From what I saw they didn't go into much detail or time (I could be wrong), they won't go up against central banking which is a communist idea so there is still set intrests. The online sources/media covered the emails a lot better, and other things). Hillary is a puppet that represents a whole bunch of people and set interests including the owners of the media. Trump has his own money and not bought off from places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar which Wikileaks has shown have connections to ISIS and not sure if fox gave that much... I guess looking from it from an anarchists view the right and left are sorta similar and elements of each can be found in both sides.
@Rodyle
It's so easy to pass stuff off, not look into and not come up with an argument, when its from sources like that...
And the bias, I think its more to do with the same people that donate to Hillary own the media. There will be a cultural marxism agenda they want to push to bring the people closer to communism while they laugh and rule above. These protests are protesting democracy, they are communist protesters, these were the Hillary voters the liberals stirred on by the bias media.
From what I saw they didn't go into much detail or time (I could be wrong), they won't go up against central banking which is a communist idea so there is still set intrests. The online sources/media covered the emails a lot better, and other things). Hillary is a puppet that represents a whole bunch of people and set interests including the owners of the media. Trump has his own money and not bought off from places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar which Wikileaks has shown have connections to ISIS and not sure if fox gave that much... I guess looking from it from an anarchists view the right and left are sorta similar and elements of each can be found in both sides.
@Rodyle
It's so easy to pass stuff off, not look into and not come up with an argument, when its from sources like that...
And the bias, I think its more to do with the same people that donate to Hillary own the media. There will be a cultural marxism agenda they want to push to bring the people closer to communism while they laugh and rule above. These protests are protesting democracy, they are communist protesters, these were the Hillary voters the liberals stirred on by the bias media.
They aren't protesting democracy. If this was a direct democracy Trump wouldn't even have won. They're protesting because people are scared, and worried, because Trump has pretty much pushed things to even more polarized than it already has been, and he's done nothing to make the people who didn't vote for him feel relaxed. It's a vast, vast, oversimplification of what's going on if that's what you think is going on.
@Lithl
It's so easy to pass stuff off, not look into and not come up with an argument, when its from sources like that...
And the bias, I think its more to do with the same people that donate to Hillary own the media. There will be a cultural marxism agenda they want to push to bring the people closer to communism while they laugh and rule above. These protests are protesting democracy, they are communist protesters, these were the Hillary voters the liberals stirred on by the bias media.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but how is this not standard conspiracy theory BS, especially without any sources?
They aren't protesting democracy. If this was a direct democracy Trump wouldn't even have won.
I don't think the term "direct democracy" means what you think it means. Secondly, it's not even true: not all votes were counted, since the delegates were already set. Almost 10% of the votes weren't counted, last time I checked. Furthermore, a lead of 200K votes can't be called a net win when it's only 0.2% of votes, and as I mentioned before, a large amount of votes hasn't been counted yet. It's no statistically significant difference. Lastly, it's a completely moot point. The US system uses delegates and has always done so.
They're protesting because people are scared, and worried, because Trump has pretty much pushed things to even more polarized than it already has been, and he's done nothing to make the people who didn't vote for him feel relaxed. It's a vast, vast, oversimplification of what's going on if that's what you think is going on.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter why they're protesting. All that matters is that by doing so they're undermining the foundations on which a democracy is built.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter why they're protesting. All that matters is that by doing so they're undermining the foundations on which a democracy is built.
There's a key distinction to make here. I'm sure some of them really are hoping in their wishful hearts that they can change the results of the election by protesting hard enough. That is anti-democratic, to say nothing of futile. But others acknowledge that Trump won, and are demonstrating to show that they're not happy about it. That's a part of the democratic process, fundamental enough to be our very First Amendment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Can you please explain how Wikileaks is a bad source instead of passing it off as conspiracy. They get information from whistle blowers that worked in the department. There is talk about Trump giving Julian a Pardon.
But yeah on liberal bias, you can tell it in the way the talk and argue (Or rather don't argue lol). It is always about the person not the facts or evidence. This is what so much of the media focused on Trump was his character, which was mostly made up BS anyways.
@BS
Call them for conspiracy for now. Did I say Jewish??? I might say Zionist or Satanic. But yeah BS our current resident assumist going for character attacks. lol, not much has changed. Would hardly call myself a resident here, too much leftie bias haha. I would almost say there is a left conspiracy controlling these forums. Or at least most of the moderaters would be left. Just checking in after the Trump victory, cause he sorta exposed some of this. There is talk of him re-opening the 9/11 case... so maybe we will see how much of conspiracy compares to real life compared to the government story. Maybe he will go after Saudi Arabia, and the media have said that it is an inside job http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/22/saudi-press-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror/ . Its just so easy to use that conspiracy word to attack someone or be ignorant to an argument.
@Rodyle
But yeah on liberal bias, you can tell it in the way the talk and argue (Or rather don't argue lol). It is always about the person not the facts or evidence. This is what so much of the media focused on Trump was his character, which was mostly made up BS anyways.
Easy to say.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, we need a practical definition of bias and objective standard of measurement.
Any other method of determining bias is going to be riddled with concerns of its own bias.
Can you please explain how Wikileaks is a bad source instead of passing it off as conspiracy. They get information from whistle blowers that worked in the department. There is talk about Trump giving Julian a Pardon.
Who was the whistle-blower for the the Clinton emails? Because the Russian government wasn't working in the Clinton department. Wikileaks is a bad source of information because of their selective releasing and decontextualizing information. We honestly don't know what is or is not true from Wikileaks, but we do know that Asange has admitted to being anti-Hillary, promising that every email dump woul dbe the one to do her in, only to find out yes the latest one was yawn-worthy as well.
Just checking in after the Trump victory, cause he sorta exposed some of this. There is talk of him re-opening the 9/11 case... so maybe we will see how much of conspiracy compares to real life compared to the government story. Maybe he will go after Saudi Arabia, and the media have said that it is an inside job http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/22/saudi-press-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror/ . Its just so easy to use that conspiracy word to attack someone or be ignorant to an argument.
You mean like he had those shocking revelations about birth records in Hawaii? Or how he's going to jail Hillary? For a guy who believes in conspiracies, it's a little surprising you can't believe that your leader is lying to you.
Can you please explain how Wikileaks is a bad source instead of passing it off as conspiracy. They get information from whistle blowers that worked in the department. There is talk about Trump giving Julian a Pardon.
Normally at this point I'd go after the utter lack of factual accountability in any statement that begins "There is talk...", but I don't have to here. Even if it's a blue moon and the unsourced "talk" is actually correct about Trump wanting to pardon Assange, the President of the United States has no power of pardon over the Swedish justice system.
Can you please explain how Wikileaks is a bad source instead of passing it off as conspiracy. They get information from whistle blowers that worked in the department. There is talk about Trump giving Julian a Pardon.
Normally at this point I'd go after the utter lack of factual accountability in any statement that begins "There is talk...", but I don't have to here. Even if it's a blue moon and the unsourced "talk" is actually correct about Trump wanting to pardon Assange, the President of the United States has no power of pardon over the Swedish justice system.
Well Trump thinks he can make decisions about which diplomats foreign countrys use to fill out there missions and embassies so he might be taking the leader of the free world title a little to seriously.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Just checking in after the Trump victory, cause he sorta exposed some of this. There is talk of him re-opening the 9/11 case... so maybe we will see how much of conspiracy compares to real life compared to the government story. Maybe he will go after Saudi Arabia, and the media have said that it is an inside job http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/22/saudi-press-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror/ . Its just so easy to use that conspiracy word to attack someone or be ignorant to an argument.
You mean like he had those shocking revelations about birth records in Hawaii? Or how he's going to jail Hillary? For a guy who believes in conspiracies, it's a little surprising you can't believe that your leader is lying to you.
Not my leader, I am my own leader k tkz :), If you are in the US he is your leader now ahhaha. And yeah they all lie... But Who says I believe in conspiracies? Is that going against the government/media narrative? Then maybe, depends on the situation, I like to look at things with an open mind and from many sources rather than just the government/media.
But here yous still going with the character attacks, and conspiricy labeling, rather than make and progress. Always the same zzzzz.
Ron Paul has put a list together of the media that had worked with Hillary . She was even given some of the questions ahead of the debates... That is bias right there. Helping Hillary out while attacking Trump.
Can you please explain how Wikileaks is a bad source instead of passing it off as conspiracy. They get information from whistle blowers that worked in the department.
And since you's quoted the whole 3 sentences, and only rebutted the last. (It doesn't mean you have rebutted the whole.) How about you guys try and explain how Wikileaks is a bad source and conspiracy instead of resorting to usual character attacks (diversion)!! HAHAHAHA /why even bother, so bad to 'debate' here.
Edit: It's funny how lefties and the media don't want justice for Hillary's actions... This is another Bias!
Some of the media is turning trying to get back in Trumps good books. Tim Allen has came out and sad the media was using bulling tactics on Trump and his supporters. I don't know how long you lefties can keep your head in the sand for...
I like to look at things with an open mind and from many sources rather than just the government/media.
You know that "media" just means "all sources of news and commentary", right? There is no one "media": the word is literally plural. Any source you look at, no matter what dark corner of the internet in which you find it, is by definition "media". Breitbart and Infowars, for instance, are two media outlets that are openly and staunchly pro-Trump.
How about you guys try and explain how Wikileaks is a bad source and conspiracy instead of resorting to usual character attacks (diversion)!!
As has already been explained on this thread, Julian Assange, who is the founder and leader of Wikileaks, has stated outright that he is strongly anti-Clinton and was selectively releasing information with the intent of sinking her campaign.
Some of the media is turning trying to get back in Trumps good books. Tim Allen has came out and sad the media was using bulling tactics on Trump and his supporters.
What are you trying to prove? Assuming for the sake of argument that what Tim Allen says is correct (not that there is any evidence to be seen here that this is the case), how does the media bullying Trump supporters constitute "trying to get back in Trump's good books"? And what would the media "trying to get back into Trump's good books" prove, except that they're not so biased against the man?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
no matter what dark corner of the internet in which you find it
"dark corner" being an ad hominem attack, but yeah still like looking through Youtube/Dark Corner....
Breitbart and Infowars
Yeah still lots lots more to consider.
has stated outright that he is strongly anti-Clinton and was selectively releasing information with the intent of sinking her campaign.
Still does not mean it was a bad source, the source was Hillary herself. We probably need another debate thread to go through all the Wikileaks stuff. But still going for the diversion tactic to disprove Wikileaks as reputable source.
the President-Elect has ruled out appointing a special prosecutor to (re)investigate Hillary Clinton, and in fact said that the Clintons are "good people" and that he doesn't want to hurt them?
So because Trump doesn't want to prosecute her any more that makes her actions legal and moral?
What are you trying to prove?
Like the topic states, there is a liberal/globalist bias in the bought off media.
@Rodyle
But yeah on liberal bias, you can tell it in the way the talk and argue (Or rather don't argue lol). It is always about the person not the facts or evidence. This is what so much of the media focused on Trump was his character, which was mostly made up BS anyways.
Easy to say.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, we need a practical definition of bias and objective standard of measurement.
Any other method of determining bias is going to be riddled with concerns of its own bias.
Bias: Pro-Hillary, anti-Trump. How to measure... The time the media spends on anti-Trump propaganda compared to pro-Hellary. Or Liberal bias.
*side thought: as if we don't know the media is bought off and a part of the establishment. A lot of Bernie supporters would have understood this. It is all owned and controlled. The reason for Trumps victory was because of freer media, the likes of youtube, Reddit, Wikileaks... and others. Trump will probably be part of the system and not change much. The only thing I can see is going to war with Saudi... but I am against all wars, and rather people not be slaves to the state. I ran for Liberal Democrats in Australia, but quit them because they were not Anti-war enough, and was ashamed in the party/system when they could not stand up to the "accidental" bombing of the Syrian army, in which ISIS immediately made ground... The whole system is a sham about control.
P.S. You guys take a lot more of the quote than you are responding to... Like disproving one sentience disproves the whole paragraph without having to respond to it... But I guess it's all recorded on the internet so you can come back and look at it one day..... maybe..... lol....
Bias: Pro-Hillary, anti-Trump. How to measure... The time the media spends on anti-Trump propaganda compared to pro-Hellary. Or Liberal bias.
So you're defining bias as pro-Hillary/anti-Trump. (And that's clearly wrong, because bias could be pro-Trump.) And you're measuring bias by the time the media spends on 'anti-Trump propaganda'. Leaving aside the point that 'anti-Trump propaganda' is mainly either quoting him or saying what he did, here's the thing. Often, the media reports on what's news. If Clinton pats a puppy, and Trump self-deals with his 'charity' foundation, or settles (he never settles) his Trump University lawsuit, what Trump's doing is more interesting and therefore more reported.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
What’s being said is that a balanced view from the media (collectively, in the plural) comes from a viewer’s own sampling of diverse sources now, not a pretense to an unbiased viewpoint from any individual outlet. HuffPost, so on, know that they are left-leaning, make sure it’s plain in their editor’s notes, and all their readers know it’s a left-leaning outlet. Just like Fox News and its viewers know that the slogan “fair and balanced” just means that the outlet is not left-leaning.
Specifically WikiLeaks, the founder came out declaring himself against the Hillary campaign and stating that the news was intended to be released at the optimal timing to hurt her campaign. That’s the definition of bias.
So if you aim is to prove that the media (again, collectively) has liberal bias just by pointing to one outlet, you’re not really going anywhere. All that does is make a case for how that one outlet is biased. Just like what so and so said (Tim Allen, John Stewart, etc) said about someone being biased. All it does is make the case that the specific person and instance they were talking about expressed bias. It does not show that “Hollywood” or “the media” is a monolith of unified, left-leaning opinion, and conspire with one another on a daily basis to align their message.
So in the end, big deal. People are biased. Show me someone who isn’t, and I’ll show you someone who’s been living in a bunker for the last 20 years.
Look at all the right-wing media outlets who complained that Facebook discriminated against them by not letting fake news in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
@Rodyle
But yeah on liberal bias, you can tell it in the way the talk and argue (Or rather don't argue lol). It is always about the person not the facts or evidence. This is what so much of the media focused on Trump was his character, which was mostly made up BS anyways.
Easy to say.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, we need a practical definition of bias and objective standard of measurement.
Any other method of determining bias is going to be riddled with concerns of its own bias.
Bias: Pro-Hillary, anti-Trump. How to measure... The time the media spends on anti-Trump propaganda compared to pro-Hellary. Or Liberal bias.
So bias can't be anti-Hillary or pro-Trump?
You still need to produce differentiation between biased and non biased information. Time taken by biased information is also an incomplete measure. It does not take into account the ammount of biased information actually contained in that time or how biased that information actually is.
And then you neec to consider omission bias where relevant information is excluded not misleading information included. And you need to measure the ammount of bias there as compared to inclusion bias and by measure I mean quantify.
Then you'll need to develop controls to account for factors inherent to all journalism that could produce bias in the information that is not in the process.
Then you'll need to appy this methodology to the content of at least a hundred news networks content over the course over months or years of this election cycle.
no matter what dark corner of the internet in which you find it
"dark corner" being an ad hominem attack
That's not an ad hominem attack. And, as discussed recently (I honestly forget which of the currently active threads in this forum it was), an ad hominem attack is not necessarily an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
So if you acknowledge that these sources and "lots lots more" are part of the media, does it make any sense to view the media as a singular, monolithic entity with a bias one way or the other?
Still does not mean it was a bad source, the source was Hillary herself.
And what's the source on all the "anti-Trump propaganda" you're complaining about? Nobody in the news media made up "grab 'em by the *****" -- it came straight out of Trump's mouth. What ought journalists to have done? Suppress the story because it made Trump look bad? How would that have been conduct becoming a free and unbiased press?
But still going for the diversion tactic to disprove Wikileaks as reputable source.
"Diversion tactic" is not a magic phrase you can invoke to dismiss any argument you don't like. Source criticism is a very important element of critical thinking. You're even doing it yourself in a rudimentary fashion. If a real, concrete, and specific admission by a media figure of biased reporting can be dismissed as a "diversion tactic", then your own generalized and unsupported accusations that "the media" are "bought off" must surely be even more so.
So because Trump doesn't want to prosecute her any more that makes her actions legal and moral?
No, because Trump doesn't want to prosecute her any more, that makes it rather silly to say that not wanting to prosecute her is evidence of liberal bias. What makes her actions legal and moral to the best of our knowledge is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and the fact that she is one of the most frequently and intensely investigated human beings on the planet and yet has never been convicted or even indicted. Might Clinton still have some skeletons in her closet? Sure. But the onus is on her accusers to prove it.
Bias: Pro-Hillary, anti-Trump. How to measure... The time the media spends on anti-Trump propaganda compared to pro-Hellary. Or Liberal bias.
Okay. Define "anti-Trump propaganda" as opposed to "legitimate reporting on things Trump has said and actions he has performed which reflect poorly on him". Then quantify the time spent on that, break it down by news outlet, and come back to us with some numbers.
P.S. You guys take a lot more of the quote than you are responding to... Like disproving one sentience disproves the whole paragraph without having to respond to it... But I guess it's all recorded on the internet so you can come back and look at it one day..... maybe..... lol....
You say this like you've been assiduously responding to every objection presented to you, when a brief perusal of this thread (to say nothing of your past performances) will suffice to show this is not the case. So maybe you shouldn't be the one to cast the first stone about selective response.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I get where he's coming from. Day after day for months, it has only been (in no specific order)
Trump did bad thing
Trump losing polls
Five reasons Trump won't win
Trump meet with these other people - that's bad.
Trumps plans for trade agree ment - that's bad.
How Trump's plan can hurt insurance companies
How Trump's plan can hurt minorities.
Five more reasons Trump won't win.
Trump other tweet bad.
How Trump's plan is just... bad. (if there was one, lol)
Trump apoint person - that's bad
TRUMP WENT TO DINNER AND DIDN'T TELL US. THAT IS BAD
AND HE WON
This is still occuring almost... twice thrice a day now on the front page of MSN? We're almost at the point where the media is working hard to FIND things to keep it going. Like they are clearly, obviously out to get em.
And every time the crap storm in the other thread is renewed, as the crap circles the internet.
You are asking to review over a years worth of news, post how they portray said bias, and then also prove or disprove whether they are wrong. Being the debate forum, that is understandable. But must he really do that to convey this same idea?
Its not limited to Trump.
How many articles have I read in the past few years "the suspect was black, and the officer was white." You will never, ever read "suspect was white and the officer was black." or "the suspect was black and the officer was black." They simply don't post the race of people involved otherwise. I firmly believe the AP actually contributes to racial tensions in America by doing this.
However all that said, @Typhoon don't always view this as "liberal bias". Think about it - if you were in charge of a news outlet your goal would be to attain as many clicks, reads and shares as possible. Whats currently trending and what do people tend to click on? DRAMA. ANGER. SHOCKING NEWS. CONTROVERSY.
Edit: And remember, they did the same thing to Obama around the clock (especially regarding national deficit and obamacare), and would always find a photo of him mid-syllable, so that he looked as sad and pathetic as possible.
And that's what they feed people. TBH, taking breaks from it creates a much less stressful work day.
At least someone can admit it. I guess its hard to admit a liberal bias when your a liberal. And arguing with liberals about liberalism bias is a merry-go-round haha.
@DJK3654
So bias can't be anti-Hillary or pro-Trump?
Yes, but we are talking about Liberal Bias...
You still need to produce differentiation between biased and non biased information.
You like making things hard, you can't come up with your own differentiation? Why do I "NEED" to do this?
It's not hard to work out. Something pro-Hillary would be not mentioning her emails on the news, some news stations gave 6 seconds for Wikileaks compared to 10 min of anti-Trump propaganda, such as the fake sex assaults that the news and Hillary's campaign made up. (Trump confronted her in the 3rd debate about this and she did not deny it.)
@Blinking Spirit
does it make any sense to view the media as a singular, monolithic entity with a bias one way or the other?
You could talk about the 6 main parent companies that own most of the media. That broadcasts to the public.
And what's the source on all the "anti-Trump propaganda" you're complaining about?
Can we just talk about Hillary without mentioning Trump for a second. Hillary has admitted that the emails were here's and not made up but stolen illegally.
Trump may have said that in a private conversation, but has not done anything like the media made up the sexual assault cases, nobody has taken Trump to court over these. There was a woman in a night club 20 years ago, got her ass grabbed and when she turned around she might have saw someone that looked like Trump...
Where as Hillary Clinton shamed the girls that were coming out against her Husband Bill. The media did not report this. Or the 6 parent company controlled media did not report this.
"Diversion tactic" is not a magic phrase you can invoke to dismiss any argument you don't like
Well can we just agree that the Emails are from Hillary and that Wikileaks is a repeatable source, since even Hillary has admitted that they were stolen illegally from her illegal email server.
You say this like you've been assiduously responding to every objection presented to you, when a brief perusal of this thread (to say nothing of your past performances) will suffice to show this is not the case. So maybe you shouldn't be the one to cast the first stone about selective response.
I say it "like" that do I... that's not an argument. I just have to wait for a decent argument to make its way out through all the liberal word tricks and diversion tactics. It's "like": Check out Hillary's emails.... But Trump said "grab *****". I can't argue with this. sorry, just gets me angry putting up with this stuff.
In my opinion there is a Liberal bias in the Main Stream media that is owned by the 6 parent companies, that feed propaganda to the general American public.
And you need to compare that to republican bias or your data is not complete to make the claims you are making to the degree we are talking here.
You still need to produce differentiation between biased and non biased information.
You like making things hard, you can't come up with your own differentiation? Why do I "NEED" to do this?
You are the one making claims. I am the one being the skeptic.
You NEED to do this if you want to make claims about the bias in the media that are not only strong but broad reaching and very important.
If you all you want to say is the mainstream media were pretty biased against Trump, I won't take issue. That's a reasonable assessment and is probably true.
If you really want to dig into this any further though, then we need scientific level studies on this because this is something science is involved in.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
From what I saw they didn't go into much detail or time (I could be wrong), they won't go up against central banking which is a communist idea so there is still set intrests. The online sources/media covered the emails a lot better, and other things). Hillary is a puppet that represents a whole bunch of people and set interests including the owners of the media. Trump has his own money and not bought off from places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar which Wikileaks has shown have connections to ISIS and not sure if fox gave that much... I guess looking from it from an anarchists view the right and left are sorta similar and elements of each can be found in both sides.
@Rodyle
It's so easy to pass stuff off, not look into and not come up with an argument, when its from sources like that...
And the bias, I think its more to do with the same people that donate to Hillary own the media. There will be a cultural marxism agenda they want to push to bring the people closer to communism while they laugh and rule above. These protests are protesting democracy, they are communist protesters, these were the Hillary voters the liberals stirred on by the bias media.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
... You're wrong. You are completely wrong.
They aren't protesting democracy. If this was a direct democracy Trump wouldn't even have won. They're protesting because people are scared, and worried, because Trump has pretty much pushed things to even more polarized than it already has been, and he's done nothing to make the people who didn't vote for him feel relaxed. It's a vast, vast, oversimplification of what's going on if that's what you think is going on.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but how is this not standard conspiracy theory BS, especially without any sources?
I don't think the term "direct democracy" means what you think it means. Secondly, it's not even true: not all votes were counted, since the delegates were already set. Almost 10% of the votes weren't counted, last time I checked. Furthermore, a lead of 200K votes can't be called a net win when it's only 0.2% of votes, and as I mentioned before, a large amount of votes hasn't been counted yet. It's no statistically significant difference. Lastly, it's a completely moot point. The US system uses delegates and has always done so.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter why they're protesting. All that matters is that by doing so they're undermining the foundations on which a democracy is built.
There's a key distinction to make here. I'm sure some of them really are hoping in their wishful hearts that they can change the results of the election by protesting hard enough. That is anti-democratic, to say nothing of futile. But others acknowledge that Trump won, and are demonstrating to show that they're not happy about it. That's a part of the democratic process, fundamental enough to be our very First Amendment.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Can you please explain how Wikileaks is a bad source instead of passing it off as conspiracy. They get information from whistle blowers that worked in the department. There is talk about Trump giving Julian a Pardon.
But yeah on liberal bias, you can tell it in the way the talk and argue (Or rather don't argue lol). It is always about the person not the facts or evidence. This is what so much of the media focused on Trump was his character, which was mostly made up BS anyways.
@BS
Call them for conspiracy for now. Did I say Jewish??? I might say Zionist or Satanic. But yeah BS our current resident assumist going for character attacks. lol, not much has changed. Would hardly call myself a resident here, too much leftie bias haha. I would almost say there is a left conspiracy controlling these forums. Or at least most of the moderaters would be left. Just checking in after the Trump victory, cause he sorta exposed some of this. There is talk of him re-opening the 9/11 case... so maybe we will see how much of conspiracy compares to real life compared to the government story. Maybe he will go after Saudi Arabia, and the media have said that it is an inside job http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/22/saudi-press-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror/ . Its just so easy to use that conspiracy word to attack someone or be ignorant to an argument.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Easy to say.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, we need a practical definition of bias and objective standard of measurement.
Any other method of determining bias is going to be riddled with concerns of its own bias.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
QED.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well Trump thinks he can make decisions about which diplomats foreign countrys use to fill out there missions and embassies so he might be taking the leader of the free world title a little to seriously.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Not my leader, I am my own leader k tkz :), If you are in the US he is your leader now ahhaha. And yeah they all lie... But Who says I believe in conspiracies? Is that going against the government/media narrative? Then maybe, depends on the situation, I like to look at things with an open mind and from many sources rather than just the government/media.
But here yous still going with the character attacks, and conspiricy labeling, rather than make and progress. Always the same zzzzz.
Ron Paul has put a list together of the media that had worked with Hillary . She was even given some of the questions ahead of the debates... That is bias right there. Helping Hillary out while attacking Trump.
And since you's quoted the whole 3 sentences, and only rebutted the last. (It doesn't mean you have rebutted the whole.) How about you guys try and explain how Wikileaks is a bad source and conspiracy instead of resorting to usual character attacks (diversion)!! HAHAHAHA /why even bother, so bad to 'debate' here.
Edit: It's funny how lefties and the media don't want justice for Hillary's actions... This is another Bias!
Some of the media is turning trying to get back in Trumps good books. Tim Allen has came out and sad the media was using bulling tactics on Trump and his supporters. I don't know how long you lefties can keep your head in the sand for...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/22/tim-allen-calls-hollywood-hypocritical-for-bullyin/
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
As has already been explained on this thread, Julian Assange, who is the founder and leader of Wikileaks, has stated outright that he is strongly anti-Clinton and was selectively releasing information with the intent of sinking her campaign.
If that's a bias, it's one shared by Donald Trump. Or have none of your "many sources" informed you that the President-Elect has ruled out appointing a special prosecutor to (re)investigate Hillary Clinton, and in fact said that the Clintons are "good people" and that he doesn't want to hurt them?
What are you trying to prove? Assuming for the sake of argument that what Tim Allen says is correct (not that there is any evidence to be seen here that this is the case), how does the media bullying Trump supporters constitute "trying to get back in Trump's good books"? And what would the media "trying to get back into Trump's good books" prove, except that they're not so biased against the man?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"dark corner" being an ad hominem attack, but yeah still like looking through Youtube/Dark Corner....
Yeah still lots lots more to consider.
Still does not mean it was a bad source, the source was Hillary herself. We probably need another debate thread to go through all the Wikileaks stuff. But still going for the diversion tactic to disprove Wikileaks as reputable source.
So because Trump doesn't want to prosecute her any more that makes her actions legal and moral?
Like the topic states, there is a liberal/globalist bias in the bought off media.
Bias: Pro-Hillary, anti-Trump. How to measure... The time the media spends on anti-Trump propaganda compared to pro-Hellary. Or Liberal bias.
*side thought: as if we don't know the media is bought off and a part of the establishment. A lot of Bernie supporters would have understood this. It is all owned and controlled. The reason for Trumps victory was because of freer media, the likes of youtube, Reddit, Wikileaks... and others. Trump will probably be part of the system and not change much. The only thing I can see is going to war with Saudi... but I am against all wars, and rather people not be slaves to the state. I ran for Liberal Democrats in Australia, but quit them because they were not Anti-war enough, and was ashamed in the party/system when they could not stand up to the "accidental" bombing of the Syrian army, in which ISIS immediately made ground... The whole system is a sham about control.
P.S. You guys take a lot more of the quote than you are responding to... Like disproving one sentience disproves the whole paragraph without having to respond to it... But I guess it's all recorded on the internet so you can come back and look at it one day..... maybe..... lol....
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Specifically WikiLeaks, the founder came out declaring himself against the Hillary campaign and stating that the news was intended to be released at the optimal timing to hurt her campaign. That’s the definition of bias.
So if you aim is to prove that the media (again, collectively) has liberal bias just by pointing to one outlet, you’re not really going anywhere. All that does is make a case for how that one outlet is biased. Just like what so and so said (Tim Allen, John Stewart, etc) said about someone being biased. All it does is make the case that the specific person and instance they were talking about expressed bias. It does not show that “Hollywood” or “the media” is a monolith of unified, left-leaning opinion, and conspire with one another on a daily basis to align their message.
So in the end, big deal. People are biased. Show me someone who isn’t, and I’ll show you someone who’s been living in a bunker for the last 20 years.
On phasing:
So bias can't be anti-Hillary or pro-Trump?
You still need to produce differentiation between biased and non biased information. Time taken by biased information is also an incomplete measure. It does not take into account the ammount of biased information actually contained in that time or how biased that information actually is.
And then you neec to consider omission bias where relevant information is excluded not misleading information included. And you need to measure the ammount of bias there as compared to inclusion bias and by measure I mean quantify.
Then you'll need to develop controls to account for factors inherent to all journalism that could produce bias in the information that is not in the process.
Then you'll need to appy this methodology to the content of at least a hundred news networks content over the course over months or years of this election cycle.
Have you done that? No?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
And what's the source on all the "anti-Trump propaganda" you're complaining about? Nobody in the news media made up "grab 'em by the *****" -- it came straight out of Trump's mouth. What ought journalists to have done? Suppress the story because it made Trump look bad? How would that have been conduct becoming a free and unbiased press?
"Diversion tactic" is not a magic phrase you can invoke to dismiss any argument you don't like. Source criticism is a very important element of critical thinking. You're even doing it yourself in a rudimentary fashion. If a real, concrete, and specific admission by a media figure of biased reporting can be dismissed as a "diversion tactic", then your own generalized and unsupported accusations that "the media" are "bought off" must surely be even more so.
No, because Trump doesn't want to prosecute her any more, that makes it rather silly to say that not wanting to prosecute her is evidence of liberal bias. What makes her actions legal and moral to the best of our knowledge is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and the fact that she is one of the most frequently and intensely investigated human beings on the planet and yet has never been convicted or even indicted. Might Clinton still have some skeletons in her closet? Sure. But the onus is on her accusers to prove it.
Okay. Like I said, Tim Allen doesn't prove that. He doesn't provide any more evidence for his assertion than you've provided for yours. So try again.
Okay. Define "anti-Trump propaganda" as opposed to "legitimate reporting on things Trump has said and actions he has performed which reflect poorly on him". Then quantify the time spent on that, break it down by news outlet, and come back to us with some numbers.
You say this like you've been assiduously responding to every objection presented to you, when a brief perusal of this thread (to say nothing of your past performances) will suffice to show this is not the case. So maybe you shouldn't be the one to cast the first stone about selective response.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Trump did bad thing
Trump losing polls
Five reasons Trump won't win
Trump meet with these other people - that's bad.
Trumps plans for trade agree ment - that's bad.
How Trump's plan can hurt insurance companies
How Trump's plan can hurt minorities.
Five more reasons Trump won't win.
Trump other tweet bad.
How Trump's plan is just... bad. (if there was one, lol)
Trump apoint person - that's bad
TRUMP WENT TO DINNER AND DIDN'T TELL US. THAT IS BAD
AND HE WON
This is still occuring almost... twice thrice a day now on the front page of MSN? We're almost at the point where the media is working hard to FIND things to keep it going. Like they are clearly, obviously out to get em.
And every time the crap storm in the other thread is renewed, as the crap circles the internet.
You are asking to review over a years worth of news, post how they portray said bias, and then also prove or disprove whether they are wrong. Being the debate forum, that is understandable. But must he really do that to convey this same idea?
Its not limited to Trump.
How many articles have I read in the past few years "the suspect was black, and the officer was white." You will never, ever read "suspect was white and the officer was black." or "the suspect was black and the officer was black." They simply don't post the race of people involved otherwise. I firmly believe the AP actually contributes to racial tensions in America by doing this.
However all that said, @Typhoon don't always view this as "liberal bias". Think about it - if you were in charge of a news outlet your goal would be to attain as many clicks, reads and shares as possible. Whats currently trending and what do people tend to click on? DRAMA. ANGER. SHOCKING NEWS. CONTROVERSY.
Edit: And remember, they did the same thing to Obama around the clock (especially regarding national deficit and obamacare), and would always find a photo of him mid-syllable, so that he looked as sad and pathetic as possible.
And that's what they feed people. TBH, taking breaks from it creates a much less stressful work day.
My Buying Thread
At least someone can admit it. I guess its hard to admit a liberal bias when your a liberal. And arguing with liberals about liberalism bias is a merry-go-round haha.
@DJK3654
Yes, but we are talking about Liberal Bias...
You like making things hard, you can't come up with your own differentiation? Why do I "NEED" to do this?
It's not hard to work out. Something pro-Hillary would be not mentioning her emails on the news, some news stations gave 6 seconds for Wikileaks compared to 10 min of anti-Trump propaganda, such as the fake sex assaults that the news and Hillary's campaign made up. (Trump confronted her in the 3rd debate about this and she did not deny it.)
@Blinking Spirit
You could talk about the 6 main parent companies that own most of the media. That broadcasts to the public.
Can we just talk about Hillary without mentioning Trump for a second. Hillary has admitted that the emails were here's and not made up but stolen illegally.
Trump may have said that in a private conversation, but has not done anything like the media made up the sexual assault cases, nobody has taken Trump to court over these. There was a woman in a night club 20 years ago, got her ass grabbed and when she turned around she might have saw someone that looked like Trump...
Where as Hillary Clinton shamed the girls that were coming out against her Husband Bill. The media did not report this. Or the 6 parent company controlled media did not report this.
Well can we just agree that the Emails are from Hillary and that Wikileaks is a repeatable source, since even Hillary has admitted that they were stolen illegally from her illegal email server.
Well hopefully she gets her fair trial.
Maybe this might add to the pilling up 'opinions' http://www.businessinsider.com.au/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
*Edit: Also I had a list from Ron Paul of all the media that conspired with the Hillary campaign, with refrences to Wikileaks and Hillary's emails. Just in case you missed it and not being selective here it is again
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/look-how-long-networks-spent-on-trump-vs-wikileaks-its-insane
I say it "like" that do I... that's not an argument. I just have to wait for a decent argument to make its way out through all the liberal word tricks and diversion tactics. It's "like": Check out Hillary's emails.... But Trump said "grab *****". I can't argue with this. sorry, just gets me angry putting up with this stuff.
In my opinion there is a Liberal bias in the Main Stream media that is owned by the 6 parent companies, that feed propaganda to the general American public.
I'll probably just leave it there.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
And you need to compare that to republican bias or your data is not complete to make the claims you are making to the degree we are talking here.
You are the one making claims. I am the one being the skeptic.
You NEED to do this if you want to make claims about the bias in the media that are not only strong but broad reaching and very important.
If you all you want to say is the mainstream media were pretty biased against Trump, I won't take issue. That's a reasonable assessment and is probably true.
If you really want to dig into this any further though, then we need scientific level studies on this because this is something science is involved in.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice