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 October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote: Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees.
For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it.
If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all.
Alright, I'll bite.
Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk.
By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure.
While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story.
Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye.
But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind.
Not going to count that out.
You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win?
That depends really.
Because crowd gatherer for a music event is different than political event.
But both of us won't know what exactly will happen until Kanye does decide to campaign.
And if he can pull it off, it just shows that your average American wants a showman being the president.
Ah, so we're digging into the methodology more. Okay, so I agree that pulling crowds for a music event is very different than pulling crowds for a political event. Can we also agree that pulling crowds for a political event is also very different than pulling crowds to a voting booth? I, for instance, have little interest in seeing either Trump or Hillary speak, but I fully intend to vote. So your proposed methodology would overlook people like me, no?
Yes but attendee number is still a more accurate comparison than polls.
Based on what? For the dem primaries it clearly didn't work that way. Bernie had the bigliest crowds of all, but still lost. Just as the polls predicted.
On October 17 2016 15:03 oBlade wrote: this means a Republican who isn't a total clown like Ted Cruz or Mike Pence
I think it's not too early to start placing bets on the 2020 election.
I really think those are going to be the two front runners for 2020. They are going to run on the platform that trump is not a real conservative and that is why the repubs lost. They are going to get crushed almost as badly too witch will be funny to watch.
Eh, 4 years from now will probably be more boring. If I had to guess...
Scott Walker or Paul Ryan (unlikely to be both, at least for very long), Ted Cruz (and maybe Mike Pence), and some new candidate, like another Senator. Tom Cotton, for example. Maybe even Marco Rubio, who knows (obviously assuming he holds his senate seat).
Also, maybe a Trumpy candidate? I don't really think so, for a variety of reasons. Could be wrong, and the GOP may try to incorporate some of his message (the little that really exists).
Could be others, but those are the important ones. What's sad is I'd rather think about this than 2016.
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
Oliver can bring some light to issues no one talks or thinks about much. His net neutrality episode was massive for putting a spotlight on the issue so the general public could get up in arms over it. The show can do good work but I find the man's humor to be boring, unfunny, paint by numbers comedy, it's just so formulaic.
I saw the old Daily Show in much the same way. The show did some fantastic work, much better overall than LWT for sure. He was a great interviewer for sure, he knows his shit. But I'd sooner take a baseball bat blow to the head than watch a Jon Stewart movie or stand up. That show was his calling in life, it was greater than the sum of its parts. It was an institution which is why its so unfortunate what the show is now. Noah seems like a sweet kid, but he's painfully unfunny. The writing is hot garbage, its aimless, just painful painful TV.
Colbert was the pinnacle as far as the melding of everything. Genuinely funny guy, smart, nice, fun. Great writing, tackled issues well, the character meant he could do things and go places others couldn't. Losing his show was the greatest loss of all. Sam Bee does the best job of carrying the old torch IMO, though she goes off the rails sometimes. Those types of shows can have an important role in the media but there's a massive hole that was left and unfortunately never really filled properly.
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
On October 17 2016 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:09 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
I can agree with all of that.
I think one has to distinguish him from people like Maher (to whom he was compared before) who brings very little facts on the table. What i like about oliver is the depth at which he goes into certain topics while staying very accessible, and that i always end up having learnt a great deal.
On October 17 2016 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:09 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
I can agree with all of that.
I think one has to distinguish him from people like Maher (to whom he was compared before) who brings very little facts on the table. What i like about oliver is the depth at which he goes into certain topics while staying very accessible, and that i always end up having learnt a great deal.
I didn't say anything about how they present information. I just compared him to Maher for his smugness.
On October 17 2016 19:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:57 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 18:09 Acrofales wrote:
On October 17 2016 17:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 16:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can't stand him. He's somehow managed to out-smug Bill Maher.
Not surprised.
I'm a big fan. Nit only is he hillarious but his teal does a fantastic investigation job. He is second to no one to expose hypocrisy
John Oliver is hilarious, but he doesn't really do investigative reporting. No more than Colbert or Jon Stewart were journalists. What you could call him, I guess, is a meta-investigator: he has a great team that searches the world for interesting articles, and he aggregates them to create a funny, and poignant item. He is incredibly good at that.
He is also a bit like Michael Moore, in the sense that he will take an issue and shed a very one-sided light on the matter. I don't mind it, because I tend to agree with him. And because his whole show should be seen as an editorial in the opinion section in the newspaper, rather than in the news section (as would be the case if it were actual investigative reporting), it is quite acceptable. However, I can see how a conservative American could find his viewpoint incredibly conceited and thus not funny at all. Just as those conservative voices don't like Krugman's opinion pieces in the NYT.
Well as i said, his team does an investigation job, not himself. He is just delivering, in his really funny way, and he is a comedian, not a journalist.
I disagree with you though, i think he stays always very close to the facts. I get that republucans don't want to hear certain facts (that's also true for democrats), and he really doesn't hide his opinion, but i don't see him as biased in the sense that he never twists anything, and always supports his claims.
I don't say that he twists anything. You can not twist anything and still shed a very one-sided light, simply by omitting the other side's viewpoint. The facts can be explained in different ways, and Oliver chooses a specific way of explaining those facts. Michael Moore is very similar (albeit more to an extreme). I don't think Oliver attempts to be unbiased, and in fact, I think he himself would probably be a bit offended if you told him you thought he brought unbiased reports on the issue, just as he was apparently a bit offended by people calling him (and his team) investigative journalists:
That doesn't mean I don't love his show. I like his humor, I enjoy his point of view, and am often impressed by the depth to which he goes on the topic of the week.
I can agree with all of that.
I think one has to distinguish him from people like Maher (to whom he was compared before) who brings very little facts on the table. What i like about oliver is the depth at which he goes into certain topics while staying very accessible, and that i always end up having learnt a great deal.
I didn't say anything about how they present information. I just compared him to Maher for his smugness.
British humour, not for everyone.
I'm also quite sure you are uncomfortable with the content of what he says, and that probably don't help you to like him.
Pretty sure everyone will already watch this anyways but just in case. Lighten the mood and whatnot. This was hilarious and all sounded really fair.
It's depressing but he has a really fair point: the people who don't take Stein and Johnson seriously enough are the people voting for them because they don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. If that's not negative voting, i don't know what is: "i'm voting for a terrible candidate because i don't want to vote for Clinton because she's a terrible candidate and i don't want to vote for a terrible candidate just because the other one is worse." Makes sense.
Btw Stein's answer to that 9/11 truther is just painful.
On October 17 2016 15:03 oBlade wrote: this means a Republican who isn't a total clown like Ted Cruz or Mike Pence
I think it's not too early to start placing bets on the 2020 election.
Don't forget the 2020 election will have Lindsay Lohan and Kanye West running for the head of state!
Maybe sooner because I can't picture a world where either Trump or Clinton manage to go the full term without getting impeached,arrested or overthrown.
In Clintons case I cannot see her lasting a four year term health wise. No stamina and some serious question marks over the seizures, collapses, eye twitching etc Trump may have an issue there too with all the junk food he eats.
EPT
