Nolgroth Posted October 15, 2016 Report Share Posted October 15, 2016 IIRC Lincoln said something about men with few vices usually having few virtues... found it "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues. Abraham Lincoln Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin161243.html Yeah, well Lincoln can suck it. Either that or I have grossly over inflated my own sense of virtue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted October 15, 2016 Report Share Posted October 15, 2016 That line does make it seem like polite speech isn't one of your virtues. Nolgroth 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 That line does make it seem like polite speech isn't one of your virtues. Why you little....uh, well, if the shoe fits..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 20 women have now stepped forward to publicly relate their sexual assault experiences with Donald Trump. How many Cosby Units is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 20 women have now stepped forward to publicly relate their sexual assault experiences with Donald Trump. How many Cosby Units is that? 0.4 or thereabouts. 5 or 10 more and he's halfway there. He could hit a full CU by Election Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 So the previous DNC is completely corrupt and now the current DNC chairman maybe completely corrupt. Disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 So the previous DNC is completely corrupt and now the current DNC chairman maybe completely corrupt. Disgusting. Rightly, or wrongly, it doesn't matter. I think the media is focused squarely on Trump's women. I've got no pity for Trump, but the WikiLeaks underreporting is disappointing. Especially considering in the past when WikiLeaks released something they were on it like starving dogs. It does give the impression, the media is run blocking for Hillary to get the TD. Not saying it is true, and Trump needs to get everything he deserves, it just seems odd that the media picks now to ignore WikiLeaks. Starlord 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Rightly, or wrongly, it doesn't matter. I think the media is focused squarely on Trump's women. I've got no pity for Trump, but the WikiLeaks underreporting is disappointing. Especially considering in the past when WikiLeaks released something they were on it like starving dogs. It does give the impression, the media is run blocking for Hillary to get the TD. Not saying it is true, and Trump needs to get everything he deserves, it just seems odd that the media picks now to ignore WikiLeaks. Yeah, it is obvious the majority of media is run blocking for Hillary, It is more proof that Sanders never had a chance, and it seems like the BBC is the closest thing I can get to unbiased tv news nowadays. However, given my choices, I still believe I made the right choice in voting for Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Meanwhile, the insanity from the other side continues.... If she tests positive, it won't be too bad. I think under the current policy, Roger Goodell could only suspend her for the first 4 months of her Presidency. If her backup, Kaine, performs well, it would set him up for a big contract when his current deal expires. BoloOfEarth 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Yeah, it is obvious the majority of media is run blocking for Hillary, It is more proof that Sanders never had a chance, and it seems like the BBC is the closest thing I can get to unbiased tv news nowadays. However, given my choices, I still believe I made the right choice in voting for Clinton. I am looking from the outside in here. Now, in the UK, broadcasters have pretty strict rules that they have to follow on political coverage during election periods. I was of the understanding that there were no such rules in the US. Is that right? Each broadcaster can take the position they wish and broadcast on that basis? Or is it that the big networks have rules and others (like FOX) are less constrained? If there are no rules then surely the fact that broadcasters choosing a candidate and "run blocking" is standard operational procedure?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Rightly, or wrongly, it doesn't matter. I think the media is focused squarely on Trump's women. I've got no pity for Trump, but the WikiLeaks underreporting is disappointing. Especially considering in the past when WikiLeaks released something they were on it like starving dogs. It does give the impression, the media is run blocking for Hillary to get the TD. Not saying it is true, and Trump needs to get everything he deserves, it just seems odd that the media picks now to ignore WikiLeaks. Or maybe those starving dogs chewed on the Wikileaks for a while and found it tasteless and lacking in nourishment. Like the law enforcement wallahs have. Or maybe those Wikileaks revelations are just "old news" (one for/from the "Oxymorons" thread ) and they're just in the usual feeding frenzy about the most recent scandal. I get the impression that Clinton's "malfeasances" are "no worse than your run-of-the-mill politician". If you vote for pretty much any politician ever, you're going to be voting for one that has flaws and foibles and has done questionable or possibly incautious things, and things you don't agree with. Trump is simply a whole new level of crazy that most politicians would never have the imagination to approach and if they had some sort of fever dream to come up with the concept, they'd have the "nous" to take some febrifuge, some antacids and a nap, and come back to sanity. Grailknight 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 As things stand, it's looking pretty likely that Trump will win only one demographic group in November: white men. He's on track to lose with both non-college educated and college educated white women, with latinos and Hispanic voters across the board, with African American voters across the board, and other non-white voters across the board. He may win a narrow majority of college educated white males, and is likely to win a super-majority of non-college educated white male voters. White women, Latinos and Hispanics, and non-white voters constitute over 2/3 of the total electorate. Food for thought(and, hopefully, a little deep introspection). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Meanwhile, the insanity from the other side continues.... If she tests positive, it won't be too bad. I think under the current policy, Roger Goodell could only suspend her for the first 4 months of her Presidency. If her backup, Kaine, performs well, it would set him up for a big contract when his current deal expires. I think that the collective bargaining agreement and players association would allow her to appeal the suspension, which wouldn't go into effect until her second term. If past Goodell actions show us anything, it will get reduced to maybe one state of the union by the time the courts finish up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 I am looking from the outside in here. Now, in the UK, broadcasters have pretty strict rules that they have to follow on political coverage during election periods. I was of the understanding that there were no such rules in the US. Is that right? Each broadcaster can take the position they wish and broadcast on that basis? Or is it that the big networks have rules and others (like FOX) are less constrained? If there are no rules then surely the fact that broadcasters choosing a candidate and "run blocking" is standard operational procedure?? Once upon a time, there was something called the Fairness Doctrine, which basically gave the FCC the power to regulate coverage of important issues, and make sure that opposing views were adequately represented. The rules were eliminated by the FCC in 1987, and the language to implement formally removed in 2011. Media companies are now free to be as "fair and balanced" as they want, and most cable news outlets here consist of large blocks of "surrogates" and "experts" talking at each other, and media personalities explaining how the viewer should feel about an issue or event. There is, unsurprisingly, very little actual news gathering, as that represents work on the part of a reporter and money on the part of the organization. Most "news" now consists in large parts of video news releases *, or video sourced from Twitter and Youtube. *Popular especially with local news programs on broadcast stations, a VNR is essentially a prepackaged video piece that is provided by various organizations to influence public opinion, sell products, or promote a person or brand. They often include a script for the reporter to personalize the piece, by performing video inserts or voice-overs. Doc Democracy and Netzilla 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Or maybe those starving dogs chewed on the Wikileaks for a while and found it tasteless and lacking in nourishment. Like the law enforcement wallahs have. Or maybe those Wikileaks revelations are just "old news" (one for/from the "Oxymorons" thread ) and they're just in the usual feeding frenzy about the most recent scandal. I get the impression that Clinton's "malfeasances" are "no worse than your run-of-the-mill politician". If you vote for pretty much any politician ever, you're going to be voting for one that has flaws and foibles and has done questionable or possibly incautious things, and things you don't agree with. Trump is simply a whole new level of crazy that most politicians would never have the imagination to approach and if they had some sort of fever dream to come up with the concept, they'd have the "nous" to take some febrifuge, some antacids and a nap, and come back to sanity. It's a media truism that sex scandals just draw more readers/viewers than data leaks. The latter take time and effort for people to assimilate the details and significance of. (Even people who have been studying the Clinton email scandal for months dispute how significant it is.) Sex scandals are immediately understandable and titillatingly lurid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoloOfEarth Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Soooo... I'm rather PO'd by something that happened today. (I wasn't there to witness it, but my wife told me afterward.) In our church's fellowship hall during coffee hour after Sunday morning services, a man walked up to my wife and another woman and asked, "Are you both joining the group that would rather be groped by Trump than vote for Hillary?" Seriously. My wife was stunned into silence. The other woman standing by her told the guy what he said was completely inappropriate and not at all funny. Probably a good thing I wasn't there to hear him say that, because anything I said or did would have been considerably less Christian than her reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Politics does seem to bring out the worst in some people. I wonder if that dude realizes he's part of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. R Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Soooo... I'm rather PO'd by something that happened today. (I wasn't there to witness it, but my wife told me afterward.) In our church's fellowship hall during coffee hour after Sunday morning services, a man walked up to my wife and another woman and asked, "Are you both joining the group that would rather be groped by Trump than vote for Hillary?" Seriously. My wife was stunned into silence. The other woman standing by her told the guy what he said was completely inappropriate and not at all funny. Probably a good thing I wasn't there to hear him say that, because anything I said or did would have been considerably less Christian than her reaction. Sorry, but after seeing a facebook photo of a woman with a t-shirt that said "Trump can grope my..." and an arrow pointing down, I am not surprised that you may have gotten that question. I may have phrased it differently, but the sentiment is the same! Especially with all the surrogates turning cartwheels to justify it and then villify Hillary for sticking by Bill! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 This is just completely out of line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Or maybe those starving dogs chewed on the Wikileaks for a while and found it tasteless and lacking in nourishment. Like the law enforcement wallahs have. Wikileaks isn't being reported on because there's nothing in there. The speech transcripts are nothing. I think there was a discussion about a speech about the emails that came to nothing. It's clear that the DNC had chosen sides in the primary but that's not news. Shrug. Meanwhile Trump lies every three minutes and says something incredibly offensive or frightening any time he opens his mouth. In public. On camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 Once upon a time, there was something called the Fairness Doctrine, which basically gave the FCC the power to regulate coverage of important issues, and make sure that opposing views were adequately represented. The rules were eliminated by the FCC in 1987, and the language to implement formally removed in 2011. So there should be no expectation of fair press coverage and candidates should have a strategy to get networks on board. Our printed media is overwhelmingly right-leaning and, because our printed media is national, this probably has more weight than US printed media, which tends to have more state based coverage (to my memory). Is the broadcast media usually democrat biased? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Shadow Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 It's like George Carlin said: "When you're born in this world you get a ticket to the Freak Show, and when you're born in America you have a front row seat." aylwin13 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 As things stand, it's looking pretty likely that Trump will win only one demographic group in November: white men. Not THIS white man. aylwin13 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 This is just completely out of line While my disbelief in the better part of human nature comes naturally, this election cycle has really confirmed it beyond any doubt. People are ****tards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assault Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 So there should be no expectation of fair press coverage and candidates should have a strategy to get networks on board. Our printed media is overwhelmingly right-leaning and, because our printed media is national, this probably has more weight than US printed media, which tends to have more state based coverage (to my memory). Is the broadcast media usually democrat biased? My impression is that a "Rupert effect" has kicked in. If Rupert Murdoch and his counterparts think you're a loser, it tends to trickle down through their employees. The Murdoch media in Australia is supremely conservative - but really despises Trump. I'm getting the same vibe from its US counterparts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.