In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 27 2016 11:50 SK.Testie wrote: Literally every network you guys post news sources from have an agenda. The greatest part about Drumpf is seeing to what extent each of these networks will go to out themselves on just how hard they shill for X or Y candidate. Almost all of which are pulling for Hillary.
I wouldn't put too much stock in that narrative:
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
Vox is an American news website run by Vox Media, founded by liberal columnist Ezra Klein and launched in April 2014. Ezra Klein left The Washington Post in January 2014 for a position with Vox Media, the publishers of the sports website SB Nation, technology website The Verge, and video gaming website Polygon.
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry at The Week accused the site as "partisan commentary in question-and-answer disguise" and criticized the site for having a "starting lineup was mostly made up of ideological liberals."[6]
The Federalist's David Harsanyi criticized the site's concept of "explanatory journalism" in an article titled "How Vox Makes Us Stupid", arguing that the website picked and chose what facts to use in order to only reinforce their readers' progressive liberal worldview, and that "explanatory journalism" inherently leaves out opposing viewpoints and different perspectives that should be considered.[7]
One can easily play that game all day; both of the critics you chose to cite are noted conservative writers, so yes, conservatives don't like what Vox has to say anymore than liberals like what Breitbart or The Federalist has to say. The substance of the article, that being the notion that Hillary has received anything but a warm welcome from the MSM, still holds up as a general concept.
Remember that when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser
Congress abandoned the Capitol Thursday for an almost two-week break without addressing how to combat Zika, even as public health officials issue dire warnings about the spread of the mosquito-driven virus with summer approaching.
Republican leaders insist a deal can be struck soon to provide the money federal health officials say is needed to develop a vaccine. They also downplayed the risk of waiting a little longer, arguing existing money is available for the initial steps needed to help contain the virus while lawmakers resolve the larger funding fight.
“They can get to work on this problem, and there’s money in the pipeline that’s already going out the door right now,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters Thursday.
But with Democrats hammering Republicans over neglect on a virus that attacks pregnant women, some GOP lawmakers, particularly those in Florida and other warm-weather locales, expressed increasing anxiety about the slowly developing response as the warm weather breeds more mosquitoes.
“The CDC is saying we’re less than a month away from a mosquito [epidemic] in the U.S. I mean, I take that seriously,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the onetime presidential contender, said this week. “These are not politicians. These are scientists and doctors that are looking at this issue and telling us, you’ve got a real problem on your hands.”
For months officials at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention have been monitoring the outbreak of Zika in South America, particularly in Brazil, where hundreds of thousands of visitors will descend in August for the Summer Olympics and then return to their native countries. Last week U.S. officials announced they are monitoring hundreds of pregnant women for Zika signs and there are growing concerns about a large outbreak in Puerto Rico.
I will read a shitty Breitbart article just to see how shitty it is. The previous discussion was about a 300 page book by a Breitbart editor, which is a bit to much of an ask.
On May 27 2016 11:50 SK.Testie wrote: Literally every network you guys post news sources from have an agenda. The greatest part about Drumpf is seeing to what extent each of these networks will go to out themselves on just how hard they shill for X or Y candidate. Almost all of which are pulling for Hillary.
I wouldn't put too much stock in that narrative:
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
Vox is an American news website run by Vox Media, founded by liberal columnist Ezra Klein and launched in April 2014. Ezra Klein left The Washington Post in January 2014 for a position with Vox Media, the publishers of the sports website SB Nation, technology website The Verge, and video gaming website Polygon.
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry at The Week accused the site as "partisan commentary in question-and-answer disguise" and criticized the site for having a "starting lineup was mostly made up of ideological liberals."[6]
The Federalist's David Harsanyi criticized the site's concept of "explanatory journalism" in an article titled "How Vox Makes Us Stupid", arguing that the website picked and chose what facts to use in order to only reinforce their readers' progressive liberal worldview, and that "explanatory journalism" inherently leaves out opposing viewpoints and different perspectives that should be considered.[7]
I'm aware they are a liberal source; there's nothing wrong with that. Most media sources are biased to some extent, the annoying thing is when they pretend they aren't. And I like (most) Vox writers because they tend to use good sources and back up their arguments with data.
Also, The Federalist is an ideologically conservative/libertarian publication (though a relatively decent one), so it's not like it's surprising they would publish a blog post critical of Vox.
On May 28 2016 00:44 zlefin wrote: Congress takes too many breaks; with modern tech, they can communicate plenty with their constituents while staying in the capital.
They don’t really take breaks, that is just how their sessions work. They still work when congress isn’t in session. The breaks are just deadlines to get things passed so things won’t drag on until the end of time. They could do with a few less, but I am not sure that would lead to any more productivity.
On May 28 2016 00:35 farvacola wrote: Remember that when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser
I guess this would explain all the false media narratives on Trump. Many of which have simply stuck and will continue to stick throughout the campaign forever because of low information voters parroting false narratives. Which is a problem that needs to be addressed.
There was a point in posting the Breitbart article and getting the expected reactions here. Especially with the headline that it had. Is that all the other sites clearly have a dog in the fight, and I'd argue that 80+% are for Hillary, even more if you count mainstream entertainment. So in essence every source linked here has its own narrative. Or, more importantly by not talking about X or Y issue they are often pretending that the other sides issues don't exist.
For instance we've had a few posters saying that Hillary is not a liar and it's all conservative BS from the last 20 years. Now even liberal sources are acknowledging that the E-mail thing may actually destroy her, because she double downed and went the extra mile on lying about it so hard.
Hillary is about as corrupt as politicians come in this country. It's just a shame for Bernie supporters that Bernie didn't hammer her harder on these issues sooner. It's all too little, too late for him at this point.
On May 28 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote: Hillary is about as corrupt as politicians come in this country. It's just a shame for Bernie supporters that Bernie didn't hammer her harder on these issues sooner. It's all too little, too late for him at this point.
[citation needed]
Oh wait, never mind. Breitbart covered it. Solid!
EDIT: 538's analysis of the "rigged" election (kwizach posted) is so interesting. Why in the world would anyone think caucuses are a good idea? It's like a supercharged version of voter ID. What a ridiculous commitment.
On May 28 2016 00:35 farvacola wrote: Remember that when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser
I guess this would explain all the false media narratives on Trump. Many of which have simply stuck and will continue to stick throughout the campaign forever because of low information voters parroting false narratives. Which is a problem that needs to be addressed.
There was a point in posting the Breitbart article and getting the expected reactions here. Especially with the headline that it had. Is that all the other sites clearly have a dog in the fight, and I'd argue that 80+% are for Hillary, even more if you count mainstream entertainment. So in essence every source linked here has its own narrative. Or, more importantly by not talking about X or Y issue they are often pretending that the other sides issues don't exist.
For instance we've had a few posters saying that Hillary is not a liar and it's all conservative BS from the last 20 years. Now even liberal sources are acknowledging that the E-mail thing may actually destroy her, because she double downed and went the extra mile on lying about it so hard.
Given that Trump peddles in slander just as much as it's levied against him, I'm not sure the quote fits in this context.
More to the point, the Breitbart article posted basically attacked itself by doing the careless work of tying the "dissolving border" concept with bald, acontextual immigration facts. The only "substance" offered in favor of the connection? Partisan rhetoric one would expect from a source like Breitbart. Besides, it isn't as though liberal posters as a class cite to liberal news media sources while thinking that they don't have their own narrative. Posters who think particular information sources are inscrutable by definition tend to stand out, and over the past years, they've usually dropped out of the conversation after being continuously assailed by the rest of us :D
The "dissolving the border" issue isn't even the best example of Clinton corruption, nor is it the crux of the Schweitzer book. The book looks at roughly two decades of the Clinton Foundation's operation and how contributions to it led to some kind of influence being peddled later on. And are we really going to believe that the Clintons were paid tens of millions of dollars to give speeches because they are so damned interesting or knowledgeable?
On May 28 2016 01:42 xDaunt wrote: The "dissolving the border" issue isn't even the best example of Clinton corruption, nor is it the crux of the Schweitzer book. The book looks at roughly two decades of the Clinton Foundation's operation and how contributions to it led to some kind of influence being peddled later on. And are we really going to believe that the Clintons were paid tens of millions of dollars to give speeches because they are so damned interesting or knowledgeable?
Why do you think people will spend $33,000 to have dinner with the Clintons? Consider how much money $33K is to the Clintons. If someone paid you $20, how much would you be willing to bend the rules? You've gotta think of this relative to total value. There are a ton of people out there who love the idea of confirming the ideas they already have about themselves. And they'll spend a ton of money on it.
Arguing that Clinton isn't corrupt is ridiculous. Evidence isn't needed. The proof is in the pudding.
Politicians who have been key figures in the establishment for as long as she has are bound to be corrupt to some degree. It is human nature, and it has been proven that our current political system is flawed and potent with corruption. It is only natural for someone like Hillary who's ego is so dependent on her political success to succumb to the advantages of corruption.
On May 28 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote: Hillary is about as corrupt as politicians come in this country. It's just a shame for Bernie supporters that Bernie didn't hammer her harder on these issues sooner. It's all too little, too late for him at this point.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading that her voting record in the Senate is almost identical to Sanders with the exception of foreign policy, which hasn't much to do with corruption but ideolgoical difference. How is this money stuff meaningful if it apparently isn't expressed in the lawmaking record? (if we assume that Bernie is considerably less corrupt)
On May 28 2016 01:56 SolaR- wrote: Arguing that Clinton isn't corrupt is ridiculous. Evidence isn't needed. The proof is in the pudding.
Politicians who have been key figures in the establishment for as long as she has are bound to be corrupt to some degree. It is human nature, and it has been proven that our current political system is flawed and potent with corruption. It is only natural for someone like Hillary who's ego is so dependent on her political success to succumb to the advantages of corruption.
You don't see the problem with saying evidence isn't needed? What good is a belief without evidence?
On May 28 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote: Hillary is about as corrupt as politicians come in this country. It's just a shame for Bernie supporters that Bernie didn't hammer her harder on these issues sooner. It's all too little, too late for him at this point.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading that her voting record in the Senate is almost identical to Sanders with the exception of foreign policy, which hasn't much to do with corruption but ideolgoical difference. How is this money stuff meaningful if it apparently isn't expressed in the lawmaking record? (if we assume that Bernie is considerably less corrupt)
It is expressed in the record. That's the point of the Clinton Cash book. Granted, the ties aren't explicit (and no one should expect them to be for obvious reasons), but the sheer number incidents where significant money was funneled to the Clintons directly or to their foundation in close proximity to the entity/person sending the money receiving some benefit/consideration from the US government is staggering.
On May 28 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote: Hillary is about as corrupt as politicians come in this country. It's just a shame for Bernie supporters that Bernie didn't hammer her harder on these issues sooner. It's all too little, too late for him at this point.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading that her voting record in the Senate is almost identical to Sanders with the exception of foreign policy, which hasn't much to do with corruption but ideolgoical difference. How is this money stuff meaningful if it apparently isn't expressed in the lawmaking record? (if we assume that Bernie is considerably less corrupt)
It is expressed in the record. That's the point of the Clinton Cash book. Granted, the ties aren't explicit (and no one should expect them to be for obvious reasons), but the sheer number incidents where significant money was funneled to the Clintons directly or to their foundation in close proximity to the entity/person sending the money receiving some benefit/consideration from the US government is staggering.
What if large, money infused organizations and people tend to do a lot of the same stuff? Companies/people make all sorts of donations for this and that tax benefit. I really just see it as big players tending to interact a lot. The kind of large entity that is making large donations to large non-profits are likely to also be the large entities that are being considered for something US government related. The argument is essentially against Clinton having a ton of experience working with these large entities. There isn't any proof of some sort of wrongdoing, just interactions.
On May 28 2016 02:07 zeo wrote: The GOP has started using the term 'Crooked Hillary' in ads.
It's interesting seeing the argument being framed about "what the rules were". All of us have had jobs or something where the rules and what every single person did were entirely distinct. Being assured that something is "totally fine" is very different from it being "technically in the rule book". I think it is a silly distinction. If someone was permitted to continue doing something, someone else should be as well. Someone following the same protocol as their predecessor is not a valid critique.
On May 28 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote: Hillary is about as corrupt as politicians come in this country. It's just a shame for Bernie supporters that Bernie didn't hammer her harder on these issues sooner. It's all too little, too late for him at this point.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading that her voting record in the Senate is almost identical to Sanders with the exception of foreign policy, which hasn't much to do with corruption but ideolgoical difference. How is this money stuff meaningful if it apparently isn't expressed in the lawmaking record? (if we assume that Bernie is considerably less corrupt)
It is expressed in the record. That's the point of the Clinton Cash book. Granted, the ties aren't explicit (and no one should expect them to be for obvious reasons), but the sheer number incidents where significant money was funneled to the Clintons directly or to their foundation in close proximity to the entity/person sending the money receiving some benefit/consideration from the US government is staggering.
having a lot of circumstantial evidence is nice; but sometimes not enough; also, did they do proper bayesian analysis and look at the background levels of those things happening?
EPT
