Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,169 Year: 5,426/9,624 Month: 451/323 Week: 91/204 Day: 7/26 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 36 of 5796 (839857)
09-17-2018 8:16 AM


Percy's tip for President was being interviewed on Fox News last week. Thankfully, Fox presented the coverage in a Fair and Balanced way, unlike the liberal Fake News outlets:

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 09-17-2018 8:24 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 94 of 5796 (843005)
11-11-2018 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
11-08-2018 6:44 PM


Re: Did the intern accost Acosta or did he accost her?
Then there are the usual right wing publications, Drudge Report, Front Page Mag, Newsmax, Townhall, Breitbart, Alex Jones and others I'm forgetting.
I've got to be honest, what you consider 'the usual right wing publications' are what I would term 'tabloid sensationalists and the lunatic fringe'. Right-wing journalism, as opposed to clickbait and fabricated nonsense, I would tend to look for in places like the Times (London), Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and National Review.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 11-08-2018 6:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 174 of 5796 (843298)
11-16-2018 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
11-14-2018 9:06 PM


Re: Diamond and Silk censored by Facebook
What the hell did I just watch? Was that some TV presenters being interviewed in Congress about their social media accounts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 11-14-2018 9:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 11-16-2018 3:33 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 184 of 5796 (843330)
11-16-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
11-16-2018 3:33 AM


Re: Diamond and Silk censored by Facebook
I can read on my own computer but can't write. I am on my own computer now. It's hard to copy and paste a whole message letter by letter.
I didn't mean to ask 'why were you posting the video' so much as 'why does the video exist'? As in 'Why on earth is the US congress grilling semi-celebrities on their social media accounts'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 11-16-2018 3:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by JonF, posted 11-16-2018 12:28 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 11-16-2018 6:08 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 243 of 5796 (843567)
11-19-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
11-17-2018 4:24 PM


Re: Acosta’s credentials to be restored - for now
The law matters a great deal to me and this judgment is political twisting of the law. That is wacko that due process is required beyond the clear fact that the man was rude. This is a privilege, not a right, he was out of order.
The original judicial decision that established due process was necessary for revoking a White House press pass was posted by Percy upthread. The journalist in that case, incidentally, was denied his press pass by the Johnson and Carter White Houses. Not everything is a matter of liberal vs conservative.
The White House takes away a press pass; judge notes that according to precedent there are more steps needed to take away a White House press pass. I don't see what's either wacko or liberal about that.
Can't help but feel the whole thing is being made into a bit of an unnecessary mountain. This is hardly a great attack on press freedoms. Trump rarely gives press conferences anyway; and as Robert Sherrill (the journalist whose case set the original precedent) noted when explaining why he never applied for a White House press pass after winning his case:
quote:
I had been in Washington long enough to realize that was the last place to waste your time sitting around for some dumb fuck to give a press conference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 11-17-2018 4:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 11-19-2018 4:02 PM caffeine has replied
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 11-19-2018 4:15 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 257 of 5796 (843740)
11-20-2018 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
11-19-2018 4:02 PM


Re: Acosta’s credentials to be restored - for now
ABE: CAFFEINE: You mention a post of Percy's that refers to a prececent but I can't find it in the voluminous stuff he's written. Please post the exact reference. Thanks.
Percy's original post
The Atlantic article he referenced.
Some detail on the original ruling from a website about US case law

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 11-19-2018 4:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 290 of 5796 (845143)
12-12-2018 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
12-12-2018 1:20 PM


Re: The Gullibility of the Right's Echo Chamber
No. poll 85 Percent for Trump's wall.
I'm not sure if you've left this post as a placeholder and intend to edit it with details later, but if you're remembering some poll reporting 85% of voters being in favour of Trump's wall I've no idea where you got it from.
I found a Pew poll in which 39% said they thought a border wall was very or somewhat important, but that's almost two years old.
A Rasmussen survey from the middle of last year 37% said they thought the wall should be built. Trump traditionally performs better on Ramsussen surveys than the other major polling organisations since they report only the views of those who report themselves 'likely voters'; as opposed to all citizens or all adults as is more common in other firms.
In a poll commissioned by CBS (and carried out by SSRS) earlier this year 35% of respondents favoured building the wall.
According to a Quinnipiac poll earlier this year, 37% of voters support the wall.
The highest support figures for a wall on the US-Mexican border I found in any poll (not an exhaustive search) was a poll commissioned by Fox News back in 2006, in which 50% supported a wall.
If the sources you're restricting yourself to are telling you that 85% of Americans support the building of a border wall, you're not shielding yourself from liberal propaganda - you're shielding yourself from the real world.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
Edited by caffeine, : Somehow made a right mess
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 12-12-2018 1:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 304 of 5796 (845215)
12-13-2018 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Percy
12-13-2018 10:09 AM


Re: The Gullibility of the Right's Echo Chamber
What Trump did, just on the affair coverups alone, is far worse than Bill Clinton. Clinton was legitimately president of the United States. What we're learning now is that Trump likely gained the presidency by fraudulent means. Trump paid to keep information about his affairs from the American people, committing fraud to steal an election. That is just the kind of thing the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors.
This seems to be clutching at straws a little - covering up affairs is hardly 'obtaining the Presidency by fraudulent means'; unless we're taking the view that all lies told during a campaign amount to this. In which case pretty much every politician is guilty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Percy, posted 12-13-2018 10:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Percy, posted 12-13-2018 5:12 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 345 of 5796 (845303)
12-14-2018 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Percy
12-13-2018 5:12 PM


Re: The Gullibility of the Right's Echo Chamber
If you disagree that all this rises to the level of possible impeachable offenses then I won't try to persuade you otherwise.
I don't know the details of American law well enough to comment on whether or not it's legally an impeachable offense. I just think that 'lying to the American people' is de rigeur practice for a politician running for election; and am not seeing the earth-shattering importance that you're attributing to it. It looks more like seeking hard to find technical violations of the law in reaction to the fact that there's a worthless scumbag in the White House.
And if you think it wouldn't have made a difference in the election then consider how it would have played if Daniels and McDougal had gone public about the same time Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.
This is all speculation of course, but I think it would have made the square root of fuck all difference. It has never been a secret that Trump is a philanderer. Those who voted for him either don't consider this important; believe that the importance of the positions they share outweigh any personal failings; or opt for denial and willful blindness to avoid any cognitive dissonance. The accusations of Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels stem from 2011; and resurfaced and were discussed at length in 2016 during the election. What difference did they make?
ABE: It's instructive to note that, while Trump's overall approval rating is low, his approval rating amongst people who voted for him in 2016 is remarkably stable. What difference did it make when Stormy Daniels did go public? As noted, Trump voters either don't care or don't believe - I don't know why you think this would be different at any other time.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Percy, posted 12-13-2018 5:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2018 8:43 AM caffeine has not replied
 Message 348 by Percy, posted 12-14-2018 9:22 AM caffeine has replied
 Message 357 by Taq, posted 12-14-2018 1:32 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 358 of 5796 (845374)
12-15-2018 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Percy
12-14-2018 9:22 AM


Re: The Gullibility of the Right's Echo Chamber
Stormy Daniels story came out after the election when she went public on her own under the advice and guidance of attorney Michael Avenatti.
Stormy Daniels confirmed the allegations after the election. The rumours stem from 2011, and http://thesmokinggun.com/...-1were reported in October 2016. The very Wall Street Journal article which reported on Karen MacDougall's story in November mentioned it.
quote:
Mr. Davidson also represented Stephanie Clifford, a former adult-film star whose professional name is Stormy Daniels and who was in discussions with ABC’s Good Morning America in recent months to publicly disclose what she said was a past relationship with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the talks.
Jacob Weisberg of Slate explained why he didn't bother running with the story.
quote:
Given what was going on in the final weeks of the campaign, during which Trump was facing a torrent of accusations of sexual abuse, I didn't think an extramarital affair would be a highly significant story.
Trump's approval rating is not a rock solid number that never varies - it varies within a narrow margin. It was at 42.5% on November 23, relatively high for him, but it's been as low as 36.5%. Whatever the magnitude of the effect would have been of two women going public about affairs in the days before the election, it would have been negative. Trump's total margin in the critical states totaled 70,000 votes, which is only 0.05% of total votes cast for Trump and Clinton. Note that that is 0.05%, not 0.05 of the vote. It's a miniscule number dwarfed by the number of votes that would have been affected by such news.
I wasn't talking about his overall approval rating. I was talking about his support amongst those who voted for him in 2016, which is considerably less than 36,5% of the electorate. I'm unable to find where I got this from though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Percy, posted 12-14-2018 9:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Percy, posted 12-15-2018 9:16 AM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 510 of 5796 (847079)
01-17-2019 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by PaulK
01-15-2019 5:18 PM


Re: May and Brexit Suffer a Major Blow
You forgot the xenophobia. Trump went for Mexicans, the Brexiteers for Eastern Europeans.
Oh, and the lying.
And the use of social media.
And very likely Russian manipulation.
The parallels between the referendum and Trump’s election are quite strong.
I think people overanalyse the referendum result in a lot of ways. One of the best predictors of someone's vote in the referendum was wealth. The less money someone had, the more likely they were to vote Leave.
People whose lives were comfortable tended to vote to keep on as we are. People who were struggling economically voted for change. I think it's pretty much as simple as that.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2019 5:18 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2019 8:00 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 542 of 5796 (847365)
01-21-2019 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by Percy
01-21-2019 2:55 PM


Re: Media silence on murders by illegals, and a couple of fake news reports too
Given that the story is still on the front pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times, the story has not died.
I can't help but feel that this is a problem. I haven't followed the details of this story so I don't know all the facts; but it appears to be a story about some children being mean to someone.
All this argument about whether the children really were mean or not seems to me to be missing the more important point - if this is a major story in serious, national newspapers; then you have a deeply dysfunctional press. Using longer words and more complex sentence structure to cover exactly the same sort of clickbait as a crappy, sensationalist shitrag does not make you a respectable newspaper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by Percy, posted 01-21-2019 2:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Faith, posted 01-23-2019 4:37 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 645 of 5796 (847695)
01-25-2019 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by Faith
01-23-2019 4:37 AM


Re: Dangerous media smears of innocent boys
Faith writes:
I really don't know what point you are trying to make here.
I was trying to make the point Phat made a bit later:
Phat writes:
Its a non-story whipped up into a story by an overzealous media.
except I wouldn't say 'overzealous', I'd say 'venal'. This is, as Phat says, a total non-event. I could not give two short shits who was in the right or the wrong here; since I can't see how it matters. What happened here is that some children and an old man had a disagreement. Maybe some or all of the parties involved behaved inappropriately - who knows, and who the fuck cares? No one got hurt. It's not international news; it's not national news; it's not even local news. It's something that happened somewhere.
And yet, it's full of button-pushing, buzzword triggers for people on various sides of the political spectrum, and this is why the media seized on it. It's a petty way to generate revenue without wasting time or expense on journalism. There's no work involved into making it a story; you just chuck it out there, like throwing red meat to a bunch of wolves, and watch the internet explode while people rant and foam in pathetic partisan outrage.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
Edited by caffeine, : Somehow there was a word missing in the middle there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by Faith, posted 01-23-2019 4:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 01-25-2019 4:08 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 646 of 5796 (847696)
01-25-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 631 by Percy
01-24-2019 6:13 PM


Re: Fox News Has the Latest Poll
The left does not believe we should move away from capitalism
Of course there are people who believe we should move away from capitalism. If those people are not part of 'the left' then I have no idea what that term is meant to refer to. A quarter of the respondents to the Fox poll said yes; while more than a third did the previous time they asked it.
'The left' doesn't have beliefs, on account of being a very broad and ill-defined political category made up of millions of very different people with very different political viewpoints.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by Percy, posted 01-24-2019 6:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by Percy, posted 01-25-2019 7:32 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 723 of 5796 (847855)
01-28-2019 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 678 by Percy
01-25-2019 7:32 PM


Re: Fox News Has the Latest Poll
You're defining "the left" in a very broad sense and then insisting that it can only be used in that sense.
'The left' without qualification is a very broad sense. I'm nor insisting it can only be used in that way, but if you're using a narrower context, such as 'the left of the US Congress' then it would help to specify.
That's not at all true. In the context of that poll question and of this thread's backdrop of the current political debate between Democrats and Republicans in Washington, "the left" refers to those in favor of things like affordable healthcare for all, a fiscally healthy social security system, a social safety net, regulations supporting a clean environment and action on climate change, etc. I suppose that to varying degrees these can be interpreted as a move toward socialism, but not as a move away from capitalism.
Well, this seems to be a regular question on the Fox News poll which they'd asked repeatedly over the past decade; rather than just being something related to current political debate. And the answers seem to suggest that 'moving away from capitalism' is not just a weird fringe opinion. Quite a few Americans seem to like the suggestion; with the highest response in favour being the 36% who said it would be a good thing on the 2018 survey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by Percy, posted 01-25-2019 7:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 01-28-2019 5:13 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024