US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5852

On November 02 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:

No, traditional media bias did not directly give rise to Trump. However, traditional media bias whitewashed the pressing issues that did give rise to Trump. And they continue to do so, which is a huge mistake, both for themselves and for the country as a whole. The cat's out of the bag.

On November 02 2016 02:03 oneofthem wrote:
assuming your 2nd to last post was addressing the brooklyn issue, that one does not support any of your conclusions at all. it was a filter by age and last time voted, no obvious sign of manipulation for a candidate either way, except for a local election.

your point about machine vs paper needs elaboration. typically rural areas have paper counts and those went overwhelmingly for sanders. would explain the discrepancy, similar to other studies on e-ballot stuff.

On November 02 2016 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:


This one is from An electoral system in Crisis by Lulu Fries'dat. The elaboration is there.

On November 02 2016 02:26 oneofthem wrote:
the other class of argument, the 'cumulative vote total by precinct size' is just reflection of systematic difference in level of sanders/clinton support in big vs small precincts, consistent with the election map.

in every state the sanders/clinton map looks like china circa 1948, countryside vs city. it's not fraud, just demographic polarization

On November 02 2016 02:35 Nebuchad wrote:


Why doesn't that change in level of support manifest in the big vs small precincts where the ballots are hand counted?

On November 02 2016 02:23 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting how Fox News has the slogan "fair and balanced", and the right doesn't group Fox in with the terms "mainstream media" or "establishment".

On November 02 2016 02:17 cLutZ wrote:


I just want to jump in and say that, although traditional media keeps saying "This time its different" vis-a-vis Trump, they went 95% as hard at Romney (turning a factual statement about taxpayers into a scandal, making fun of him for warning that Russia is a rising threat) and about 80% as hard against McCain (the extra 15% was instead doled out onto Palin).

Thus, I think the mistake you are making one, about why "polarized" media is so predominant, is failing to recognize how polarized the mainstream itself is. Its not just partisan bias, its about merely discussing issues that certain people care about. Breitbart and infowars are certainly jokes, but before Andrew Breitbart died people acted like it was the alt-right crazy-town it is today, when it was actually more a subversive-libertarian site that happened to be the only site reporting on things like James O'Keefe, hollywood censorship, etc.

The Mainstream Media sources lose credibility when they say someone like O'Keefe is a hack and not credible, but then don't try to replicate his "studies" using their supposedly more stringent methods. Its like they are Harvard saying some new study reducing suicide rates with vitamin B shots is crap, but then they don't do their own study, just laugh and have a Merlot about it.

On November 02 2016 02:40 zeo wrote:

Except the right does lump Fox in with establishment shills and MSM. Two sides of the same coin.

For 18 months, Republican strategists, political pundits, reporters and Americans who follow them have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s personal email habits, and no evidence of a crime has been found. But now they at least have the skills and interest to focus on a much larger and deeper email conspiracy, one involving war, lies, a private server run by the Republican Party and contempt of Congress citations—all of it still unsolved and unpunished.

Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House "lost" 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails.

...

in 2003, a whistleblower told the National Security Archive that the George W. Bush White House was no longer saving its emails. The Archive and another watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (which had represented outed CIA agent Valerie Plame in her case against the Bush administration), refiled their original lawsuit.

The plaintiffs soon discovered that Bush aides had simply shut down the Clinton automatic email archive, and they identified the start date of the lost emails as January 1, 2003. The White House claimed it had switched to a new server and in the process was unable to maintain an archive—a claim that many found dubious.

On November 02 2016 02:21 zlefin wrote:
that doesn't hurt mainstream media credibility; you don't need to replicate obvious trash to prove its obvious trash, you can point out that it's TRASH, and provide the reasons therefore for who have anosmia. and O'keefe is trash, quite rank at that.
MSM loses credibility because a bunch of scumbags decide to sell "those guys are lying!" to idiots to make money.