• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Despite Media Freak-Out, Data Shows Fake News Sites Have Tiny Audience

I just saw that Media Matters is changing it's mission to focus on "... exposing falsehoods circulated online."

https://newrepublic.com/article/139385/happens-media-matters-post-hillary-world

hmmmm ... given Facebook's announced battle against fake news sources (read: subjective censoring), anyone think Brock's latest remake is his attempt to have one of his online babies chosen as an arbiter for Zuckerberg?
 
And who is going to tell you that they actually watched and believed fake news after the fact?
 
From the sound of it, the media reports about fake news websites are giving them more attention than they had before the election.
 
I recognize there are many people who have been convinced to believe that.

Far easier to focus on that meme to explain the loss, than what was contained in the emails, the revelations of collusion and fraud in the MSM, and at least for me, the vile, despicable accusation by the Democratic candidate for President that 10's of millions of US Citizens were irredeemably deplorable.

People forget about Hillary's lack of campaigning.

Trump would do a few rallys per day and she would do maybe two per week.

She couldn't get anybody excited to vote for her.
 
People forget about Hillary's lack of campaigning.

Trump would do a few rallys per day and she would do maybe two per week.

She couldn't get anybody excited to vote for her.

I didn't follow the draw she had at her campaign events, but I do recall there were many that required celebrities to bring the people out.

Someone posted a 538 gif that showed her campaign stops versus Trumps in the closing month or so, and the difference was substantial.

Considering the spending gap between the campaigns, the approach to getting the job done successfully could not be more glaring.
 
And for calling the EC a "very flawed system", it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. The EC was designed to do exactly what it did this election cycle.

So it was designed to promote the will of the minority? To impose the white mans will on the rest of the country.. yes the rural "mid west" is largely white vs the cities where minorities are for the most part.. dont think a second that people have not noticed this clear flaw in the EC.

If fact we may see both aspects of its power, though unlikely. The EC has existed since we put together the Constitution and it gives weight to the middle of the country, rural areas, and lower populated States.

Yes a massive flaw if true. The EC was designed for 13 colonies/states, not 50+. It was designed when a very small minority of the population could vote and designed when it took weeks for results to get from one end of the country to another.. it is flawed and outdated.

This is necessary, the Republic (not democracy) must consider the whole, not just the cities.

A republic is democracy.. just a variant of it. Using the "we are a republic" excuse is just more bull**** denial. Even the Roman Republic was run by majority rule of votes (when they were not killing each other of course).

So to be President of the US, you're going to need votes from Middle America.

Yes only Middle America counts it seems.. the place where fewest people live. How on earth is that fair in any way? Then again this is a system built by rich white male slave owners, at a time when only male landowners were allowed to vote.

Furthermore, what country popularly elects their leader?

Plenty, in fact most I believe.

Is the UK Prime Minister popularly elected?

UK is a piss poor example for a democracy. An un-elected appointed upper house and a system that favours the right in such a massive scale that they only need 32% of the over all vote to get absolute power.

How about the leaders of the EU?

Each leader in the EU are elected for the most part. Theoretically you can have a non elected PM or minister in a country but it is rare and said person is always backed up by a majority in the parliament which means a majority of the people. And I know you are thinking of the commission but hate to disappoint you.. they are bureaucrats, and you dont elect those.. you hire them.

As far as I know, no one really elects by popular vote their leader.

Okay, just looking at Head of State... then roughly 114 out of 220? countries elect directly their head of state. Notable mentions are Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Coratia, Cypris Czech Republic, France, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, Portugal, Russia and many others.

Now Prime Ministers are elected based on who controls parilement and can get most votes there, and that is based on largely a majority of the overall vote. So any majority government will always have a majority of the overall vote behind them. Minority governments do not, but they are also much easier to get rid of and hence have to go on plenty of compromise to stay in power. My own country is run by a minority right wing government that goes to both sides over the middle to get legislation passed and the budget of course.

Regardless, in almost every democratic system BUT the US and UK, the people in power will have a popular mandate behind them of a majority of the vote.. it is basic democracy. Face it, Trump has next to no mandate as President as he lost the popular vote and only an outdated 1700s system that favoured white male landowners saved his bacon.
 
We have never had, a popular vote. The system isn't flawed, it's built for a specific purpose, and that purpose shines through on occasions like this. The EC is an ingenious system, not a flawed one. The USA is a Representative Republic, not a direct democracy.

Yes the US is a REPRESENTATIVE Republic, but that is not what the EC is doing. It is putting in power the person who got the least amount of votes, which means it does not represent the will of the people. And yes you are not a direct democracy, but you are a democracy and the basic principle for any democracy is that the people in charge have the majority of the people behind them. Even the UK, whos system is almost as flawed as the US, has the majority of people who voted behind the government.. just not an overall majority which is the standard in other representative democracies. The US has nothing even close to this.

Your worries barely register with me.

I pitty you then. You now have a ***** grabbing rapist con artist as President, that is doing the exact opposite of what he claimed he would and putting more swamp water in the swamp.. just his people instead. He is doing exactly what the anti-Trump people said he would do. He is promoting his business and his family and laying the base for massive nepotism never seen before in US history. On top of that, his access to Twitter is destroying what little respect the US had around the world.
 
Yes the US is a REPRESENTATIVE Republic, but that is not what the EC is doing. It is putting in power the person who got the least amount of votes, which means it does not represent the will of the people. And yes you are not a direct democracy, but you are a democracy and the basic principle for any democracy is that the people in charge have the majority of the people behind them. Even the UK, whos system is almost as flawed as the US, has the majority of people who voted behind the government.. just not an overall majority which is the standard in other representative democracies. The US has nothing even close to this.



I pitty you then. You now have a ***** grabbing rapist con artist as President, that is doing the exact opposite of what he claimed he would and putting more swamp water in the swamp.. just his people instead. He is doing exactly what the anti-Trump people said he would do. He is promoting his business and his family and laying the base for massive nepotism never seen before in US history. On top of that, his access to Twitter is destroying what little respect the US had around the world.

Funny, you never cared about the serial sex abuser or his enabling wife...
 
So it was designed to promote the will of the minority? To impose the white mans will on the rest of the country.. yes the rural "mid west" is largely white vs the cities where minorities are for the most part.. dont think a second that people have not noticed this clear flaw in the EC.

In a Democratic Republic, it's not majority rules all the time. The majority is often checked with the minority. But this is mostly just some racist rant you constructed instead of dealing with the facts.

Yes a massive flaw if true. The EC was designed for 13 colonies/states, not 50+. It was designed when a very small minority of the population could vote and designed when it took weeks for results to get from one end of the country to another.. it is flawed and outdated.

It's scaled up and works well. The President is Head of Government for the entire Republic and must represent it as such.

A republic is democracy.. just a variant of it. Using the "we are a republic" excuse is just more bull**** denial. Even the Roman Republic was run by majority rule of votes (when they were not killing each other of course).

We're not a pure democracy, and we are not run exclusively by Majority Rules. Exclusive Majority Rules is stupid, there's no guarantee of rights. A Democratic Republic the likes of the US will usually listen to the majority, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the minority. And overall, the EC is there to help protect against the dangers of popularism. Working as intended.

Yes only Middle America counts it seems.. the place where fewest people live. How on earth is that fair in any way? Then again this is a system built by rich white male slave owners, at a time when only male landowners were allowed to vote.

Not just middle america, but middle america is very important. But again, you devolve into a racist rant.

Plenty, in fact most I believe.

Regardless, in almost every democratic system BUT the US and UK, the people in power will have a popular mandate behind them of a majority of the vote.. it is basic democracy. Face it, Trump has next to no mandate as President as he lost the popular vote and only an outdated 1700s system that favoured white male landowners saved his bacon.

You list is BS, I was clearly talking of Head of Government, which is why I referenced the UK Prime Minister, not the Queen of England.

The Head of Government for Austria is the Federal Chancellor, and he IS NOT elected. He's appointed by the head of state, in Austria that is the President, who is head of state and for all intensive purposes, a figure head. Much like the Queen of England. So there is at least one off that list.

Brazil, Chile, Columbia (in 1991, so relatively recent), Costa Rica have the closest thing to the US in terms of its President who is Head of Government and Head of State. They are popularly elected, but it's hard to have called Brazil's government long term stable.

Bulgaria has a Prime Minister as Head of Government. Is he popularly elected?

Croatia has a Prime Minister (President of Government) as its Head of Government, don't think he is popularly elected (though could be wrong)

Czech has the Chairman of the Government of the Czech Republic (essentially a Prime Minister) as its Head of Government

France has a Prime Minister who is NOT elected

Blah blah blah. So there you go. Your list is a lie. I stopped there, but mostly what, some Central and South American countries have Presidents that are Head of Government and popularly elected, but most Heads of Government are not.
 
Back
Top Bottom