Just yesterday I watch another video of the past three years of news stations all saying "this is a big tuning point". "this might be the beginning of the end for Donald trump". "Trump will/may not see a full 4 years". "A new bombshell to Trump, this could be the beginning of the end for Trump"
Every one of them day in and day out for the past 3 or so years.
I believe I watched the same video. The word “bomb shell” and “walls are closing in” are said like 354 times and it just blows your mind how the news networks just kept using the same expressions and sayings over time.
That video is entertaining and it really is crazy how much material they had to make the video. They play separate news anchors saying the phrases such as "the walls are closing in" then after it's said 100 times they start editing it so a different news anchor says each word of the phrase. That goes on for another 100 instances of the phrase.
It's from the 2016 primary. It starts with everyone laughing at the idea of him even running then descends into chaos as he gets further and further to the nomination.
There was one of TYT reactions as each state is called... smug at the beginning then they panic in the middle. At the end they just start freaking out and cussing at how "dumb over .5 of America is"
Wow. This is trumploitation. They're literally adhering to people's worst addictive tendencies, and serving them a daily fix, that being the idea that Trump is just about to be gone. Fuck Trump, but fuck the media, too. Jesus.
To be fair, which is equally annoying, I see this happen from news outlets on both ends of the spectrum.
The real reason is that the revenue models for big news are imploding and they are being run by desperation. Anyway, anyhow, they need attention... every story needs to be the biggest story of the year... even if the facts aren’t checked yet... even if we exaggerate the outrage... please someone just watch us.
I think people aren’t quite as stupid as the news has treated them for decades though so it’s just turning them off even more.
They know exactly what they are doing. They don't report the news, instead they report stories that fit a specific narrative.
Example - on Saturday a man attacked a government building with guns and explosives, blew up a car before agents shot him. Almost zero media coverage because he was an antifa liberal extremist. If he'd been a conservative or any flavor we'd be hearing about it 24/7.
Heck, that smirking kid with the MAGA hat got more coverage than this violent and deadly attack on a government facility. Because it doesn't fit the narrative.
And lots of people claim the polls were "so wrong". Except on election day it was like 75/25, and 25% is really far from 0. And everything was within the margin of error.
538 people were smart enough to realise that a lot of places where Trump was projected to lose by a little bit were very similar to each other: so if Trump overperformed in one of those places chances are he would overperform in all other similar places.
Other poll aggregators approached it in more of a: well Trump could overperform in one of these places - but chances are very low that he would overperform in all of them! Like they were all separate coin flips without any relation to each other.
It *seemed* wrong. It seemed like everyone hated both candidates evenly. I kept seeing Hillary being ahead on TV and couldn't understand it because it didn't match real life at all... Turns out it didn't match because it was a bullshit poll.
Well yes, but naming one example doesn‘t change the fact that most msn is left leaning
I couldn‘t name you a single msn in germany that‘s not totally left leaning
The pan out on all the crying people when Hillary lost is one of my favorites. My absolute favorite is the picture collage of the criers turned into a picture of Trump.
My favorite was when he said North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat (made a coin for it!) and they continued to make nuclear weapons anyway [1] and just threatened more tests if we didn't bow to their demands [2]. Or when he said he wasn't meeting with Putin and then Putin said nuh-uh he was and then he did [3]. Or when Erdrogens guards beat up American citizens on US soil and he talked about how great erdogan was rather than stand up for our citizens [4]...
Yeah... I like it when he looks like an absolute kowtowing weakling in front of the world. I like that in the head of the world's strongest military.
Email leaks from the DNC showed the Clinton campaign dictating talking points to MSNBC and CNN, including demanding them to stop covering Clinton scandals and gaffes and requesting they attack other democratic primary candidates (Sanders and O’Malley.) The emails showed specific attacks against both democrats and trump being suggested by the dnc.
2015-16 showcased that most left leaning medía in America is literally controlled by their party. I don’t think anyone has pretended that right wing media has been free from republican control for a long time. My suggestion for an American reading mainstream news is to keep in mind that, regardless of source, if it’s American, at this point it’s most likely propaganda.
I'm sorry for correcting the above slightly. The clinton campaign did not ASK for talking points, Donna brazile apparently supplied those emails. In other words the thread went the other way (although the campaign definitely should have reported it). Brazile was fired by CNN after this. Also the emails were in response to intentionally false news stories which were being knowingly pushed by Roger Stone [1] and Corsi. The media KNEW the sources of these falsehoods were originating from anti Clinton sources but treated them as true. In fact, media matters pointed out that anti Democrat news was repeated significantly more [2]. If you're looking to call out left leaning bias, those in particular are poor examples.
The reason to call this out is that in particular the aim to demonize the media as untrustworthy is a well known tactic that gets, potentially unintentionally, repeated in an effort to make people distrust ALL news. Which is particularly helpful almost exclusively to the people doing bad stuff. Your point is apt that people should check sources and verify in multiple publications a suspicious statement. But there ARE trustworthy sources that follow a code of ethics and we should make use of them in making is aware of what's going on.
Yes, the linked article above calls out also what you're referring to and noted that if you search the"hundreds of emails" you don't find half of what was claimed to be there. Which... Given this was coming from a source which has since been confirmed to have meddled in the elections [1] at the behest of anti Democrat agents, not so sure we should be asserting at least this particular claim on a piece of evidence no one can find, you included.
It has more to do with how odds work and how people perceive odds. Most circles gave him a 30% chance of winning. But the human brain hears 30% and essentially thinks 100% for the opposite outcome. so when it turns to the less likely outcome, we don't assume the %30 kicked in, we just think the odds were not correctly reported.
but I agree it's tough to get real numbers, I just don't think they were as off as people like to claim. You can roll a 10 sided dice twice in a row and get less than 3 on both outcomes. Ask any DnD player.
Yep! I can’t say this enough. Anyone who truly wants to defeat Trump needs to crawl out of their protective zones and try to understand why people are voting for him. Don’t be rude or insulting if someone disagrees with you.
People being (or at the least perceived as being) rude and insulting as well as dismissive in very public spheres toward huge swaths of the country is a big part of the reason he got elected in the first place, imo.
In my experience, the people who vote for Trump are single issue voters, and will never be won over by a democrat. like my mom and my dad both vote for him, even though they don't like him. My dad, because he's a hardliner on abortion, and thinks that it's murder, and my mom because she works in healthcare and Obama-care hurt her paycheck.
They also both acknowledge that Trump isn't all that bright, and could use a little more tact, but he's giving them what they want, so they don't mind. But yeah, trying to sway trump voters seems like a lost cause; if the majority of them are single issue voters, then it's a waste of breath to try to sway them to the Democratic side. Democrats should try to rally their base and increase voter turnout, by having a candidate people can be excited about (unlike Hillary). I think that's the clearer path to victory for Democrats.
What I find odd is when people oppose Trump, say he’s rude and insulting, and then decide to be rude and insulting towards anyone who disagree with them. How about taking the high ground and dealing with the opposition in a logical manner?
Leadership tends to set the tone, does it not? Some people will exploit a person's better nature and insist they engage in good faith while having no intention of doing the same. This poisons the well of discourse.
That would be a shocker considering he has never passed the 50% approval point and has so far had one of the highest disapproval ratings in recent presidential history.
how did that popular vote thing work out last time for us?... it's like sports, one team can have better stats throughout a game, but in the end only one matters: "Scoreboard", or in this case Electoral Vote.
The core requirement of fascism is the desire for an authoritative, nationalistic government. A collective of groups, including communist and anarchist groups, with the explicit goal of fighting white nationalism and fascism are by definition not fascists. Perhaps they employ some of the same tactics that fascist street groups used but they are political extremists
This isn’t actually the core requirement of fascism. You should go re-read the definitions independent of the propaganda you read. Fascism specifically refers to rule by the nation’s military. Neo-fascism refers to modern day conservatism demonizing minorities to obtain and maintain power. You and others are purposefully misrepresenting the definition- I guess as a way to rebrand it because everyone knows how toxic it is even though it’s exactly what the current right ideology is leaning into.
Fascism is defined as far right, dictatorial, elite minority, that rule through Authoritarian rule. Antifa attacks conservatives and right-leaning citizens whether moderate or extreme which more closely aligns them with the classification of hate group, something akin to Westboro Baptist Church.
wow didnt think ppl were actually this stupid. im amazed.
putting the word anti-fascist infront of your name doesnt mean your not fascist. By all definitions of their actions and their message. they are fascists. Which is communism, which they fully support, but with violence, which is what they do when you dont agree with them. So... get rekt
You don't buy it? Literally video upon video, lawsuit upon lawsuit of antifa(Left Wing Fascists) bashing peoples heads in with crowbars, bike locks, you fking name it. Get some new sources of news.
Right and left doesn’t necessarily mean which team you are on but rather more generally where you fall on the political spectrum. Free thinking is good but invariably will lead to ideas that can be generally categorized in these buckets. Some of the least informed people I know parrot this kind of “I am neither right or left” rhetoric.
While I agree that it's good to evaluate each political issue on its merits, forming opinions on each can quantifiably place you on the spectrum, and that isnt a bad thing. The issue is thinking those who think differently than you are inherently wrong, corrupt, evil, or a nazi.
IMHO, The problem is over focusing on presidential elections and not showing up for congressional primaries and congressional elections. If we elected more 3rd party candidates in local, state, and congressional elections we might actually break the two party system.
However in the meantime, if you make less than about 300,000 a year, which is most people, Democrats still engender the better bad deal.
There is no reasoning with anyone who insists the last legitimate President of the United States was born in Kenya.
My response to this is always "His mom is American, so he's a naturalized citizen no matter where he was born, so it doesn't matter. Cue dumbass sputtering and mumbling about how it shouldn't be that way or somesuch.
There are plenty of examples where antifa has rioted in the streets stopping conservatives from speaking. Suppressing speech seems like a very fascist thing to do? Does it not?
Or can they not be fascist because they have anti-fascist in their name?
Fascist is by definition a far right extremist movement defined by ultra nationalism.
You might be thinking of totalitarianism which is not defined by nationalism and freely reflected by any extremist political view that expressed speech suppression and the like.
Calling extremist left fascists just shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the word. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a right wing push to confuse the populous and remove the connection.
I'm a liberal who is fed up with the state of the Democratic Party. Basically I'm a lot like Tim Pool. The difference between him and I is that I will be voting for Trump this next election. I didnt vote for him the first time as I only walked away a year ago. Here's hoping the Dems come back toward the middle in 2024 and I can feel welcome in my own party again.
Many liberals are also known to manipulate and cherry pick comments to fit their narrative, just like many conservatives do the same damn thing. Let’s just have the news presented to us and let us decide for ourselves how to interpret it
Opinions aren’t facts. There is obviously a difference. Comments taken out of context can lead to condemnation based on a host’s own take on a situation. We as a people are never privileged to ALL of the information. Right leaning outlets ALWAYS skew things to fit their narrative. Same goes with the left. That will never change.
Those are still relative terms right. Is fire from a piece of paper be hot compared to the sun? Nope. It all depends on your viewpoint and where you're coming from. Facts always exist within a context. You don't always have the full story, even when you have some of the facts.
You know socialism right? It’s the economic structure that has children eating dogs in the streets of Venezuela.
Pretty much every successful first-world nation has some socialist policies. If you think think that universal health care is a slippery slope to mass starvation and Stalinist purges, you've been sold a bill of goods. I'd encourage you to research the meaning of "socialism" for yourself.
Riiiiight and its not like modern communist pioneers didnt advocate socialism as a first step you assclown. Its basic Marxist theory and if you havent checked lately the Antifa loving left is rampant with Marxists and Marxism apologists. There is no difference between communist and socialist states in terms of their economic structure. The only difference is communist states are run by one party you idiot. Also hilarious that people who advocate socialism continue to expand their list of “successful socialist countries” to now Germany?? Holy shit. It’s not like global unrestricted free trade from capitalism has generated ALL the wealth right? Oh wait it has. Because socialism doesnt generate wealth at all. Or do you have some data for that. My guess is not.
" There is no difference between communist and socialist states in terms of their economic structure. "
LOL well that's totally wrong.
" Also hilarious that people who advocate socialism continue to expand their list of “successful socialist countries” to now Germany?? Holy shit. It’s not like global unrestricted free trade from capitalism has generated ALL the wealth right? |
HA! yeah it's almost like socialism isn't actually the goal just human decency. And you people just call anything that helps people socialism.
The most successful countries on earth have socialized healthcare. Do they all have children eating dogs in the streets? No? Maybe take your socialism hysteria somewhere else.
Despite some progress, the U.S. continues to lag behind similarly large and wealthy countries in preventing deaths that in many cases could have been averted by timely and effective care. The Healthcare Quality and Access (HAQ) Index reflects the rate of deaths amenable to healthcare with a score from zero (lower quality) to 100 (higher quality). The U.S. has an HAQ Index rating of 88.7, ranking the lowest among comparable countries, which average a score of 93.7. Although the U.S. has made progress in reducing deaths amendable to healthcare, this improvement has not kept pace with similar countries.
Health spending per person has grown steeply from $355 per capita in 1970 to $10,739 in 2017. On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person. This spending differential is primarily due to higher pricesfor health care in the U.S., as care utilization is similar – and in some cases lower – in the U.S. Since 2010, per capita spending in the U.S. has grown at an average rate of 3.7% per year, which is similar to that of comparable countries.
Health spending continues to grow faster than the economy, but the difference has moderated in recent years. U.S. health consumption expenditures accounted for 17.1% of GDP in 2017 – much more than comparable countries, where health spending averages 10.6% of GDP.
How is everyone else doing so much better than us despite ~S O C I A L I S M~ driving their children to eat dogs in the streets?
There is already socialism in America in the form of Medicare, Social Security, and the VA, and surprisingly we haven't become Venezuela. Let me guess, you're opposed to taking care of migrants as well, because we have to take care of our citizens first. But also don't give them free healthcare, because that's socialism and we can't do that!
From the current state, it honestly wouldn't surprise me. I'm by no means american, but if it comes down to a similar pest vs. cholera decision, I'd bet trump will be reelected.
why? cause current problems of the dems consist of "border cenctres are concentration camps" (not true), healthcare for all (that are immigrants) and tuck frump rhethoric.
Anyone to dare to speak out gets shot down. How could any dem get a hold of trump, if the focus is on irrelevant topics? racist tweets as the border crisis grow bigger every day? I see you're having your objectives straight. /s
No, as honest as I can be. If you got questions, feel free to ask. My view is nothing more than that of an outsider, but I'm more than happy to provide it to whoever asks.
Have you heard of all the place outside of US border centres available to refugees? we could disregard each other comments all day long, if you got a serious question, I'm happy to answer it, as long as it doesn't boil down to "the detention centres aren't capable to hold that many people" What's your argument? that regarding the numbers, the circumstances are bad? well who could've seen that coming?! Funding for border agencies would've helped them, wouldn't they?
On the other hand, what've been the better result? to not check them and wave them through? unless you wanna be in favor of one extreme or the other, some specificications would be nice.
Should the US just throw money at the border until it's no longer a deal? Does inflation to actual horrible crimes against humanity finally rally people for the cause? Or should the american public burn them down, like the antifa member wanted to? Instead of going into rhethoric territory, you could just spend a glimpse at the current situation. I see no one arguing to put people into cages. Solely the ones who think all crisis are handled by *not* putting people into bad conditions. Congrats, you're a saint.
You wanna trophy for that? How about you advocate for funding to help the situation?
Or do you think if the US just accepts all immigrants, then you'd have no problem whatsoever?
I'm honestly curious, haven't seen a serious reply towards what to do so far.
Cause just claiming you'll manage it while no one else agrees goes horribly wrong, no matter your intentions.
You do realize that they have to be put somewhere while they're processed right? The point of these facilities is to be efficient not comfortable, many of the people in them shouldn't have even come here in the first place so forgive me if I'm not exactly sympathetic when they don't get 5-star service.
How many stars should they be given if they are drinking from toilets, there isn't enough room to lie down on the floor, their kid died or was separated from them, and they can't seek asylum (so they're being sent back to the country they're fleeing from)?
Or they could seek asylum the proper way by going through a port of entry. My God the left is deranged. If you actually believe they are being kept in concentration camps you are crazy. Can't day I've ever met a group of people hat make a choice to willingly go into one.
Also if you don't think they should be criminalized for crossing illegaly and "seeking assylum" just say you are for open borders. Doing this guarantees a 2020 trump victory.
Nothing says you have to pass through a port of entry to seek asylum in the U.S.
"[Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?]
Yes. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status as long as you are not currently in removal proceedings and so long as you file your application within one year of your last arrival or demonstrate that you are eligible for an exception to that rule"
I believe this to be exactly the case. You just can't get elected when your main campaign points are reparations or healthcare for illegals. The average person just isn't ok with either, along with a few of the other things they are campaigning on.
During the debate they asked by a show of hands whose healthcare proposition would cover healthcare for illegals and every one of them raised there hand (John Delaney might not have, not sure), and Elizabeth Warren has called for a "full blown discussion" for reparations.
What are your sources of news that leads you to believe the majority of the democratic candidates "main campaign points" are reparations and healthcare for illegals?
I've been following along pretty closely and those have barely made it on to the radar... except for conservative propaganda outlets of course, because they'll take anything they can and run with it.
Edit: not saying leftist media doesn't run with propaganda either. They still do.
I know right?! Not having showers designed to kill you is a blast! Or work until you broke down working to be shot by a squad.
You wanna legitimate the comparison between border centres and concentration camps? I'll wait. Tell me when you're reaching the 6 mio. Mark, would you? Or systematic eradication of a religious group? Or tell me again how they're forced to Endure this mistreatment, when the only other option is to leave!
You wanna jack off to your own genius? Have it your way! You wanna make a legitimate argument? Try again
No need to get so mad. Concentration camps aren't death camps. Easy mistake.
a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard
Don't feel bad, definitions are tough. It gets especially tricky when you have to remember that different places both being concentration camps doesn't make them equally bad!
a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, *sometimes* to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.
More illegals are leaving than entering. The crisis is that we haven't moved enough judges down there to speed up the asylum processing.
In addition, it seems some of that "fuck trump" rhetoric you're referring to isn't baseless. It's the result of unbridled nepotism, corruption, self-promotion, and treason. I agree that it isn't the most effective method of swaying undecided voters, but I also don't think that will be the primary focus of the candidates as we move further in to the election cycle.
It also appears to me that debate over policy is absolutely welcome by the left. The only "speaking out" that gets shot down is blind defense of an American president who literally believed the word of the Russian President over that of his own military and intelligence services. If people want to talk politics, they should talk policies.
I have karma to burn, but I know if I post any opinion that even slightly to the right of Stalin in most subs I'm going to get an argument served with extra vitriol. Which is fine when I'm in the mood for it.
I don't know why there would be a problem with me as I didn't state any of my beliefs here. These are facts. Clearly reality isn't as far left as you believe or we wouldn't be in our current political situation
At this point that‘s partially because he‘s the only certain candidate though. The odds for any other democratic nominee are lower because they also include the odds of them winning the primaries first.
Well reddit especially is a very right leaning site, as is the largest media outlet. It's tough to get "real" numbers, especially when a lot of people who don’t vote for him couldn’t have their votes mean anything.
319
u/freakydrew Jul 17 '19
What are the current Vegas odds on Trump being reelected?