This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 222324 2526 ... 306
691
« on: November 25, 2016, 11:19:33 AM »
Well that's a waste
692
« on: November 24, 2016, 01:43:17 PM »
His kids can run it in a blind trust, as long as they don't discuss the business while he's president.
So as a nation, we're expected to believe that he will never discuss his business with his children for the next four years. About as believable as me being straight
693
« on: November 23, 2016, 02:19:42 PM »
So, I ask you guys this: Should I live on or off campus? Is any of this worth it?
I guess I would prefer opinions from people who live here in California. But anything is fine.
Generally speaking, most colleges nowadays require freshman (and some sophomores) to live on campus. It has it's perks - closer to your classes and professors, helps you get used to living away from home, helps people make friends, etc. That being said, I'm an advocate for getting your own places (or a place with close friends) as soon as you can.
694
« on: November 23, 2016, 01:16:53 PM »
>media shits on trump so badly
I wasn't aware it was the media's job to be an echo chamber of positivity.
I never said that.
There's a difference between being a positive echo chamber, being semi-objective with good and bad, and being openly hostile. If you do the last, expect retaliation.
And for most candidates, media organization coverage fall in the wide spectrum of semi-objective (that wide spectrum encompassing both ends of the political spectrum). But are you generally surprised that media organizations, which are businesses as much as a public necessity, are going to be hostile to a candidate who denounces many of their existence, insults their reporters and openly picks fights?
695
« on: November 23, 2016, 12:58:06 PM »
>media shits on trump so badly
I wasn't aware it was the media's job to be an echo chamber of positivity.
696
« on: November 23, 2016, 07:41:01 AM »
Clinton's lead in the popular vote has surpassed 2 million votes. Most estimate she'll end up even, or beat, the difference from 1876.
697
« on: November 22, 2016, 06:41:56 PM »
Honestly America does not need to remove the electoral College but needs electoral reform. Ditch the two party system and try to bring in more companies.
Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk
Companies?
698
« on: November 22, 2016, 03:33:12 PM »
So do you believe 1876 is more similar to 1824 in terms of determining the presidency outside of the ballots and courts? And do you feel after this election anything will change soon with the EC?
Yes and no. You're right that Tilden led the popular vote by more than Clinton currently does. But many historians also argue that, had the dispute over electoral votes gone to court like in 2000, Tilden would have won enough of the 20 outstanding votes to win.
But unlike other cases, including 2000, 1876 was essentially resolved with a comprise. Democrats allow Hayes to win the Presidency (while losing the PV), and Hayes would end Reconstruction still ongoing in southern states.
Ultimately, history will never know how 1876 would have gone. Though because of the comprise in awarding states outside of court, and the ongoing count that continues to expand Clinton's lead, I question the direct comparison Fill me in on the 1824 circumstances.
699
« on: November 22, 2016, 03:28:26 PM »
Sorry, I just thought you were meaning in terms of sheer amount of PV.
1876 was also one of the most controversial elections; not just because of a popular vote or the electoral college, but because the winner was essentially picked due to support of legislation ending Reconstruction.
I'll write something lengthier once I'm home, but putting results 1876 in comparison to 2016 is comparing apples to a tomato Yes and no. You're right that Tilden led the popular vote by more than Clinton currently does. But many historians also argue that, had the dispute over electoral votes gone to court like in 2000, Tilden would have won enough of the 20 outstanding votes to win. But unlike other cases, including 2000, 1876 was essentially resolved with a comprise. Democrats allow Hayes to win the Presidency (while losing the PV), and Hayes would end Reconstruction still ongoing in southern states. Ultimately, history will never know how 1876 would have gone. Though because of the comprise in awarding states outside of court, and the ongoing count that continues to expand Clinton's lead, I question the direct comparison
700
« on: November 22, 2016, 03:20:54 PM »
What do you mean by scenario? 1876 had a bigger percentage of a PV discrepancy.
While everything you said is true, I do believe that 2016 has the largest discrepancy between who won the EC vs popular vote.
As in, Clinton won the PV by a larger margin than any other candidate in this scenario. 1876 was also one of the most controversial elections; not just because of a popular vote or the electoral college, but because the winner was essentially picked due to support of legislation ending Reconstruction. I'll write something lengthier once I'm home, but putting results 1876 in comparison to 2016 is comparing apples to a tomato
701
« on: November 22, 2016, 03:00:30 PM »
Also everyone is losing their shit about the EC this year as if this has never happened before, it's happened four times beforehand and one time in all our lifetimes (the 2000 election).
While everything you said is true, I do believe that 2016 has the largest discrepancy between who won the EC vs popular vote. As in, Clinton won the PV by a larger margin than any other candidate in this scenario.
702
« on: November 22, 2016, 12:10:33 PM »
No, it doesn't signal that you're a racist or white supremacist - just like owning a gun doesn't make you a murderer (inb4Das)
I don't get it... unless you're being sarcastic.
Sarcasm, as we almost always get into some form of a debate if I mention the world gun.
703
« on: November 22, 2016, 11:01:31 AM »
Reportedly.
I have a lot of trouble believing anything that comes from these people lately.
In fairness, a separate source for Politico paints a different image
President-elect Donald Trump on Monday told a group of about 25 television executives and anchors that he wants a “cordial” and “productive” relationship with the media, according to one source in the room, but he still aired some grievances during the off-the-record gathering in Trump Tower.
The source said the meeting started with a typical Trump complaint about the “dishonest media,” and that he specifically singled out CNN and NBC News for example as “the worst.”
He also complained about photos of himself that NBC used that he found unflattering, the source said.
Trump turned to NBC News President Deborah Turness at one point, the source said, and told her the network won’t run a nice picture of him, instead choosing “this picture of me,” as he made a face with a double chin. Turness replied that they had a “very nice” picture of him on their website at the moment.
This adversarial relationship is worrying.
How so?
It's generally assumed that a free press will (or should) keep the general public informed about the activities of the state in a nonpartisan manner.
It's one thing to have large segments of the population distrust the press (and we already have that), but having an openly adversarial relationship between major media outlets and our federal government is bizarre. I don't really know what to expect. Having press outlets that shill for the government like BBC or RT is one thing, because you can dismiss a lot as propaganda. But when you have a press and a state that shit on each other, where do normies go to find out who to trust?
I myself have little faith in our supposedly independent media, but I feel fairly well-informed through the various networks and boards I frequent. What about people who don't have that, though? It doesn't bode well.
The thing that a lot of people don't understand, and this goes for both liberals and conservatives, is that negative coverage is not biased coverage. That also pairs with people generally relying on one or two sources of media to get their news; Fox News and Breitbart are (arguably) as accurate and biased as CNN and MSNBC - but because they run positive stories on their audience's preferred candidate and bash the other side, conservatives view them as more fair and truthful.
Americans (and I include myself in this to a degree after this election with polling) have put themselves into an echo chamber where you hear people you agree with, support that view, and denounce anyone else as unfair, liars, biased. It's not solely the fault of the media for this - people just do not conduct critical thinking and research in a world of instant news 24/7.
That being said, I do find myself in agreement with a lot of critics that the media overfocused on a number of trivial issues.
Do you see this changing or do you think the situation will deteriorate further?
Changing significantly? No. I don't see American beliefs on the media changing for the better, especially under a President that has routinely blasted outlets for being unfair and biased towards him and his policies. I see both sides digging in their heels and sticking with what they know and prefer in terms of media consumption. I can go a bit more in depth if you have specific areas.
704
« on: November 22, 2016, 10:45:45 AM »
Reportedly.
I have a lot of trouble believing anything that comes from these people lately.
In fairness, a separate source for Politico paints a different image
President-elect Donald Trump on Monday told a group of about 25 television executives and anchors that he wants a “cordial” and “productive” relationship with the media, according to one source in the room, but he still aired some grievances during the off-the-record gathering in Trump Tower.
The source said the meeting started with a typical Trump complaint about the “dishonest media,” and that he specifically singled out CNN and NBC News for example as “the worst.”
He also complained about photos of himself that NBC used that he found unflattering, the source said.
Trump turned to NBC News President Deborah Turness at one point, the source said, and told her the network won’t run a nice picture of him, instead choosing “this picture of me,” as he made a face with a double chin. Turness replied that they had a “very nice” picture of him on their website at the moment.
This adversarial relationship is worrying.
How so?
It's generally assumed that a free press will (or should) keep the general public informed about the activities of the state in a nonpartisan manner.
It's one thing to have large segments of the population distrust the press (and we already have that), but having an openly adversarial relationship between major media outlets and our federal government is bizarre. I don't really know what to expect. Having press outlets that shill for the government like BBC or RT is one thing, because you can dismiss a lot as propaganda. But when you have a press and a state that shit on each other, where do normies go to find out who to trust?
I myself have little faith in our supposedly independent media, but I feel fairly well-informed through the various networks and boards I frequent. What about people who don't have that, though? It doesn't bode well.
The thing that a lot of people don't understand, and this goes for both liberals and conservatives, is that negative coverage is not biased coverage. That also pairs with people generally relying on one or two sources of media to get their news; Fox News and Breitbart are (arguably) as accurate and biased as CNN and MSNBC - but because they run positive stories on their audience's preferred candidate and bash the other side, conservatives view them as more fair and truthful. Americans (and I include myself in this to a degree after this election with polling) have put themselves into an echo chamber where you hear people you agree with, support that view, and denounce anyone else as unfair, liars, biased. It's not solely the fault of the media for this - people just do not conduct critical thinking and research in a world of instant news 24/7. That being said, I do find myself in agreement with a lot of critics that the media overfocused on a number of trivial issues.
705
« on: November 22, 2016, 10:23:57 AM »
Reportedly.
I have a lot of trouble believing anything that comes from these people lately.
In fairness, a separate source for Politico paints a different image
President-elect Donald Trump on Monday told a group of about 25 television executives and anchors that he wants a “cordial” and “productive” relationship with the media, according to one source in the room, but he still aired some grievances during the off-the-record gathering in Trump Tower.
The source said the meeting started with a typical Trump complaint about the “dishonest media,” and that he specifically singled out CNN and NBC News for example as “the worst.”
He also complained about photos of himself that NBC used that he found unflattering, the source said.
Trump turned to NBC News President Deborah Turness at one point, the source said, and told her the network won’t run a nice picture of him, instead choosing “this picture of me,” as he made a face with a double chin. Turness replied that they had a “very nice” picture of him on their website at the moment.
This adversarial relationship is worrying.
How so?
706
« on: November 22, 2016, 10:21:55 AM »
So here's my question - Does owning certain controversial literature and memorabilia (for a non-violent use) show a person's political beliefs, and if so, could it be further used to estimate how far they believe in the cause (i.e. to go as far as killing someone in the name of it)?
Owning controversial literature/memorabilia? No, it doesn't signal that you're a racist or white supremacist - just like owning a gun doesn't make you a murderer (inb4Das). That being said, if your political actions tread along similar ideas in relation to that literature, your motives can and should be call into question.
707
« on: November 22, 2016, 10:18:31 AM »
Reportedly.
I have a lot of trouble believing anything that comes from these people lately.
In fairness, a separate source for Politico paints a different imagePresident-elect Donald Trump on Monday told a group of about 25 television executives and anchors that he wants a “cordial” and “productive” relationship with the media, according to one source in the room, but he still aired some grievances during the off-the-record gathering in Trump Tower.
The source said the meeting started with a typical Trump complaint about the “dishonest media,” and that he specifically singled out CNN and NBC News for example as “the worst.”
He also complained about photos of himself that NBC used that he found unflattering, the source said.
Trump turned to NBC News President Deborah Turness at one point, the source said, and told her the network won’t run a nice picture of him, instead choosing “this picture of me,” as he made a face with a double chin. Turness replied that they had a “very nice” picture of him on their website at the moment.
708
« on: November 21, 2016, 06:32:06 PM »
According to an off the record source to the New York Post, Reported by The HillPresident-elect Donald Trump raged at anchors and executives from America’s five largest television networks during an off-the-record meeting Monday, according to a new report.
Two sources described the hour-long meeting at New York City’s Trump Tower in catastrophic terms to The New York Post.
“It was like a f—ing firing squad,” one source said of the meeting. "Trump started with [CNN President] Jeff Zucker and said, ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed.’"
“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down.”
The Post’s second source said the meeting included 30 to 40 people, and said Trump also took aim at ABC and NBC.
“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room full of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong,'" the source said. "He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about a female correspondent who got it wrong.
“Then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when [Democratic presidential nominee] Hillary [Clinton] lost [and] who hosted a debate — which was [ABC’s] Martha Raddatz, who was also in the room.”
Top Trump aide Kellyanne Conway disputed the New York Post story.
"No, that's not true at all," she said on Bloomberg Politics' 'With All Due Respect." "I sat right to his left. He did not explode in anger. By the way, it's an off-the-record meeting so whoever said that and mischaracterized it should think twice."
Monday’s meeting was attended by ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News and CNN, as well as MSNBC, NBC’s cable news arm.
The meeting was arranged by Conway, who served as Trump’s campaign manager for the final few months of the White House race. The conversation was deemed off-the-record, meaning the participants agreed not to publicly discuss its contents.
Trump regularly attacked the media throughout his campaign, calling it “corrupt” and labeling reporters as “outright liars.”
The billionaire has not yet held a press conference as president-elect, a longstanding tradition for America’s new leaders.
709
« on: November 20, 2016, 06:05:14 PM »
Thiel has no credibility in the field though. Yes, the guy's a success in terms of the science and tech industry, but he himself has no experience in government office or what is needed to run such an enterprise. As much as people hate Washington insiders (To which I'd argue that Sessions' is the epitome of one), throwing new people into roles that create policy for hundreds of millions of people is backwards.
The White House and the executive branch is not a place for newcomers to find out what politics is about. They can live up to their campaign promise, but the fact is it's a terribly risky precedent setting move.
What I'll disagree with, is the idea that only government positions give you the experience and skill set to hold government positions. That just strikes me as an attempt to form a clique and keep out anyone that would disrupt it.
Government positions? No, I don't expect the cabinet to be filled with people who have been in government for decades. But putting in businessmen from the private industry and expecting them to easily make that transition is ridiculous - especially when we get people like Ebell taking up the EPA.
It's no different than any other job. Have the experience necessary or you shouldn't get chosen. Trump takes the approach that you be loyal and you get what you wish, experience be damned and screw whatever gets fucked up.
Yet he still went through three campaign managers in a single year, and the second one (Paul Manafort) had more experience and credentials than anyone else on the Trump campaign.
It's a lot easier to oust shitty campaign staffers than it is to oust cabinet members who have to be confirmed by the Senate. Not to mention that having a revolving door of cabinet members in any department would be dangerous and hurtful on the American public - namely due to the enforcement of different policy areas. It's a reason that cabinet officials usually stay for one full term. The President doesn't want a full division of his office being crippled by a new confirmation fight, new director and policy changes every couple of years
710
« on: November 20, 2016, 05:17:15 PM »
Thiel has no credibility in the field though. Yes, the guy's a success in terms of the science and tech industry, but he himself has no experience in government office or what is needed to run such an enterprise. As much as people hate Washington insiders (To which I'd argue that Sessions' is the epitome of one), throwing new people into roles that create policy for hundreds of millions of people is backwards.
The White House and the executive branch is not a place for newcomers to find out what politics is about. They can live up to their campaign promise, but the fact is it's a terribly risky precedent setting move.
What I'll disagree with, is the idea that only government positions give you the experience and skill set to hold government positions. That just strikes me as an attempt to form a clique and keep out anyone that would disrupt it.
Government positions? No, I don't expect the cabinet to be filled with people who have been in government for decades. But putting in businessmen from the private industry and expecting them to easily make that transition is ridiculous - especially when we get people like Ebell taking up the EPA. It's no different than any other job. Have the experience necessary or you shouldn't get chosen. Trump takes the approach that you be loyal and you get what you wish, experience be damned and screw whatever gets fucked up.
711
« on: November 20, 2016, 04:56:55 PM »
They're screening candidates. Why is this news?
Because they're explicitly filtering out people that were against Trump during the campaign, and searching for Washington outsiders.
So they're hiring no people with no opposing views and likely little experience to the offices they're being given?
Why does that sound terrible?
The idea that a loyal outsider (Thiel) is working on finding other loyal outsiders does however contradict suspicions about Trump backpedaling and just taking whatever Washington guys are available.
Thiel has no credibility in the field though. Yes, the guy's a success in terms of the science and tech industry, but he himself has no experience in government office or what is needed to run such an enterprise. As much as people hate Washington insiders (To which I'd argue that Sessions' is the epitome of one), throwing new people into roles that create policy for hundreds of millions of people is backwards. The White House and the executive branch is not a place for newcomers to find out what politics is about. They can live up to their campaign promise, but the fact is it's a terribly risky precedent setting move.
712
« on: November 20, 2016, 01:20:48 PM »
They're screening candidates. Why is this news?
Because they're explicitly filtering out people that were against Trump during the campaign, and searching for Washington outsiders.
So they're hiring no people with no opposing views and likely little experience to the offices they're being given? Why does that sound terrible?
713
« on: November 20, 2016, 01:19:38 PM »
Ironically, I believe I saw that this guy did nude photography and/or gay porn in his younger years.
But that's none of my business.
snopes says there's no conclusive evidence, but i still like to believe it was him
Hard to confirm stuff from pre-Internet days
714
« on: November 19, 2016, 10:06:36 PM »
Ironically, I believe I saw that this guy did nude photography and/or gay porn in his younger years.
But that's none of my business.
715
« on: November 19, 2016, 12:38:44 PM »
tbh it sounds like the 1-2 people booing were doing so at the apparent setup for an insult against Pence. Pretty clickbait-y, and I'm not really sure why this is in Serious.
One, no where did I mention the boos coming from the audience - namely because I agree with you that they feel more directed at the speech then at Pence. Second, I bring it up not for the speech, but for the reaction that it's had among pundits and Trump (Including calling the issue harassment) and in light of continuing protests across the country. Shoulda explained that a bit more, but trying to type a ton on the mobile version of the site is god awful
716
« on: November 19, 2016, 12:23:16 PM »
Word is that Pence listened to the statement in the halls before leaving the theater.
717
« on: November 18, 2016, 07:11:22 PM »
And you're welcome to your two cents. Just don't expect not to point out flaws in your thinking.
718
« on: November 18, 2016, 07:07:56 PM »
All the more reason to build the wall and have fuckers like this shot on site from trying to enter the country illegally.
And what of the "fuckers like this" that are actually born here?
I'm sorry but people like this that are horrible fucking people shouldn't have rights to begin with. Why even defend them?
Because this isn't a dictatorship, all citizens have a right to counsel and a fair trial.
The fact that this man entered the country illegally is only contributing to the problem. You wanna come to the United States and live here? Don't enter the country illegally. Adds to the problem that he raped a woman? This has been a fucking problem for ages right now and it needs to be taken care of. This also could have been prevented if our immigration problem was actually taken seriously with Obama under office, and it wasn't.
Immigration has been an issue since before Obama, and it's likely going to be an issue well after Trump. Saying it wasn't taken seriously under Obama is kinda laughable.
719
« on: November 18, 2016, 06:51:43 PM »
All the more reason to build the wall and have fuckers like this shot on site from trying to enter the country illegally.
And what of the "fuckers like this" that are actually born here?
720
« on: November 18, 2016, 06:45:02 PM »
Ahem
Gents
One good pick does not instill total confidence.
Pages: 1 ... 222324 2526 ... 306
|
Show Posts