I thought it sounded more like some low environmental impact tile material, but okay, I got it wrong. Also, in terms of visual pattern recognition, I think it far too similar to servile. What would you prefer as nickname?
There is a laundry list of reasons why not to vote for Trump, but I've come up with one more, and it's one that I've not seen anyone else bring up anywhere.
If he wins the Presidency, then Disney is obligated to build a Trump Audioanimatron for the Hall of Presidents in Disneyland and Walt Disney World. A vote for Hillary is a vote against RoboTrump.
I imagine that our rightward friends would have the same objection if you swapped the terms Hillary and Trump.
I'll differentiate from the rest and say MSNBC is actually FAR more biased than Fox News. Fox News is probably just right of Center, CNN is probably left of Center, and normally I watch neither.
I think more of the youth are Left of center these days, and so see Foxnews as far more conservative than it really is. In that light, I think it's far more maligned than it should be.
On the otherhand, a TON of news sites that are far more left or right of these should be considered the same as the gossip rags, but oddly enough they are considered news instead of gossip rags in todays society.
Foxnews itself may be relatively closer to center than people say, but it's their special programs with opinion centered celebrities which is far right (and the same could be said of some other news channels).
The news itself on the channels tend to be closer to center, but the people (like Hannity) are the ones that can be really far on one side or the other.
Those programs probably be considered the same as a news gossip rag (and I actually used to like watching Maddow to tell the truth).
For actual news...
I prefer listening NPR (which is also left of center, and these days probably farther left then CNN), or BBC (which some say is pretty darn near center) or watching PBS news hour (which is considered one of the more non-biased news out there).
Maybe you don't pay enough attention. Here's the cycle at Fox:
Gossip shows: they say something outrageous.
Pundits/politicians: then cite these shows as if they were journalists.
Fox "News": then cites the pundits/politicians saying those things.This has been documented REPEATEDLY.
Oh, I pay attention. I know what I say here about Fox is most likely unpopular, but when analysis has been done on the actual reporting of organizations...ironically only PBS showed it was actually conservative [though overall neutral as well] (Even Fox News [- the opinion shows] was liberal in it's news slant!).
That was done several years ago, but even then Fox was bemoaned by liberals as the conservative house of horrors...but the analysis said something entirely different.
It's been a few years, and perhaps I've been too influenced by people here and other places, but I would put Fox News a little right of center now despite that report. MSNBC on the otherhand, hasn't really changed a bit, and CNN probably has moved more left overall.
At least from the bits and tidbits I've seen of things.
I actually listen to NPR while I drive the most for news, followed by BBC. On the internet normally I'll get articles on Yahoo, MSN, or Facebook. However, I typically go directly to the comments to see just how liberal or conservative the article is presenting things (and sometimes the comments are absolutely hilarious). From Yahoo and Facebook, you actually get sites which are FAR more right (CNS) or Left leaning than Fox or CNN would probably even dream of trying to be.
If you perceive that Fox News is just about center, than all I can say is that our perceptions differ by orders of magnitude. This is why whenever someone wants to bring up a left/right question with me, the first thing I ask is... What's your center?I'll differentiate from the rest and say MSNBC is actually FAR more biased than Fox News. Fox News is probably just right of Center, CNN is probably left of Center, and normally I watch neither.
The most important thing to me is honesty in a politician (which none of the candidates for President seem to posses these days).
I would say I was more a Sanders type guy overall. However, I'm not beholden to any party, if I feel one candidate is better from the other party, I would go with the other candidate instead of blind party loyalty.
With news I was taught that if you only get news from one source, you will be incredibly biased and normally miss half the picture if not most of it.
So, I try to get news from several sources, and if possible from different sides of a debate if possible rather than trying to be engulfed in one point of views.
[edit: realized my answer may be seen as not actually answering your question. Currently I suppose you would see me as a Democrat due to my political views and votes. That said, I see myself more as an independent than bound by chains to a specific party. I don't feel that I should be bound to vote one way simply because of party, and rather take into account everything someone says or does to determine how I feel I should go with my political choices.]
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I pay attention. I know what I say here about Fox is most likely unpopular, but when analysis has been done on the actual reporting of organizations...ironically only PBS showed it was actually conservative [though overall neutral as well] (Even Fox News [- the opinion shows] was liberal in it's news slant!).You have the source for this, I assume?
second this request.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you perceive that Fox News is just about center, than all I can say is that our perceptions differ by orders of magnitude. This is why whenever someone wants to bring up a left/right question with me, the first thing I ask is... What's your center?I'll differentiate from the rest and say MSNBC is actually FAR more biased than Fox News. Fox News is probably just right of Center, CNN is probably left of Center, and normally I watch neither.
The most important thing to me is honesty in a politician (which none of the candidates for President seem to posses these days).
By most factchecking measurements, such as politifact Clinton actually rates as the most honest and accurate in her political statements of all the candidates in this year's cycle, even edging out Bernie Sanders.
I do believe that Clinton is not being measured in the same manner as her male counterparts, quite frankly it's clear that a double standard is being plied against her.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you perceive that Fox News is just about center, than all I can say is that our perceptions differ by orders of magnitude. This is why whenever someone wants to bring up a left/right question with me, the first thing I ask is... What's your center?I'll differentiate from the rest and say MSNBC is actually FAR more biased than Fox News. Fox News is probably just right of Center, CNN is probably left of Center, and normally I watch neither.
The most important thing to me is honesty in a politician (which none of the candidates for President seem to posses these days).
By most factchecking measurements, such as politifact Clinton actually rates as the most honest and accurate in her political statements of all the candidates in this year's cycle, even edging out Bernie Sanders.
I do believe that Clinton is not being measured in the same manner as her male counterparts, quite frankly it's clear that a double standard is being plied against her.
If I understand correctly she historically has generally been more truthful as well (not simply this election year).
However because the GOP has engaged in a constant questioning of her *intent* they have raised a specter that cannot be dismissed.
"Oh I understand she works her words well and doesn't directly lie, but I don't trust her because she intends..."
Is a dirty phrase I see all too often.
When you start questioning the speakers intent in return they get all pissy, when you point out the problem with *that* it generally does not provoke the internal reflection one might hope for.
Eh. I think in the age of social media, Jill Stein will still prove to be viable for some. Gary just has the benefit of a) still having ties to the RNC and b) plenty of older voters.
*hums a little Land of Confusion*
Thejeff,
Well yeah but there's still some independents too that can't support EITHER candidate but aren't enamored by some of the stances the Libertarians takes. IE smaller government, less oversight on business, etc.
Not sure I'd consider Jill Stein a protest candidate if she's actively trying to court people disenchanted with the centrist slant of the Democrats on some issues.
Not sure I'd consider Jill Stein a protest candidate if she's actively trying to court people disenchanted with the centrist slant of the Democrats on some issues.
Actively trying to court people disenchanted with the centrist slant to vote for her in protest of that slant is... not a protest candidate?
Is that what you meant to say or did I miss something?
Cause I think I missed something.
EH. I think the Green Party MIGHT be working to get stronger on a local, state level after this. But I do get what you're saying Jeff.
I think the Green Party MIGHT be working to get stronger on a local, state level after this.
The Green Party was founded in 1984 and ran its first presidential candidate in the 1996 election. If the idea that it needs to get stronger on a local and state level is in any way news to it, then it's been doing something -- more like EVERYTHING -- completely wrong for more than thirty years.
Otherwise they're in the position of a bakery that's been "open" for more than thirty years but hasn't actually produced or sold anything to eat.
Mmm. Not sure it's fair to claim that in 30 years, it's not made inroads.
I mean how long ago was it when we had a Black President?
Mmm. Not sure it's fair to claim that in 30 years, it's not made inroads.
Well, we have two options. Incompetent or clueless.
If it's been trying to develop a decent state and local level political organization and has only managed to get 130 people elected to the tens of thousands of elected offices nationwide, it's incompetent. [There are approximately 20,000 "incorporated places" in the US, most of which have at least five elected officials; there are also about 3000 counties, and of course fifty states plus the associated non-state areas like DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam. So that's 130 people out of roughly 100,000 possible offices, a 0.130% success rate.] Most of the local/county offices tend to be filled by the single candidate who actually runs (i.e., is running unopposed) -- see these results for a good example.
If the Greens don't even know they need to be on the ballot, they're out-and-out clueless.
Mmm. Not sure it's fair to claim that in 30 years, it's not made inroads.
I mean how long ago was it when we had a Black President?
The issue is not how many presidential elections they've won.
The issue is How many city council seats they've won. How many township trustee seats. How many county commissioner seats
After 30 years, what percentage of state representative seats do they hold? What about US Congress?
African Americans help a fair number of those positions for decades before an African American president was elected.
So what inroads are the Greens making in US elections?
Okay now THAT'S sad right there...
Eh. I think in the age of social media, Jill Stein will still prove to be viable for some.
Generally the Anti-Vaxx crowd.
Great. The crowd that thinks Vaccinces cause autism. Yeah thanks guys. I guess my mom should have just let me suffer through whooping cough that almost killed my best friend in kindergarden...
Mmm. Not sure it's fair to claim that in 30 years, it's not made inroads.
I mean how long ago was it when we had a Black President?
The issue is not how many presidential elections they've won.
The issue is How many city council seats they've won.
Roughly a dozen, plus two mayoralities (currently).
How many township trustee seats.
About five.
How many county commissioner seats
County? One, AFAICT.
After 30 years, what percentage of state representative seats do they hold? What about US Congress?
Zero and zero, respectively.
So what inroads are the Greens making in US elections?
Almost none. As I wrote above, they seem to have about a 0.130% success rate, which is below the odds of winning the big prize at the local church lottery.
Great. The crowd that thinks Vaccinces cause autism. Yeah thanks guys.
Hey, I'm not the one pushing Jill Stein's candidacy on this thread.
No I wasn't pushing her. I was supporting her and the party, NOT pushing it. :P I never said "You guys are a-holes! Support Jill Stein!!!'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost none. As I wrote above, they seem to have about a 0.130% success rate, which is below the odds of winning the big prize at the local church lottery.
I see Greens listed on ballots in my area, but they almost never actually try to win. They don't knock on doors. They don't invite people to house parties to meet the candidate. They don't engage in even the most rudimentary get-out-the vote activities. It's as if they want the fame but don't want to work for the actual position.
I've seen leftist 3rd parties get their candidates elected here, but not the Greens
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said "You guys are a-holes! Support Jill Stein!!!'
My polling numbers are great, off-the-charts, in the Dreamlands. All the bholes support me. Such class, they always send their best people.
I have no idea why Hastur wants me to support him, but no....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I pay attention. I know what I say here about Fox is most likely unpopular, but when analysis has been done on the actual reporting of organizations...ironically only PBS showed it was actually conservative [though overall neutral as well] (Even Fox News [- the opinion shows] was liberal in it's news slant!).You have the source for this, I assume?
I've seen some of the studies. The thing is they ONLY look at shows like Special Report w/ Brit Hume.
People can argue all they want about how the other shows are "entertainment". But when you look at the screen, it still says FOX NEWS in the corner and has all the trappings of a news show, with a person (or persons) sitting behind a desk, telling the audience about events that happened, with all the screen paraphernalia of a news show.
See, on a different channel, like Comedy Central, the non-"news" shows are completely different. They're cartoons, don't have current events scrawls and don't have logos that say "news" in the corner.
Hannity, O'Reily and others are news shows. They try to claim they aren't, but that's b+#@##*~. They look like news shows, they talk like news shows. They're f+#~ing news shows.
Source? Clinton has a well known smear machine and this seems pretty unbelievable.
and Stein's equivocation on vaccines and homeopathy is pathetic at best.
Jill Stein's twitter feed. I'm going to paraphrase, cause I'm lazy and don't feel like looking it up, but I think about 2 weeks ago.
Original tweet: There's no evidence linking vaccines with autism.
Altered tweet: I'm not aware of any evidence linking vaccines with autism.
Now, I don't think this means that Stein believes in the anti-vaxxer movement, but she's purposely trying to put herself in a position so that she isn't alienating them by making her statements appear as if they could support their beliefs.
Source? Clinton has a well known smear machine and this seems pretty unbelievable.
and Stein's equivocation on vaccines and homeopathy is pathetic at best.
Her statements are more nuanced than "anti-vaccine". Instead she distrusts the food and drug administration and its ties to existing drug corporations.
She distrusts the corporations and therefore the FDA and therefore the regulations on mandatory vaccines.
She openly questions the safety of vaccines and calls for more "testing to ensure safety and effectiveness" which is seen as a calling card for anti-vax types in the same way "second amendment solutions" or "urban youth" or "thugs" are dog whistles for others.
I love the math behind why homeopathy doesn't work. Nevermind the chemistry of why it doesn't work, which is also interesting, but less awe-inspiring.
|
I love the math behind why homeopathy doesn't work. Nevermind the chemistry of why it doesn't work, which is also interesting, but less awe-inspiring.
I once heard someone say, "You don't have to believe in it for it to work." But you do have to believe in it for it to work. It is nothing but a placebo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still not seeing anything saying she's anti vaccination or for homeopathy. She's clearly skeptical of the safety, effectiveness or necessity of some vaccines, which could be understandable given the wide range of vaccines produced every year, but that doesn't mean she's on the vaccination causes autism bus.
This is the quote I see from Krensky's link: "vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure–each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them" Jill Stein
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The writer of that article on the other hand seems to be trying to twist the words to mean something that they don't, calling for oversight on the auto industry from a disinterested party doesn't mean you're against the auto industry, it means you don't want people with a vested interest making rules and regulation for that industry.
Unless I'm missing something it feels like a smear.
In the same way that you aren't supposed to realize what people mean when they say President Obama is "Lawless" or a "Thug".
It's called a dog whistle for a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the quote I see from Krensky's link: "vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure–each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them" Jill Stein
That's true as far as it goes. But she's not saying that new vaccines should be tested. She saying that you can't trust any current vaccines because the FDA itself can't be trusted
its no wonder many Americans don’t trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice.
Most highly technical industries are rather... small.
For example I'm in the military, which is huge.
But then I'm in the Army. Still very big
Then I have my Regimental Affiliation. Much Smaller
Then I have my specific MOS. Rather small.
I have some unique skill sets to boot. Very tight field.
That tight field happens to include people that are now corporate and contractors. It could look bad to think I'm affiliated with such people until you actually break it down and look at why those affiliations exist and how they were built.
So simply saying "They got ties!" is ridiculous.