the most part - become a race to the bottom, regardless of your political views. This isn't to say all news sources are equal in quality, but quality seems to be heading in one direction for the most part.

 

[Moonbeam]

The other less discussed insight of Dunning & Kruger I mentioned recently is that we tend to think of other people as just like us. Suffice to say you seem a somewhat unique individual.



For example, it might not be your own experience, but fear in this case is what creates the rather strong social cohesion between trump & fans.

Trump appears to understand this better than his detractors.

Indeed he does. He is our last chance to save us all from catastrophe. Be very afraid. Don't look at the curtain says OZ.

As for being unique........ I would say that one black board may be unique to another unless what is written on them is erased.

 

[Jhhnn]

The other less discussed insight of Dunning & Kruger I mentioned recently is that we tend to think of other people as just like us. Suffice to say you seem a somewhat unique individual.



For example, it might not be your own experience, but fear in this case is what creates the rather strong social cohesion between trump & fans.

Trump appears to understand this better than his detractors.

He's not shy about exploiting it, either. He just goes deeper into the darkness than the Repub politicians who blazed the trail for him.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f; I don't necessary think that specific correlation is causal, since complex human language seems to have evolved in substantial part for the purpose of rationalizing/justifying an altered reality, and there's no reason to believe liberals are worse at this than conservatives.

M: I am not personally aware of any research to justify the claim that language substantially evolved for the purpose of rationalizing/justifying an altered reality whereas I am aware of research that shows that conservatives more frequently rationalize away facts that refute positions that would cause emotional distress if accepted.

For the life of me I can't find the particularly persuasive paper by a linguist I read many years ago, but there's some evidence he's not the only one who thinks this: https://www.edge.org/conversation/hugo_mercier-the-argumentative-theory, and the first paper linked within is not bad either.

a: Esp. when it's phenomena which can be explained by the happenstance of contemporary research; we live in times when reality rapidly breaks with the past where conservatives live in their minds. This wouldn't necessary be the case in foregone times when reality stayed put with that past, and didn't correlate with the wishful future which humans have only recently developed the tools to make real.

M: I am reading this as if it were part of the former sentence with Esp probably meaning , especially ...... and the gist of the idea that the ever increasing rate of development in the benefits of technological advances that accrue as a result are more difficult for conservatives holding onto the past to accommodate to. If that is your meaning, I agree but that only affirms rather than denies that conservative rationalize more than liberals do. The research on liberal conservative differences are all done on modern day people. I would suggest that the reason conservatives hold onto the past rather than evolve and adjust to new realities less facilely than liberals do is because their brains are anatomically different. Why they are different is not scientifically established. Some suggest genetics, I believe it's environmental and due to stress.

It affirms that they rationalize more in this moment in time as a result of tech/social/econ happenstance. It's not hard to see that absent this progress the same people wouldn't need to rationalize as much, and instead it would be the dreamers who would have to use their innate human mental facilities just mentioned to rationalize their vision of the future.

It makes sense to me that that the gene poll or expression thereof evolved some proportion more attached to tradition and some with an eye for what might be coming, since a mix would improve survival of a group. It just so happens that our present circumstances is unlike the environment where that mix evolved, and the former is more an evolutionary dead end so to speak.

I agree it's possible that this distinction is in part due to environment expression/pressure, given it hasn't been long since abandoning tradition was common within a lifetime, so the conservatives today unfortunate had formative years before the paradigm shift; hopefully that's the case because then it becomes a problem that solves itself.

a: Politics whether in government or work or personal relationships can often be "disgusting" if we define that as deviance from some grand ideal. It's worth considering if that socially concocted ideal is the source of the misery you sometimes allude to.

M: I am not sure what you mean here. I believe that disgust is connected to poison prevention that gets tied, often improperly to concepts created by language, we vomit if we eat something that may be toxic, rotten, spoiled, etc., a response that because we can speak, gets tied to things we name. By so naming, we can call things that are not dangerous to eat disgusting and induce the gag response by so naming. We call each other disgusting when we want to prevent actions in public say from our children that would cause them to be called by such names. We condition them with fear they will be found disgusting if they behave in certain ways. For conservatives of today, being liberal is one of those taboo ways. If that or something like that is what you meant is worth considering, I would agree.

That's more or less it. In this case you seem fond of some cultural ideal in straightforward honesty, and become disgusted by deviation from it. I really have no idea if any of the discomfort you've mentioned stem from these sort of judgements, but since they're culturally acquired they're also malleable. To be clear, you don't have to like or even be indifferent to politics, just understand and accept it for what it is.

 

[OverVolt]

The smear campaigns simply show the true colors of the loving and accepting democrats.

Democrat anger is more interesting than Republican anger. Republicans are always angry, everyone knows that. But at least they let it out and are angry in a direct way. Democrats on the other hand seem to bottle it up and let loose on people who don't fit in while trying to push a message of acceptance. Democrats don't realize how obviously hypocritical and two-faced they are.

I would much rather the Democrats just get out with it instead of being passive-aggressive and being underhanded. "You can keep your doctor"

Like... how do the democrats think they are the smart ones when they fall for bullshit over and over?

 

[agent00f]

The smear campaigns simply show the true colors of the loving and accepting democrats.

Democrat anger is more interesting than Republican anger. Republicans are always angry, everyone knows that. But at least they let it out and are angry in a direct way. Democrats on the other hand seem to bottle it up and let loose on people who don't fit in while trying to push a message of acceptance. Democrats don't realize how obviously hypocritical and two-faced they are.

I would much rather the Democrats just get out with it instead of being passive-aggressive and being underhanded. "You can keep your doctor"

Like... how do the democrats think they are the smart ones when they fall for bullshit over and over?

"Anti-bigotry is the real bigotry."

 

[dank69]

The smear campaigns simply show the true colors of the loving and accepting democrats.

Democrat anger is more interesting than Republican anger. Republicans are always angry, everyone knows that. But at least they let it out and are angry in a direct way. Democrats on the other hand seem to bottle it up and let loose on people who don't fit in while trying to push a message of acceptance. Democrats don't realize how obviously hypocritical and two-faced they are.

I would much rather the Democrats just get out with it instead of being passive-aggressive and being underhanded. "You can keep your doctor"

Like... how do the democrats think they are the smart ones when they fall for bullshit over and over?

Once again, exposing the truth is not a smear campaign.