|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 18 2016 00:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 18 2016 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:On October 18 2016 00:03 Dan HH wrote:
Could be why Trump is focusing more on blasting the media than on his own plans these days So literally a state-run media outlet if he were to win. I guess they wanted to give people who are thinking and fully using their brains one more reason not to vote for him. Don't diss state-run media. Aren't PBS and NPR basically your best outlets in terms of facticity? ;p Same story for most functional democracies that have state-run media imo, NRK is best in Norway, BBC in Britain, SVT in sweden. Then when regimes are less democratic and transparent, they end up being disasters, but there's nothing intrinsically problematic about state-run media as long as proper precautions are taken and strong ethical standards are maintained. NPR is the best news outlet in the US right now for on the hour news coverage. Their coverage of the election is the best going right now. For profit broadcast news is a pretty bad model for the goals of journalism.
I like their decision to remove commenting too.
Also, it's their fall fundraising drive right now too, so I recommend everyone donate.
|
On October 18 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 01:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:You vastly underestimate how much damage losing will do to his reputation; the riots that are likely to follow the election won't exactly help. he will spin it as fraud and rigged elections. I can see russia giving an helping hand to TrumpTV and other outlets that are already established. The internet will be here as well, reddit , 4Chan, it can snowball pretty quickly. /pol/ will still be there, but the rest of it will be as forgotten as S4P in half a year
And Trump will likely be facing the review of the FEC, IRS and who knows what else after the election due to the way he used campaign funds. I think he might have his hands full.
And there is no way the US is going to let him set up a news network with any level of Russian investment.
|
United States43729 Posts
On October 18 2016 01:32 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 01:28 Toadesstern wrote:On October 18 2016 01:24 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 00:53 Toadesstern wrote:
quick question: what are the chances for Clinton to officially give up on Utah and ask her voters to vote for McMullin there? Or same question for Johnson?
538 currently has Trump at roughly 8-9 points ahead of Clinton, but Clinton is at about 26, McMullin is at 26 and Johnson at 10. If less than half of Clinton people vote McMullin in Utah that goes third party oO
I guess since only 6 electoral votes not worth it for Clinton? Zero Percent Chance. That same thing backfired horribly for the republicans, I don't think people like the idea of trying to game the election math. It also would play into reinforcing the things people dislike about Clinton. Also it's entirely possible that McMullin or Johnson voters will deflect to Clinton anyways as the election draws closer. Maybe some Johnson voters but the McMullin vote I don't see helping Clinton overall. Sure some went Clinton -> McMullin and would return to her in that case but more people went Trump -> McMullin and would probably go back to Trump or not vote at all before going for Clinton. Funnily enough 538 is giving McMullin about twice the chances to win Utah than it's giving Clinton. Maybe on the basis that some people do that themselves come election day without her having to say a word? I'm not seeing that? 538 is showing me the chances at 7.5% Clinton and 6.0% McMullin.
Those are chances, not shares of the votes. If candidate A will definitely get 40%, candidate B will definitely get 35% and candidate C will definitely get 25% then A has a 100% chance of winning and B and C have 0% respectively.
|
On October 18 2016 01:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 00:49 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 18 2016 00:32 Doodsmack wrote:So literally a state-run media outlet if he were to win. I guess they wanted to give people who are thinking and fully using their brains one more reason not to vote for him. Don't diss state-run media. Aren't PBS and NPR basically your best outlets in terms of facticity? ;p Same story for most functional democracies that have state-run media imo, NRK is best in Norway, BBC in Britain, SVT in sweden. Then when regimes are less democratic and transparent, they end up being disasters, but there's nothing intrinsically problematic about state-run media as long as proper precautions are taken and strong ethical standards are maintained. NPR is the best news outlet in the US right now for on the hour news coverage. Their coverage of the election is the best going right now. For profit broadcast news is a pretty bad model for the goals of journalism. I like their decision to remove commenting too. Also, it's their fall fundraising drive right now too, so I recommend everyone donate.
Comments without moderation are pretty worthless, as most news sites have realized. And they cost money. I liked the NPR broke it down to exactly why they did it and that is was a large cost with little benefit to the majority of the audience.
|
On October 18 2016 01:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 01:32 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 01:28 Toadesstern wrote:On October 18 2016 01:24 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 00:53 Toadesstern wrote:
quick question: what are the chances for Clinton to officially give up on Utah and ask her voters to vote for McMullin there? Or same question for Johnson?
538 currently has Trump at roughly 8-9 points ahead of Clinton, but Clinton is at about 26, McMullin is at 26 and Johnson at 10. If less than half of Clinton people vote McMullin in Utah that goes third party oO
I guess since only 6 electoral votes not worth it for Clinton? Zero Percent Chance. That same thing backfired horribly for the republicans, I don't think people like the idea of trying to game the election math. It also would play into reinforcing the things people dislike about Clinton. Also it's entirely possible that McMullin or Johnson voters will deflect to Clinton anyways as the election draws closer. Maybe some Johnson voters but the McMullin vote I don't see helping Clinton overall. Sure some went Clinton -> McMullin and would return to her in that case but more people went Trump -> McMullin and would probably go back to Trump or not vote at all before going for Clinton. Funnily enough 538 is giving McMullin about twice the chances to win Utah than it's giving Clinton. Maybe on the basis that some people do that themselves come election day without her having to say a word? I'm not seeing that? 538 is showing me the chances at 7.5% Clinton and 6.0% McMullin. Those are chances, not shares of the votes. If candidate A will definitely get 40%, candidate B will definitely get 35% and candidate C will definitely get 25% then A has a 100% chance of winning and B and C have 0% respectively.
We were talking about chances, not share of the votes. In the Nowcast McMullin has 2x the chance to win over Clinton, but in the more conservative models Clinton has the higher chance. Both of us are right, just right about different datasets.
|
On October 18 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 18 2016 01:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:You vastly underestimate how much damage losing will do to his reputation; the riots that are likely to follow the election won't exactly help. he will spin it as fraud and rigged elections. I can see russia giving an helping hand to TrumpTV and other outlets that are already established. The internet will be here as well, reddit , 4Chan, it can snowball pretty quickly. /pol/ will still be there, but the rest of it will be as forgotten as S4P in half a year And Trump will likely be facing the review of the FEC, IRS and who knows what else after the election due to the way he used campaign funds. I think he might have his hands full. And there is no way the US is going to let him set up a news network with any level of Russian investment.
Why not ? Freedom of press bro.
|
On October 18 2016 01:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 01:54 KwarK wrote:On October 18 2016 01:32 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 01:28 Toadesstern wrote:On October 18 2016 01:24 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 00:53 Toadesstern wrote:
quick question: what are the chances for Clinton to officially give up on Utah and ask her voters to vote for McMullin there? Or same question for Johnson?
538 currently has Trump at roughly 8-9 points ahead of Clinton, but Clinton is at about 26, McMullin is at 26 and Johnson at 10. If less than half of Clinton people vote McMullin in Utah that goes third party oO
I guess since only 6 electoral votes not worth it for Clinton? Zero Percent Chance. That same thing backfired horribly for the republicans, I don't think people like the idea of trying to game the election math. It also would play into reinforcing the things people dislike about Clinton. Also it's entirely possible that McMullin or Johnson voters will deflect to Clinton anyways as the election draws closer. Maybe some Johnson voters but the McMullin vote I don't see helping Clinton overall. Sure some went Clinton -> McMullin and would return to her in that case but more people went Trump -> McMullin and would probably go back to Trump or not vote at all before going for Clinton. Funnily enough 538 is giving McMullin about twice the chances to win Utah than it's giving Clinton. Maybe on the basis that some people do that themselves come election day without her having to say a word? I'm not seeing that? 538 is showing me the chances at 7.5% Clinton and 6.0% McMullin. Those are chances, not shares of the votes. If candidate A will definitely get 40%, candidate B will definitely get 35% and candidate C will definitely get 25% then A has a 100% chance of winning and B and C have 0% respectively. We were talking about chances, not share of the votes. In the Nowcast McMullin has 2x the chance to win over Clinton, but in the more conservative models Clinton has the higher chance. Both of us are right, just right about different datasets.
actually, in the Polls-Plus thing McMullin is ahead as well 
|
On October 18 2016 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 18 2016 01:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:You vastly underestimate how much damage losing will do to his reputation; the riots that are likely to follow the election won't exactly help. he will spin it as fraud and rigged elections. I can see russia giving an helping hand to TrumpTV and other outlets that are already established. The internet will be here as well, reddit , 4Chan, it can snowball pretty quickly. /pol/ will still be there, but the rest of it will be as forgotten as S4P in half a year And Drumpf will likely be facing the review of the FEC, IRS and who knows what else after the election due to the way he used campaign funds. I think he might have his hands full. And there is no way the US is going to let him set up a news network with any level of Russian investment. Why not ? Freedom of press bro.
He can have a news network for all he wants, the Russian investment is the issue. You dont get to say herp derp 1st amendment at everything fortunately.
Still not sure if ignorant or a willful display thereof.
|
On October 18 2016 02:09 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 18 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 18 2016 01:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:You vastly underestimate how much damage losing will do to his reputation; the riots that are likely to follow the election won't exactly help. he will spin it as fraud and rigged elections. I can see russia giving an helping hand to TrumpTV and other outlets that are already established. The internet will be here as well, reddit , 4Chan, it can snowball pretty quickly. /pol/ will still be there, but the rest of it will be as forgotten as S4P in half a year And Drumpf will likely be facing the review of the FEC, IRS and who knows what else after the election due to the way he used campaign funds. I think he might have his hands full. And there is no way the US is going to let him set up a news network with any level of Russian investment. Why not ? Freedom of press bro. I dont know why people are still entertaining this. He can have a news network for all he wants, the Russian investment is the issue. You dont get to say herp derp 1st amendment at everything fortunately.
So tell me why can the russians invest on american uranium and not on some tv station ?
|
On October 18 2016 02:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 02:09 Rebs wrote:On October 18 2016 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 18 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 18 2016 01:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:You vastly underestimate how much damage losing will do to his reputation; the riots that are likely to follow the election won't exactly help. he will spin it as fraud and rigged elections. I can see russia giving an helping hand to TrumpTV and other outlets that are already established. The internet will be here as well, reddit , 4Chan, it can snowball pretty quickly. /pol/ will still be there, but the rest of it will be as forgotten as S4P in half a year And Drumpf will likely be facing the review of the FEC, IRS and who knows what else after the election due to the way he used campaign funds. I think he might have his hands full. And there is no way the US is going to let him set up a news network with any level of Russian investment. Why not ? Freedom of press bro. I dont know why people are still entertaining this. He can have a news network for all he wants, the Russian investment is the issue. You dont get to say herp derp 1st amendment at everything fortunately. So tell me why can the russians invest on american uranium and not on some tv station ?
Because those are literally different things entirely and are subject to different regulations. The FCC and the DoE could not be further apart.
|
On October 18 2016 02:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 02:09 Rebs wrote:On October 18 2016 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 18 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 18 2016 01:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:You vastly underestimate how much damage losing will do to his reputation; the riots that are likely to follow the election won't exactly help. he will spin it as fraud and rigged elections. I can see russia giving an helping hand to TrumpTV and other outlets that are already established. The internet will be here as well, reddit , 4Chan, it can snowball pretty quickly. /pol/ will still be there, but the rest of it will be as forgotten as S4P in half a year And Drumpf will likely be facing the review of the FEC, IRS and who knows what else after the election due to the way he used campaign funds. I think he might have his hands full. And there is no way the US is going to let him set up a news network with any level of Russian investment. Why not ? Freedom of press bro. I dont know why people are still entertaining this. He can have a news network for all he wants, the Russian investment is the issue. You dont get to say herp derp 1st amendment at everything fortunately. So tell me why can the russians invest on american uranium and not on some tv station ?
Because Russia wasnt doing sanction worthy things and Obama was trying to be friends ? And those are completely different things ?
Different times, different things.
Also what the fuck is this, your argument shifted from freedom of press to uranium investment. Are you even following what you are saying or are you Katrina Pearson in disguise ?
|
Russia: We would like to set up a Russia state center in the US, working with Mr. Trump. We would like to use US infrastructure and partner with companies. This is fine, right?
FCC: State media?
Russia: Our bad, we meant news network. Providing objective journalism to the US public.
FCC: Oh yeah, easy mistake to make. That is fine.
|
I don't see why he wouldn't be able to have a TV network with Russian investment if RT America has been going for 6 years
e: forgot a word
|
Quoth the Trump:
"I'm going to be a president for all of our citizens. I'm going to fight to bring us together as Americans, we're a very, very divided country right now. We are going to be brought together. Imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people under one God saluting one American flag."
I don't think his brain functions very well, that's not even like a dog whistle. Also, what's wrong with state flags exactly? I'm so confused.
|
tbh - I would not be shocked if the next round of sanctions prevented the Russia Government from being able to fund RT-America.
Edit: Or the US might straight up not give a shit. It is unclear.
|
On October 18 2016 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 18 2016 01:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:You vastly underestimate how much damage losing will do to his reputation; the riots that are likely to follow the election won't exactly help. he will spin it as fraud and rigged elections. I can see russia giving an helping hand to TrumpTV and other outlets that are already established. The internet will be here as well, reddit , 4Chan, it can snowball pretty quickly. /pol/ will still be there, but the rest of it will be as forgotten as S4P in half a year And Trump will likely be facing the review of the FEC, IRS and who knows what else after the election due to the way he used campaign funds. I think he might have his hands full. And there is no way the US is going to let him set up a news network with any level of Russian investment. Why not ? Freedom of press bro.
They are free to write whatever they are told to write by investors or they lose their jobs. Thats what true freedom of the press is... silly 
And lol at Russia funding TrumpTV, thats the saddest looking conspiracy theory I've ever seen.
edit: Though I've heard Breitbart is seriously looking into starting a cable news network, at least they have more integrity than CNN
|
I think Russia will drop Trump like nuclear waste after he loses.
|
On October 18 2016 02:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 02:09 Rebs wrote:On October 18 2016 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 18 2016 01:53 Plansix wrote:On October 18 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 18 2016 01:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:You vastly underestimate how much damage losing will do to his reputation; the riots that are likely to follow the election won't exactly help. he will spin it as fraud and rigged elections. I can see russia giving an helping hand to TrumpTV and other outlets that are already established. The internet will be here as well, reddit , 4Chan, it can snowball pretty quickly. /pol/ will still be there, but the rest of it will be as forgotten as S4P in half a year And Drumpf will likely be facing the review of the FEC, IRS and who knows what else after the election due to the way he used campaign funds. I think he might have his hands full. And there is no way the US is going to let him set up a news network with any level of Russian investment. Why not ? Freedom of press bro. I dont know why people are still entertaining this. He can have a news network for all he wants, the Russian investment is the issue. You dont get to say herp derp 1st amendment at everything fortunately. So tell me why can the russians invest on american uranium and not on some tv station ?
They don't actually know, they're just faking expertise plus some allusion to the extant sanctions on Russia because of what happened in Crimea.
At first glance it would look like you need to request approval to have more than 25% ownership by foreign investors:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-clarifies-policy-foreign-investment-broadcast-licensees-0
But these regulations don't seem to be about cable TV, which is what this hypothetical network would be. It's talking about broadcast TV. Broadcast licenses seem to deal with who has a right to spam the air with radio waves and at what frequencies and distance, which obviously the federal government has an interest in controlling. But cable is a little different, here's a page:
https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/cable-television
The Commission rules restrict the ownership interest of cable operators and their ability to own or control video programming services. These rules also restrict the ability of Broadcast Radio Service (“BRS”) (formerly known as Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service ("MMDS")) and SMATV systems to own or control interests in cable systems. While there are no prohibitions on foreign ownership of cable television systems, foreign governments or their representatives may not own CARS stations.
Which makes sense if you, you know, notice that you can already access foreign stations on your cable plan. But you can dig for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
|
Like already? They are already pledging to oppose unknown nominees? Are we going to have 8 judges on the bench until the GOP goes through whatever crisis it is having?
|
I can't wait until we're down to one justice on the Supreme Court and they get to be the most powerful person in the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
