Show Posts

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 - Anonymous (User Deleted)

Pages: 1 ... 567 89 ... 212
181
The Flood / Re: I'm going to call this dude who hates himself a narcissist
« on: November 19, 2016, 10:29:58 PM »
this is obsessive, class

182
Trump saying he won't turn back gay rights or women's rights isn't very reassuring when his nominees totally would.

183
Serious / Re: Hamilton Cast calls out Mike Pence
« on: November 19, 2016, 10:02:11 PM »
Funny that all of the anti Obama protests during the Obamacare debate were totally justified then. Yet, now when they're against your guy, suddenly the protesters are un American.
Those 'defenders of the Constitution' have never read it once in their life.

184
The Flood / Re: FMA live action trailer looks like garbage
« on: November 17, 2016, 02:19:20 PM »
Those special effects must have cost them an arm and a leg.

185
Serious / Re: Mike Pence facing his own emails scandal
« on: November 16, 2016, 07:36:20 PM »
Oh, I agree completely. I'm not trying to shill for Hillary here. I just see this as an overly-broad court ruling waiting to happen.
Ayy, it's jsut this sort of headline sets off alarm bells for me, I know at some point down the line i'll have a conversation with someone in real life that goes like this.
Quote
them: "you said clinton was so bad because of her emails, but CHECK THIS OUT, Pence is just as bad"
me: "I bet I know what you're talking about, and that's a gross misinterpretation"
them: "but he has his own email scandal, wasn't the problem with clinton that she deleted emails? I delete my emails"
me:  "no that's also oversimplyfying, the problem is [20 minute rant of me explaining what i just typed in a way that doesn't confuse them]"
them: "yeah well, i just don't have the time to look into all this, i'm just saying what I hear"

This has happened way too many times this past year.
I don't blame you tbh

Imagine being a Bernie supporter facing months and months of why Clinton was the stronger candidate who had infinitely better chances against Trump was guaranteed to win despite Bernie's better match-up numbers, why Bernie's higher favorability ratings didn't matter, and how those damned emails weren't a liability whatsoever. ::) The past few months have seen me lose a lot of faith in the party and question my own politics. I wouldn't describe myself as a Democrat anymore.

Spoiler
I ultimately voted for Gary Johnson.

I get that it looked like that, I'm just easily triggered.
>.> Don't worry about it.

186
Serious / Re: Mike Pence facing his own emails scandal
« on: November 16, 2016, 07:16:01 PM »
I agree that covering stuff up doesn't suddenly become ok just because my preferred candidate does it, I wont defend them (and there were a few points in the campaign where I was ready to drop them entirely because it looked like they were going to sell us out, but they haven't so far). However, comparing this to Clinton's situation is an exaggeration of what Pence has done, and a serious oversimplification of what amounts to the culmination of Cinton's political career.

See if we look at what Pence is being accused with:
Quote
Pence hired Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg to join the Texas litigation. A representative from the firm — which is also representing Pence in this case — did not respond to IndyStar requests for interview.

In December 2014, Groth requested information regarding Pence's decision to hire outside counsel and the cost to Indiana taxpayers.

"I think joining the lawsuit without the attorney general and hiring that firm was a waste of taxpayer dollars and the people have the right to know how much of their money was spent,” Groth said. Groth is known in Indiana for representing the plaintiffs in the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court voter identification case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

Pence produced the documents in the request “but those documents included substantial redaction,” according to court documents.
So Pence got buttmad about Obama's immigration policy and hired some people to argue against it in court. The 'scandal' is that he did this on taxpayer dollars and didn't reveal how much it cost. You could argue that he shouldn't have tried to battle with Obama and that it was a waste from the start, or that he was incompetent with how he handled the case, or that his precedent of fudging numbers gives reason to be concerned (although it sort of worked out alright in the end). Now the problem is that none of those are anywhere near level of what Clinton did both in terms of how many things went wrong, and the scale of what did. A short bullet point list is:
-knowing that US ally Saudi Arabia is funding US enemy ISIS, and not telling anyone in government
-knowing the above, and telling bankers
-giving the saudis weapons despite knowing it will be given in part to ISIS (this is a serious crime under the patriot act btw)
-taking money from Saudi Arabia and other dubious states in the form of donations to the Clinton foundation
-giving out government ambassadorships to donators of the clinton foundation
-giving private speeches to clinton foundation donators, to whom she discloses her private positions
-giving classified information to her daughter (who has no security clearance)
-giving classified information to her maid (who has no security clearance)
-storing classified information on a server so insecure that up to five different security agencies from other countries were able to hack in
-and doing everything I mentioned before to cover it up
Spoiler
bite me for not sourcing everything there, you know where to look

This is in comparison to Pence potentially misspending money and then redacting how much he spent, it's bad but not in anyway comparable.
Oh, I agree completely. I'm not trying to shill for Hillary here. I just see this as an overly-broad and/or misguided court ruling waiting to happen.

From the article:
Quote
But legal experts fear the stakes may be much higher than mere politics because the decision could remove a judicial branch check on executive power and limit a citizen's right to know what the government is doing and how it spends taxpayer dollars.

"It comes down to this — the court is giving up its ability to check another branch of government, and that should worry people," said Gerry Lanosga, an Indiana University media professor specializing in public records law.
As I've posted about before, the executive branch is currently at the peak of its power.

Spoiler
Please do not assume that Trump/Pence naysayers are Clinton supporters, if that's what you were doing.

187
I simply don't gain anything from being wrong.
You're different than I remember.

I like you.

188
Gaming / Re: Pokemon Thread (Massive Spoilers Page 49 and Beyond!)
« on: November 16, 2016, 06:08:28 PM »
Now if only the same thing could happen to people who pirate games in general.
I wonder what kind of dingus would connect online with a game that hasn't released yet... aside from developers, of course.

Unrelated, but it kinda reminds me of Overwatch cheaters getting royally BTFO

189
Gaming / Re: Skyrim special edition impulse buy
« on: November 16, 2016, 06:04:14 PM »
If you've never played Skyrim on PC, you're in for a treat. Go for it! The mods will be worth it.

Apparently (?) I missed the window of opportunity to get it free. Here's hoping the extra foliage will be modded into regular Skyrim. Unless Remastered gets SkyUI, I mean, I'll still miss it but not as much.

That z-fighting in the mountains though  :'(

By any chance have you got the Legendary Edition of x32 Skyrim that's been on any Steam sale recently? If so, you already have it, save you buying it twice.
I thought that was only before it launched?

190
Serious / Re: Mike Pence facing his own emails scandal
« on: November 16, 2016, 12:25:59 PM »
destroying evidence in an FBI investigation
Lol was this the one that was leaked by the FSB proxy LemmyWinks?
Well, she did delete emails. This fact is non-negotiable. Although I'm not sure whether it was during the FBI's investigation, or before then.

Let's not pretend that handing in a redacted email is anywhere near the same as dodging a subpoena, destroying evidence in an FBI investigation, using a private server to avoid FOIA requests, and doing it all to cover up your connections to bankers to whom you tell your "private positions" to.
I never did. Dodging a state transparency law and hiring a private attorney on the taxpayers' dollar isn't the high crime Clinton committed, but it's not exactly setting a good example either.
Adding to this so it gets attention, the Pence administration's argument that a court shouldn't be allowed to determine what is or isn't in the public record sounds vaguely like the Clinton camp arguing with the FBI over the classified status of certain emails. Both parties in their respective cases insisted on giving a figure in the executive branch the benefit of the doubt without letting the public decide for themselves.

However petty the Pence situation may seem in comparison to Clinton's scandal, 1) it in no way validates Pence, and 2) could still have similar legal consequences if Pence gets his way, as I explained earlier. For me, it's difficult think that one could be against Hillary but also support Pence here.

191
Septagon / Re: I've been told that the servers have moved from Utah
« on: November 16, 2016, 09:50:20 AM »
this is why you trim quote pyramids, idiots

Reedited mine.
didn't re-edit mine FYI

192
Serious / Re: Mike Pence facing his own emails scandal
« on: November 16, 2016, 08:16:03 AM »
Let's not pretend that handing in a redacted email is anywhere near the same as dodging a subpoena, destroying evidence in an FBI investigation, using a private server to avoid FOIA requests, and doing it all to cover up your connections to bankers to whom you tell your "private positions" to.
I never did. Dodging a state transparency law and hiring a private attorney on the taxpayers' dollar isn't the high crime Clinton committed, but it's not exactly setting a good example either.

193
Serious / Re: Yes, the Swamp will be Drained
« on: November 15, 2016, 11:24:46 PM »
BTFO? We're getting what we want.

More like "we fucking told you so, now shut the fuck up stupid cuck (OP et al)"

Good to see our efforts aren't in vain.

194
Serious / Mike Pence facing his own emails scandal
« on: November 15, 2016, 11:00:10 PM »
I just watched a movie and I'm too tired to pretend to be impartial so fuck it

Considering Trump never once made the concern over Clinton's email server about transparency--which Clinton clearly tried to avoid by having that server in the first place--and hasn't been a fan of whistleblowers in general, it's probably safe to assume a Trump administration wouldn't favor transparency. If Pence wins, it'll be even more power to the executive branch.

It's a week since the election and there's already concerns over Trump's cabinet picks having conflicts of interest and Trump himself believing his own kids to be a blind trust. If this keeps up, maybe we'll get lucky and Trump and/or Pence will face impeachment before the four years are up.

IndyStar
Quote
What's Mike Pence hiding in his emails?

Fatima Hussein, IndyStar 3:03 p.m. EST November 14, 2016

Mike Pence wants his communications limited from public access. Experts say this sets a "dangerous precedent."

Now that the presidential campaign and most of the furor over Hillary Clinton's email scandal are behind us, the Pence administration is going to court to argue for its own brand of email secrecy.

The administration is fighting to conceal the contents of an email sent to Gov. Mike Pence by a political ally. That email is being sought by a prominent Democratic labor lawyer who says he wants to expose waste in the Republican administration.

But legal experts fear the stakes may be much higher than mere politics because the decision could remove a judicial branch check on executive power and limit a citizen's right to know what the government is doing and how it spends taxpayer dollars.

"It comes down to this — the court is giving up its ability to check another branch of government, and that should worry people," said Gerry Lanosga, an Indiana University media professor specializing in public records law.

In the case, Indianapolis attorney William Groth is appealing a decision handed down by Marion Superior Court in April, which decided that redactions the administration made to a public record could not be second-guessed by the court.

The focal point in the case is a political “white paper” that had been excluded from Groth’s public records request.

Pence’s legal defense team claims the white paper is attorney work product protected by Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act — and at the end of the day, matters of public records are not for a court to decide.

Groth argues the lower court misapplied the law.

“I think governmental transparency is an important concern of anyone who lives in a democracy – the governor cannot put himself above the law,” Groth told the IndyStar.

How the case came about

The matter stems from a lawsuit filed after President Barack Obama announced in November 2014 that he was taking new steps to "fix America’s broken immigration system." Those steps included offering deferred enforcement of immigration laws for parents of children born in the United States, and for children who entered the United States before they were 16 years old.

The action drew the ire of Republican governors across the country, including Pence, who called the policy a "profound mistake."

Pence, joined in on a lawsuit led by Texas Gov. Greg Abbot in State of Texas, et al v. United States, with the blessing of the Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller. Zoeller's office did not respond to IndyStar requests for comment.

Pence hired Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg to join the Texas litigation. A representative from the firm — which is also representing Pence in this case — did not respond to IndyStar requests for interview.

In December 2014, Groth requested information regarding Pence's decision to hire outside counsel and the cost to Indiana taxpayers.

"I think joining the lawsuit without the attorney general and hiring that firm was a waste of taxpayer dollars and the people have the right to know how much of their money was spent,” Groth said. Groth is known in Indiana for representing the plaintiffs in the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court voter identification case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.

Pence produced the documents in the request “but those documents included substantial redaction,” according to court documents.

The 57-page response also included an email that Daniel Hodge, Abbott's chief of staff, sent to 30 recipients in various states asking them to join the lawsuit against Obama.

The message included an attached white paper, but the governor failed to produce the document, according to court records.

After a yearlong trial, the Superior Court held that the issue was not a matter for the courts to decide, citing a Indiana Supreme Court case decided just days before.

In a 4-1 ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in Citizens Action Coalition, et al. v. Indiana House Rep., that underthe Indiana Constitution’s separation of powers clause the legislature's redactions were nonjusticiable, a legal term that means not for the court to decide. Groth was also the attorney representing the plaintiffs in that case.

Groth appealed in June and the Indiana Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Nov. 21 at 1 p.m. at the Statehouse, where each side will be allowed 20 minutes for arguments.

'A dangerous legal precedent'

Paul Jefferson, a former professor of state constitutional law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said the major question for the appellate court to decide is "whether they're going to extend that (Citizens Action Coalition, et al. v. Indiana House Rep.) to the executive branch as a whole."

He said if the court rules in favor of the governor, "that would severely limit the Access to Public Records Act."

It's a fear that even the highest levels of court have warned about.

In the sole dissent of the Citizens Action Coalition lawsuit, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert Rucker stated: “The majority’s ruling is not only premature, but it unfortunately weighs in on a significant separation of powers issue without an adequate record.”

The state's public access counselor, Luke Britt, appointed by Pence in 2013, also fears what might happen if other public officials invoke the Citizens Action Coalition privilege. "After that case, a lot of local government officials were trying to claim a similar privilege — that was one of my fears."

Jefferson said that "this will be interesting in part because it is hard to draw clean lines between what would be and what wouldn’t be if excluded from a public records request if the court is going to exempt the executive branch from public records review."

Lanosga, the public access professor, says the outcome of the case will set a precedent on what are appropriate levels of transparency in government.

"It shows no accountability," he said, "that an agency can say things are exempt just because and citizens have no recourse."

195
I'm going go try to save this botched abortion of a thread:

High-ranking Democrats Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have both endorsed Keith Ellison as DNC chair.

Peggy Noonan wrote a good op ed on this subject prior to the election, and I'll post it here later.
It's later.

P-please?

It's behind a paywall, and I have it in print so I can't copy and paste it here, but here's a picture of the article.
Spoiler

I recommend you open it in a new tab so you can expand it.
Thanks, much appreciated.

196
Serious / Re: Trump's conflicts of interest
« on: November 15, 2016, 10:13:45 AM »
He'll just end up putting his assets in a blind trust for the duration of his presidency. It won't be a big deal.


I wouldn't exactly say his children running his companies is a "blind trust"
Because it isn't. They aren't eligible to do so because they're on his staff.
Tell that to Don.
Quote
Mr. Trump has said he will eliminate ethical concerns by turning the management of his company over to his children, an arrangement he has referred to as a blind trust.
Transcript from the debate:
Quote
BARTIROMO: Mr. Trump, your net worth is in the multi-billions of dollars and have an ongoing thriving hotel and real estate business. Are you planning on putting your assets in a blind trust should you become president? With such vast wealth, how difficult will it be for you to disentangle yourself from your business and your money and prioritize America’s interest first?

TRUMP: Well, it’s an interesting question because I’m very proud of my company. As you too know, I know I built a very great company. But if I become president, I couldn’t care less about my company. It’s peanuts.

I want to use that same up here, whatever it may be to make America rich again and to make America great again. I have Ivanka, and Eric and Don sitting there. Run the company kids, have a good time. I’m going to do it for America.

So I would — I would be willing to do that.

BARTIROMO: So you’ll put your assets in a blind trust?

TRUMP: I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don’t know if it’s a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. If that’s a blind trust, I don’t know. But I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn’t ever be involved because I wouldn’t care about anything but our country, anything.

197
Serious / Re: Trump to be coached by Obama, surprised by "scope of job."
« on: November 14, 2016, 10:27:53 PM »
Isn't it one of Mutdoch's rags?
Technically. Their editorials lean very conservative, but I've found their reporting to be as neutral as it gets.

198
Serious / Re: Trump to be coached by Obama, surprised by "scope of job."
« on: November 14, 2016, 09:18:29 PM »
I'm honestly having trouble taking anything seriously at this point from the NY Times and Washington Post after how they handled themselves this election.
Wall Street Journal tho

199
Septagon / Re: I've been told that the servers have moved from Utah
« on: November 14, 2016, 08:35:08 PM »
Formal petition to keep them banned

Sign below:

BaconShelf
Nuka
Iberian Husky
Verbatim
Ian
Kupo

200
Serious / Re: Trump to be coached by Obama, surprised by "scope of job."
« on: November 14, 2016, 07:47:06 PM »
I'd love to know who this "Credible inside source" is.
Same. Although, the original article in the print version of today's WSJ points out that Trump is currently lagging behind Obama's naming of new hires--at least lending credence to the claim that Trump's staff was unprepared for the scope of that.

I could take a photo of it, if you'd like. I can't find it online.
Bump, here you go:

Spoiler

201
Serious / Re: Trump to be coached by Obama, surprised by "scope of job."
« on: November 14, 2016, 07:35:49 PM »
I'd love to know who this "Credible inside source" is.
Same. Although, the original article in the print version of today's WSJ points out that Trump is currently lagging behind Obama's naming of new hires--at least lending credence to the claim that Trump's staff was unprepared for the scope of that.

I could take a photo of it, if you'd like. I can't find it online.

202
Serious / Re: Trump to be coached by Obama, surprised by "scope of job."
« on: November 14, 2016, 07:24:52 PM »
The WSJ article today was a great--and worrying--read.


203
Serious / Re: Trump's conflicts of interest
« on: November 14, 2016, 06:55:38 PM »
Free press-hating """""libertarian""""" billionaire Peter Thiel
What's your beef with Thiel?
It's... complicated. It's not just for his vested monetary interest in the decidedly un-Libertarian national surveillance sector, it's about his takedown of Gawker Media and Nick Denton.

Thiel was justified for holding a grudge against Gawker. Just because they can out someone doesn't mean they should, not for any newsworthy purpose but for clicks, especially in a world where being LGBT can be punishable by death. There also wasn't anything necessarily wrong with his involvement in the Hulk Hogan case, as third-party involvement in lawsuits is an important feature of our legal system. Gawker probably deserved it, too.

My issue with Thiel is the way he went about it. He was never forthcoming about his bankrolling the lawsuit, and tried to keep his involvement secret. He wasn't solely attached to the Hogan suit, either, possibly having funded at least a few other suits against the company, some of them ridiculous.

In numerous countries, there exists a 'loser pays' mechanic in the courts--if the plaintiff's lawsuit fails, they must pay the legal fees of the defendant. One benefit cited by proponents of this function is that it discourages frivolous lawsuits unlikely to succeed.

That mechanic doesn't exist in US law. Thiel is estimated to have $2.7 billion in the bank; Gawker somewhere in the ballpark of $200 million. Conceivably, Thiel could fund any number of frivolous lawsuits against Gawker, and still win even if all of them fail, because he could easily outspend and outlast the company; Gawker would collapse under the legal fees alone. Proving frivolity isn't easy, especially when it's a lawsuit crafted by a lawyer, and many defendants just won't bother. It's as if Thiel wanted to remain in the shadows because knew that he was acting unsavory in exploiting a loophole in our legal system.

When he publicly addressed the controversy, Thiel conveniently reframed the issue in such a way that validated his cause, going as far as referring to a proposed 'revenge porn' law as the Gawker Bill, a name he completely made-up. Publishing the tape should have been illegal, but it's plain as day that revenge porn wasn't among Thiel's primary motivations for backing the lawsuit, despite his claims otherwise.

I can't say if Thiel has an agenda. I can't say if he wants to reshape the press. But Gawker was an easy, acceptable target; imagine if another millionaire or billionaire wanted a slice of that pie, and jumped on this particular bandwagon of populism?  Thiel's certainly done his part to lay the groundwork for that.

So when I see Peter Thiel line up behind a candidate--and join his transition team, making Thiel one of the most powerful men in Silicon Valley--who threatens to 'open up' libel laws, and who threatened to sue the New York Times for reporting the factual information of his 1995 tax returns, I see that as cause for concern. He seems to have some big reasons for supporting Trump that would not be in the public's best interests.

(If you don't see why NYT was justified and defensible in publishing the tax returns, see here.)

204
Reports the Wall Street Journal:

Spoiler
Quote
Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton Are Leading Candidates for Next Secretary of State 
Aides to President-elect Trump are focusing on former New York City mayor and former U.S. ambassador to U.N.
By Damian Paletta and Jay Solomon   
Nov. 14, 2016 3:40 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Aides to President-elect Donald Trump are focusing on former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton as the leading candidates to be the next secretary of state, two people familiar with the process said.

The choice between the two would force Mr. Trump to choose between Mr. Giuliani, a longtime friend and ally in New York, and Mr. Bolton, a hawkish conservative diplomat who called last year for the U.S. to bomb Iran.

A final decision could be several weeks away, these people said.

Mr. Giuliani has rebuffed questions about his potential role in the Trump administration, saying on ABC on Sunday, “I have a very, very full life. So it would have to be something where I felt he really needed me and—not that I’d be the only one that could do it, but maybe that I could do it a little bit different or a little bit better than somebody else.”

The Trump transition team is considering former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton for the position of the next secretary of state.   

Mr. Bolton declined to comment, and the Trump transition team didn’t respond to a question for comment.

Mr. Trump’s pick will be integral to his effort to reshape U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Trump has called for a complete overhaul of the way the U.S. interacts with enemies and adversaries, arguing that the White House should forge a new relationship with Russia and engage in trade battles with Mexico and China.

Assuming the report is accurate, those hoping for softer relations with Russia or staying out of the Middle East may not get that if Bolton becomes Secretary of State.

205
Gaming / Re: Sakurai: "Smash for the Switch will be Entirely DLC"
« on: November 14, 2016, 01:53:07 PM »
So, at what point did you realize this was satirical?
Get to here:
Quote
Sakurai told us that “removing all of the characters from the game disk” freed up space that the team could then use to “add in specialized in-game messages” asking the user to buy DLC characters.
ask self "what site is this from, again?"
Quote
smashboards.com
stare into the camera as it zooms in on my face

206
Serious / Re: Sep7agon's favorite television host weighs in on you-know-who
« on: November 14, 2016, 01:24:44 PM »
Khan brought his wife onto the stage with him while she wore an Islamic outfit, yet she didn't say anything. And if you say "she was grieving over her dead son" then why is she supporting the women who played a role in his son's death? and why is she attacking the man who wants to stop fighting wars in the middle east?
I still think that's a bit of a stretch. She's not obligated to say anything if she doesn't want to.

EDIT: Actually, I do disagree on the latter point somewhat. The Khan family rightfully called out a presidential candidate when they though he was inflaming tensions against the Muslim community. But that's not to say that it somehow validates Clinton's support of the war, either.
Quote
Because both rulings pertain to major campaign promises of his, and both were made in the mid 1960s, I am assuming that his team would do their own internal research into the legality of his proposals, which is probably why he singled out the year 1965 in particular in his immigration speech. Now If you think I'm reading to much into this then I'll drop the point, but his campaign slogan is Janus faced, "Make America Great Again" does imply overturning recent developments and a return to earlier historical norms.

As for the pussy tape, he had two years of nonstop media coverage before that, it's up to his lawyers to find something worthy of court among that.
Since he hasn't mentioned that specifically, I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. We'll have to wait and see, though.

I only used the pussy tape as a single example, considering he's made a number of damaging statements over the past 30 years or so. It's not like two years of media coverage ruined his reputation as 'most trusted man in America.'

207
Talk about burying the lede:
Quote
Though the interview was given 16 years ago, it seems Trump hasn’t changed his opinion on the hiring of people in the LGBT community. In fact, Trump has placed openly gay Richard Grenell on his short list of potential candidates for the position of UN Ambassador. If Trump brings Grenell on as U.N. Ambassador, the Gateway Pundit notes that he will become the first president to appoint an openly gay person to his cabinet, marking a huge milestone for LGBT rights in the United States.

Similarly, Trump was the first Republican candidate to have an openly gay individual speak on his behalf at the Republican National Convention. Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel, who is also openly gay, spoke at the RNC in support of Trump.
Fox did it better.

I don't know much about the guy, but I'm glad to see the party is turning around somewhat on its attitudes towards LGBT folks, even if they still want to take away marriages.

208
Serious / Re: MSNBC takes the Red Pill
« on: November 14, 2016, 01:09:05 PM »
Because he would be on the defensive reacting to them, instead of taking the initiative and making everyone react to him.
I feel inclined to disagree. Playing defensive isn't necessarily weak; forcing a retraction or correction with facts on your side is some pretty strong pushback, and can make sure that the issue isn't settled to readers of that publication.

One thing hack reporters LOVE to do is run an article with a damaging headline and flawed premise, then quietly issue a correction at the bottom of the piece where no one will notice. Imagine the reckoning they'd have if the Trump campaign collected and published instances of this happening.

209
Serious / Re: MSNBC takes the Red Pill
« on: November 14, 2016, 01:02:29 PM »
I always used to doubt the "liberal MSM" meme until recently. One of the few perks of this election, for me, is the media being exposed and having to reflect on its behavior. They decided Hillary would be our next President, that Trump didn't have a chance in hell of winning. They ran a rigorous campaign against the guy, with little regard for whether the Claim of the Week™ was even an honest one, or just grasping for straws, while underreporting issues damaging to Hillary such as her leaked emails.
I'm actually currently writing an argumentative essay about this for my College Writing course. I was worried I'd have trouble coming up with enough content from popular sources, but the media meltdown after the election, and the subsequent finger-pointing and self-reflection among the media community has given me a ton of content to make use of.

The point I intend to make is that the for-profit mass media in this country has absolutely failed to keep the public well-informed in a nonpartisan manner. The fact that the media itself has started to agree with that sentiment is very encouraging. My original plan was to avoid any mention of the election at all, but now I feel like it's too relevant to the discussion to leave out.
There's a healthy discussion about the media going on now and I'm glad it's happening.

Quote
for-profit mass media in this country has absolutely failed to keep the public well-informed in a nonpartisan manner.
oh god especially this

You'd think with all the stuff that goes on in the world, the 24/7 news cycle, specifically the cable networks, would be able to find endless new topics to discuss. Instead, we'd get shit like 4 days (I made up that number but it's probably close to being accurate) of "what has 'grab them by the pussy' done to damage Trump's campaign?" (If you don't remember, CNN was particularly obsessed with the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 for a long time, too). I've learned more from 15 minutes on The Intercept than 15 hours of CNN.

I'm a bit more critical of statements of the news and public figures, too. Clinton incessantly made vague claims about WikiLeaks emails maybe being 'altered' to be fake, Donna Brazile claimed this more boldly, but the campaign itself never publicly denied or pointed to falsified emails. A solid link between Trump and Russia was one of the most egregious claims of this election cycle. There were so many variations of that lie that I can't be arsed to dig up all of them. Take any bombshell claim from 'anonymous qualified sources' with a few grains of salt.

210
Serious / Re: MSNBC takes the Red Pill
« on: November 14, 2016, 12:25:06 PM »
I'm digressing here, but I'd also say the Trump campaign didn't respond properly either, at the least--they seemed to prefer revoking press access to events, instead of releasing official statements asking for retractions or corrections. It's bizarre to me that the Trump campaign didn't issue their own fact-checking of sorts, because that would have brought attention to specific instances of bias (Steph Molyneux did a better job of this than the Trump campaign ever did.)
That would give credibility to the meida, and imply that Trump has to answer to them and their demands, which goes against his campaign of running against the system.
I don't to see how setting the record straight by *pointing out the media's bias* is somehow playing into their game.

Pages: 1 ... 567 89 ... 212