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 ... 8910 1112 ... 306
271
« on: February 23, 2017, 01:58:33 PM »
But did the campaigns really die in such a way? It's not like our elections for the past two decades were run off landslides for the victor
2016: 304-227 2012: 332-206 2008: 365-173 2004: 286-251 2000: 271-266 1996: 379-159 1992: 370-168 1988: 426-111 1984: 525-13 1980: 489-39 Going back to the start of Reagan, only 3 elections are not "landslides": 2000, 2004, and 2016 (arguably, though closer to being one). Frankly, the past 30+ years have produced relatively large margins of victory for the winning party. Hence these party autopsies.
272
« on: February 23, 2017, 01:50:10 PM »
Well considering an autopsy is literally examining a dead body....
"Republican Part Autopsy" =/= The party is dead. What is being exampled under a "political party autopsy" is why the candidate/message that the party is running during said election failed to resonate with voters that you needed to win. In 2008, the big question is how McCain lost states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. In 2012's case, it revolved around Romney's inability to resonate with the middle class workers in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. Clinton's political autopsy also revolves around the same questions as Romney, also including the divide between moderates and progressives. Autopsy is a poor choice of language, though I imagine it's used to describe the death of the campaign? It is not about the death of the party as a governing institution.
273
« on: February 23, 2017, 01:44:24 PM »
You don't remember the "Republican Party Autopsy"? It was literally everywhere.
Uh, what?
"Republican Part Autopsy" =/= The party is dead. Every party that suffers an election lost goes through an autopsy of sorts, it's nothing new. It's just become far more publicized these days. I'd also like to see reports from news outlets saying "The GOP are dead, we're a one party state after 2016"
274
« on: February 23, 2017, 01:41:32 PM »
This is a big one. After Romney lost in 2012 yet the GOP still kept Congress (and gained in congress in 2014) the media kept saying the Republican party is over and that we'll become a one party party state with just Democrats after the 2016 election.
Uh, what?
275
« on: February 21, 2017, 10:31:41 PM »
it's not like the people of the DPRK were going to see a cent from it anyway
This is only going to make things worse for the already crumbling North Korea. The people will suffer more because of it. Can't wait till the leader is taken out or something.
I feel like I've seen similar statements to this in historical documents over the past 70 years. I'm still waiting.
276
« on: February 18, 2017, 02:00:49 PM »
I'm well aware of FDR, but I meant since FDR in my post. Nobody has violated the constitution as much as Hussein Obama since FDR.
It's your word against Das' and if anything I'm more inclined to believe the latter regarding presidents and the constitution.
Trump has been in office for about a month so can't really say much about that myself. I do believe he is trying to save America. I can't think of anyone that violated the constitution as much as Obama and FDR.
What does America need saving from?
277
« on: February 18, 2017, 11:00:58 AM »
Oh. Okau.
I don't even think I'll even watch that though. As a libertarian first and foremost, I think Trump's presidency might be the most damaging to the Constitution since FDR.
Lol. Nobody comes close to Hussein Obama in that regard.
CNN is very fake news indeed.
You clearly don't know your history then.
I'm well aware of FDR, but I meant since FDR in my post. Nobody has violated the constitution as much as Hussein Obama since FDR.
Do you think using Obama's middle name is going to make us dislike him or something? I don't get it.
Makes him sound Muslim
Bingo.
278
« on: February 17, 2017, 10:03:14 PM »
Oh look, Karjala is here with his helpful statements of alternative facts and questionable attacks on 44's perceived religion and ethnicity.
Please, tell me more about CNN being fake news.
279
« on: February 17, 2017, 06:26:25 PM »
So the journalists are at fault for covering what amounts to a human/public interest story?
Frankly, I still don't see the big issue here, because it clearly isn't the loss of endorsements/affiliations.
Do you despise the reporters who covered the story? Do you despise how they reported it?
The issue people have is that these journalists when out of their way to cherry pick his distasteful jokes, take then out of context, make false claims about them, and then report him to Disney and Youtube, which has had a significant consequence.
Can I get a link to the article that started this? I hear it was the WSJ, but I can't find said piece. Forbes did a write up about it though, saying:
In this case, PewDiePie is clearly mad at the Wall Street Journal for lighting this tinderbox, but ultimately it was Disney and Google’s decision to end their relationships with him. I do not think WSJ set out to “assassinate” PewDiePie, and it’s normal to contact the subjects of a story with pertinent information to give them a chance to respond before publication, which is what they did with Disney. It is a story when the most popular YouTuber in the world, one with millions of young fans, uses anti-Semitic humor, however few examples there may be, regardless of the ultimate intent of the joke. WSJ pressed Disney on what their response was to these instances, and Disney deemed it appropriate to end their relationship with him as a result.
If anything, it seems as if PewDiePie should be raging against Disney and Google who are the corporations directly responsible for the decision-making regarding these deals, and did not stand by him as a partner. But those companies would be too dangerous for PewDiePie to take on, as it could continue to backfire on him (Google could wipe his channel entirely, in theory), while attacking the media instead is an easy target.
Based on this summary, I don't see where the supposed bias and bad journalism is coming from - hence why I'd like to see whatever this original story was.
I would imagine that both Disney and Youtube understood who they were affiliated with and what kind of content he created, but it's only now that this story has blown up so much that they've dropped him/canceled his series.
Yes and no - PDP was affliated with Maker Studios, which is owned by Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media - a smaller division within the Disney company. Again, without the original article that started this, I can't say who in the company was reach out to for comment. If it was someone outside of the DCPIM division, I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly knew the story.
Dropping him because of false or hyperbolic claims that are obvious libel, and are trying to capitalize on sensationalism. That to me is in no way responsible journalism.
...But the journalists didn't drop him? Like Forbes said, if he's angry at anyone, it should be the actual companies that cut ties with him.
I believe this is the original article that kicked things off publicly. You will have to subcribe to WSJ or make an account to read the full article unfortunately.
I'll give it a read once I'm able to. From all accounts I've seen, the journalists catalyzed the process of Disney and YouTube severing ties with him by searching through his content to find the offending material, take it out of context, and send it to Disney and Youtube claiming him to be normalizing Nazism/fascism. Mind showing me where journalist or the media did this? I'll give the WSJ article a read, but I've yet to see any indication they did anything outside of request comments from Disney about this one incident in particular.
280
« on: February 17, 2017, 05:25:51 PM »
So the journalists are at fault for covering what amounts to a human/public interest story?
Frankly, I still don't see the big issue here, because it clearly isn't the loss of endorsements/affiliations.
Do you despise the reporters who covered the story? Do you despise how they reported it?
The issue people have is that these journalists when out of their way to cherry pick his distasteful jokes, take then out of context, make false claims about them, and then report him to Disney and Youtube, which has had a significant consequence.
Can I get a link to the article that started this? I hear it was the WSJ, but I can't find said piece. Forbes did a write up about it though, saying: In this case, PewDiePie is clearly mad at the Wall Street Journal for lighting this tinderbox, but ultimately it was Disney and Google’s decision to end their relationships with him. I do not think WSJ set out to “assassinate” PewDiePie, and it’s normal to contact the subjects of a story with pertinent information to give them a chance to respond before publication, which is what they did with Disney. It is a story when the most popular YouTuber in the world, one with millions of young fans, uses anti-Semitic humor, however few examples there may be, regardless of the ultimate intent of the joke. WSJ pressed Disney on what their response was to these instances, and Disney deemed it appropriate to end their relationship with him as a result.
If anything, it seems as if PewDiePie should be raging against Disney and Google who are the corporations directly responsible for the decision-making regarding these deals, and did not stand by him as a partner. But those companies would be too dangerous for PewDiePie to take on, as it could continue to backfire on him (Google could wipe his channel entirely, in theory), while attacking the media instead is an easy target. Based on this summary, I don't see where the supposed bias and bad journalism is coming from - hence why I'd like to see whatever this original story was. I would imagine that both Disney and Youtube understood who they were affiliated with and what kind of content he created, but it's only now that this story has blown up so much that they've dropped him/canceled his series. Yes and no - PDP was affliated with Maker Studios, which is owned by Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media - a smaller division within the Disney company. Again, without the original article that started this, I can't say who in the company was reach out to for comment. If it was someone outside of the DCPIM division, I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly knew the story. Dropping him because of false or hyperbolic claims that are obvious libel, and are trying to capitalize on sensationalism. That to me is in no way responsible journalism.
...But the journalists didn't drop him? Like Forbes said, if he's angry at anyone, it should be the actual companies that cut ties with him.
281
« on: February 17, 2017, 02:33:51 PM »
Whatever I didn't quote, I agree with. Which is a surprisngly decent amount. Yes, it's VERY much okay for him to make these jokes. It's HIS channel and he can do whatever he wants on it, Has he been banned from making the videos? If not, then yes. He can continue making these jokes and statements as much as he wishes. Personally, I don't care because his "content" amounts to middle school cafeteria quality. The problem we're all stating is that he's being called a REAL Nazi/Fascist/Racist because of these writers. FORTUNATELY, the only person falling for the bullshit is J.K. Rowling. So the journalists are at fault for covering what amounts to a human/public interest story?
Frankly, I still don't see the big issue here, because it clearly isn't the loss of endorsements/affiliations. Do you despise the reporters who covered the story? Do you despise how they reported it?
282
« on: February 17, 2017, 12:37:32 PM »
He's been doing it for almost half a year now. Does that make it okay for him to make anti-semitic jokes? Should the audience primarily viewing his videos (Teens and younger) be factored in when leveling criticism - especially when dealing with companies like Disney and Google who tend to avoid controversial figures and children? The media took his videos out of context and showed them to Disney, pushing them into dropping him. According to this Vox article, "Maker severed ties with Kjellberg after the WSJ emailed Disney representatives for comment on the content of his videos." Emailing Disney (Or Youtube for that matter) and asking for comment when a well known dude they're affiliated with is making questionable jokes and commentary hardly seems like "Pushing them to drop him." Was there any petitions circulated? Were media pundits lambasting Disney? I'd like to see some proof that they were pushed into dropping him because of one media outlet (At least one confirmed) emailing them PDP doesn't really give a shit about that but does give a shit about the character assassination that's going with it.
Is the guy that unaware of how public relations work? I can set him up with any disgraced Congressman for a run down. (Kidding.)
283
« on: February 17, 2017, 12:03:07 PM »
Roughly that age group, he started making videos playing games and acting stupid. But he's moved onto less video games and more just shit posting videos.
Should I make a wild assumption that a large portion of his subscriber base is under the age of 16? So yeah, I'll go ahead and make the assumption that a sizeable portion of his viewing base are middle and high school students (Though I can imagine quite a few under 10, but that gets into too many factors). So he made some anti-semitic comments/jokes, the media took him to task, Disney dropped him, etc?
284
« on: February 17, 2017, 11:58:31 AM »
Someone want to tell me who this guy is? And why the hell he's even in the news?
Preferably more concisely than me watching an 11 minute video.
#1 most subscribed youtuber with 53 million subscribers
this is his most popular video
he made a few anti-semitic jokes lately and is catching fire over it
Should I make a wild assumption that a large portion of his subscriber base is under the age of 16?
285
« on: February 17, 2017, 11:46:43 AM »
Unban them all.
286
« on: February 17, 2017, 11:42:39 AM »
Someone want to tell me who this guy is? And why the hell he's even in the news?
Preferably more concisely than me watching an 11 minute video.
287
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:38:35 PM »
The press is playing right into his hands. It's kind of sad to watch.
He's been doing it for over 20 years. Man knows how to work a room.
Difference is that he's generally used to business/entertainment journalists.
It's quite amusing and sad to watch him steamroll over the White House press corps, many of whom have 10+ years of experience, like they're the news team at the local community college.
I honestly haven't given it a watch yet. I tend to avoid Trump press conferences since I can't watch more than 10 mins of him, minus his State of the Union.
Wait... we've already had shitlord Trump long enough for him to give a State of the Union?
No not yet. I just mean when it crops up next year is when I'll watch. His voice annoys me much like another senators does but I can't remember the name.
Trump is doing an address to a joint session of Congress in a couple of weeks - his unofficial first SOTU
288
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:27:23 PM »
The press is playing right into his hands. It's kind of sad to watch.
He's been doing it for over 20 years. Man knows how to work a room.
Difference is that he's generally used to business/entertainment journalists.
It's quite amusing and sad to watch him steamroll over the White House press corps, many of whom have 10+ years of experience, like they're the news team at the local community college.
I honestly haven't given it a watch yet. I tend to avoid Trump press conferences since I can't watch more than 10 mins of him, minus his State of the Union coming up.
It's the same as usual. Trump using his "dishonest media, fake news, CNN is so biased" lines, the press answering lofty questions that they know Trump will deflect, and some schmoozing.
289
« on: February 16, 2017, 10:41:30 PM »
The press is playing right into his hands. It's kind of sad to watch.
He's been doing it for over 20 years. Man knows how to work a room.
Difference is that he's generally used to business/entertainment journalists. It's quite amusing and sad to watch him steamroll over the White House press corps, many of whom have 10+ years of experience, like they're the news team at the local community college.
290
« on: February 16, 2017, 07:01:31 PM »
The press is playing right into his hands. It's kind of sad to watch.
291
« on: February 16, 2017, 03:39:57 PM »
Color me impressed, he actually provided his source.
292
« on: February 16, 2017, 03:37:03 PM »
Fake News. Its been refuted many times.
By who?
NBC News
[URL goes here]
293
« on: February 16, 2017, 03:34:22 PM »
Fake News. Its been refuted many times.
By who?
294
« on: February 16, 2017, 02:51:34 PM »
Source: CNN
Is there an outlet you'd prefer?
295
« on: February 15, 2017, 11:17:32 PM »
I'm not quite sure I see the end goal of Republican's for this Congress.
296
« on: February 15, 2017, 07:04:32 PM »
I'm talking about plain evil people. People who kill for joy, or to steal, and it's definitively proven they did do it.
Really? Because you suggested that everyone accused of murder should be executed tomorrow, even with a risk of false convictions. Now we've gone to "Definitive proof they did it"
297
« on: February 15, 2017, 06:27:35 PM »
What's the issue with this?
Obama.
298
« on: February 15, 2017, 06:01:34 PM »
Isn't this right after they tried the reset or whatever? I forget.
NYTimesPresident Obama found his private moment of political candor caught by a live microphone on Monday as he told President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate on the delicate issue of missile defense after the November election, which Mr. Obama apparently feels confident he will win.
Mr. Obama’s Republican adversaries seized on the comment, which followed a meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev in Seoul, South Korea, where both had struggled to find common ground amid strong objections in Russia to the American plans for a missile defense system based in Europe.
It's a nonstory that Republican's latched onto to try paint Obama as authoritative because he wouldn't be campaigning. Pay no mind to Door's latest "Obama bad, Russia good!" post.
299
« on: February 15, 2017, 02:41:16 PM »
I think I read there are 180,000 people in US prisons for murder. That's a whole lot, but you know what? I would have absolutely no problem if everyone of them was executed tomorrow.
See, your argument lost any credibility (And it was teetering beforehand) here.
300
« on: February 15, 2017, 01:58:52 PM »
I don't oppose the death penalty, and I think the only person here who's vehemently opposed to it is Flee.
I'd say that more people have reservations about the use of the death penalty - it's effectiveness at deterring crimes, it's ethical ramifications, and what qualifications should be met to bring about a death sentence. So I both agree/disagree with this
Pages: 1 ... 8910 1112 ... 306
|
Show Posts