• 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!

Trump Enters White House with -300 Approval Rating

Visbek said:
lol

Sorry, but that's not going to work.

Any new media outlet would be distrusted the instant they reported on any political issue. If they say something that is remotely anti-Trump, they will be branded as elite liberal hacks. If they say something that displeases the left, they will be branded as a right-wing mouthpiece.

Given the polarized environment, no media organization can report anything remotely resembling the truth without being branded as partisan. But good luck trying. I'm sure that setting up a news outlet is the best way to get rich these days.... lol
Click to expand...
How lamentably lame, as though laughing were equivalent to a take down in verbal wrestling. Now that is laughable.

Therein lay one of the chief differences between liberal and conservative. We are positive, aspiring to improve, where others just throw up their arms, give up. Like the weak O bomb a with the problem of Carrier leaving. Nothing can be done he said, its inevitable, he didn't have a "magic wand" to wave at the problem after all. So he made NO effort.

Any news outlet that consistently reported what was only verifiable fact would grow to be trusted. And if not, then the ones choosing to put its news reporting ahead of faulty others will be at the head of the class, on the front of the wave of good information instead of the bad/poor reporting.

Information, you will remember, is power. True information and proper utilization, as proved by the Trump vs Hillary campaigns, is of inestimable worth, priceless. Betcha Hillary would love a do over and to have Trump's more precise outlines of what was correct and incorrect.

And you should, probably to get a better idea of what might be such full utilization of good information, read my entire posts... if you would have done so you would have known not to wish me luck trying since I specifically stated I had no intentions of doing so. Of course maybe you did read in entirety and so this just might be a reading comprehension problem.

At least this time the MO of saying so much silliness that its hardly worth bothering with an answer was not applied.

Bravo :applaud
 
truthatallcost said:
delusionals-msm-media-politics-1476404288.jpg


BREAKING NEWS: No one trusts...
1. The government
2. The media
3. Polls

..anymore.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

What?

You don't trust this guy?

b8c7a7f819ab07ffa44a42eecfebb98a.jpg
 
Tigerace117 said:
It's not; people may not trust "the news" in general, but they will always declare that news source or another is "an exception" when they aren't.
Click to expand...

So, IYO, no one is telling the truth?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
How lamentably lame, as though laughing were equivalent to a take down in verbal wrestling. Now that is laughable.
Click to expand...
Whatever


Therein lay one of the chief differences between liberal and conservative.
Click to expand...
Riiiiight

Mocking laughter at people for making silly and/or naive assertions is not a partisan characteristic.

I mean, really. Have you never listened to Rush Limbaugh? He is the master of sarcastically dumping on his opponents.


We are positive, aspiring to improve, where others just throw up their arms, give up. Like the weak O bomb a with the problem of Carrier leaving. Nothing can be done he said, its inevitable, he didn't have a "magic wand" to wave at the problem after all. So he made NO effort.
Click to expand...
lol (see above for what my laughter means)

First, pessimism and optimism are also not partisan characteristics. Not by a long shot.

Second, recognizing that your proposal is doomed to failure because of the highly polarized nature of contemporary politics is not actually pessimism. If you tell me that you want to go to Mars in the Concorde, I'm not required to take that proposal seriously either.

Third, conservatives spent most of the last 8 years mired in bitterness and pessimism, insistent that the US was going to hell in a handbasket because gay people could be legally married, or socialists were going to kill all humans, or whatever Fox News told you to be mad about that week.

Fourth, Carrier was mere political theater. Don't worry, it won't be long before we see how protectionism damages an economy.


Any news outlet that consistently reported what was only verifiable fact would grow to be trusted.
Click to expand...
Again: No, it wouldn't. Not even close.

The instant your "neutral" news outlet calls out any Republican on any misstatement, manipulation, error or lie, Republicans will flay the organization for being "biased." That's what happened with Politifact, FactCheck and Snopes.

Is it a verifiable fact that there was no election fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California? Sure seems that way. But Trump said it happened. So what will your hypothetical paper do? Call Trump out? How do you think that will go over?

Is it a verifiable fact that Russia interfered with the US election? The entire intelligence community, and everyone who's seen their full reports, says so. Trump denied it for weeks, before finally giving in, and then bashing the intelligence community and claiming they are partisan and on the Democrats' side. What will your hypothetical report? What qualifies as "verifiable" in this case? Reviewing all the records of Russian GRU, and every email to and from the director of the CIA?

Is it a verifiable fact that climate change is real? And that human activity is a primary cause of it? Almost every climatologist believes it, based on scientific evidence. If your news outlet prints that, will your conservative anti-AGW readers accept it as verified facts? Or will they blast your news site as being biased?

Is it a verifiable fact that Kansas has crippled its fiscal status with tax cuts? If your news outlet says no, do you think leftists will just accept it as a fact, and not complain?

Is it a verifiable fact that mercantilism is wrong?

Is it a verifiable fact that structural racism does or does not exist?


The fundamental problem here -- which you did not address -- is that no one can stay neutral in a polarized era, particularly one saturated with social media. Almost any topic can become a flash point in a matter of hours.

Read up on Cassandra one of these days. You may find her myth... instructive.
 
Visbek said:
Whatever



Riiiiight

Mocking laughter at people for making silly and/or naive assertions is not a partisan characteristic.

I mean, really. Have you never listened to Rush Limbaugh? He is the master of sarcastically dumping on his opponents.



lol (see above for what my laughter means)

First, pessimism and optimism are also not partisan characteristics. Not by a long shot.

Second, recognizing that your proposal is doomed to failure because of the highly polarized nature of contemporary politics is not actually pessimism. If you tell me that you want to go to Mars in the Concorde, I'm not required to take that proposal seriously either.

Third, conservatives spent most of the last 8 years mired in bitterness and pessimism, insistent that the US was going to hell in a handbasket because gay people could be legally married, or socialists were going to kill all humans, or whatever Fox News told you to be mad about that week.

Fourth, Carrier was mere political theater. Don't worry, it won't be long before we see how protectionism damages an economy.
Click to expand...
Wow, back to your ol' MO I see.

"Whatever", just like "lol", is not an argument. Just isn't, but keep trying it, I am sure iny your circles it counts as something pretty tremendous, so I will give the concept a "lol" so you might fully understand the true impact of what I am saying. LOL

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush. Sounds like YOU listen to Rush and that you mimic the style of someone you seem to intensely distrust and detest speaks volumes.

See my signature at the bottom? If I believed ANYTHING you say as being even close to the truth, I would not have hazarded that prediction. I was willing to pit what I could see evidenced by all the skewing, the rabid fear palpable in the Hillary campaign and the MSM, could see the rousing crowds Trump was attracting vs the pitiable high school gyms practically vacant. I specifically predicted the victory as well as raked you over the coals on your near total obsequious obeisance to over-sampled democrat polls prior to the election... was chided the lead up into the election, was willing willing to take the heat and beating afterward if wrong. Might remember I came back, rebuked you and all your lol's about that early on Nov 9th ...

It was speculation on my part... but I am sure the editorializing by news agencies and the skewing of the polls ARE now verifiable. Proof was in the pudding. And I am pudding your polls and opinions in the dumpster...lol.

Actually you are, wonder of wonders, wrong again about optimism and pessimism and its reflection on the two sides. But your statement, "not by a long shot" was nearly up to the task of convincing me. ha ha ha ha ha All your statements are either fantasy, straw man or absolutely wrong in direction or result. But they are your opinions... enuff said.
 
Visbek said:
Again: No, it wouldn't. Not even close.

The instant your "neutral" news outlet calls out any Republican on any misstatement, manipulation, error or lie, Republicans will flay the organization for being "biased." That's what happened with Politifact, FactCheck and Snopes.

Is it a verifiable fact that there was no election fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California? Sure seems that way. But Trump said it happened. So what will your hypothetical paper do? Call Trump out? How do you think that will go over?

Is it a verifiable fact that Russia interfered with the US election? The entire intelligence community, and everyone who's seen their full reports, says so. Trump denied it for weeks, before finally giving in, and then bashing the intelligence community and claiming they are partisan and on the Democrats' side. What will your hypothetical report? What qualifies as "verifiable" in this case? Reviewing all the records of Russian GRU, and every email to and from the director of the CIA?

Is it a verifiable fact that climate change is real? And that human activity is a primary cause of it? Almost every climatologist believes it, based on scientific evidence. If your news outlet prints that, will your conservative anti-AGW readers accept it as verified facts? Or will they blast your news site as being biased?

Is it a verifiable fact that Kansas has crippled its fiscal status with tax cuts? If your news outlet says no, do you think leftists will just accept it as a fact, and not complain?

Is it a verifiable fact that mercantilism is wrong?

Is it a verifiable fact that structural racism does or does not exist?


The fundamental problem here -- which you did not address -- is that no one can stay neutral in a polarized era, particularly one saturated with social media. Almost any topic can become a flash point in a matter of hours.

Read up on Cassandra one of these days. You may find her myth... instructive.
Click to expand...
Its a fools errand, with all the nonsense you throw up on the screen here, to go point by point with those who argue as you do. Your method is to produce so much trash that you hope nobody will rise, or in this case sink, to the occasion.

If a news outlet gave verifiable facts as its main impetus, many people here on site have given the nod that they would be interested. So WRONG there to start. If, again, you had read my posts fully, you would know that in my concept of a news organization, it would include that as its mainstay with accessible editorial/speculation from many sides as well.


Actually NO, pure verifiable facts favor Republicans. Hate to have to break it to ya but Politifact, Snopes et al are all verifiably biased... through commission and omission.

"Sure seems" sure seems a wishy washy way to describe that which is that to be relied upon as fact.

I have seen no public "evidence", only statements and accusations from some of the politically appointed "intelligence chiefs" that allude to this, but NO verifiable proof. What we did see reported was the dossier on Trump reported to O bomb a and Trump was faked... why was this false thing created by a political opponent's operatives even reported at that level? So NO, it could not be reported as verified.

NO, not verifiable.

Have not studied it enough to say no or maybe or yes.

Mercantilism wrong in what way... and when...and where? That is a debatable question, not a verifiable fact. So. NO.

Are you speaking of the current structural racism, and gender discrimination, against white males... or to what do you exactly allude? Start a thread on it, bet you will find that, NO, it is not verifiable.

But there are verifiable facts in EACH of those issues. Verifiable facts are the bones upon which you can start supporting the organs, the muscle and flesh of that which might get us closer to the truth. If the bones show us a structure allowing a foot, then we can look for a foot, bones showing support for five fingers then you have a normal hand. If someone says there were also wings... but there was not a bone structure evidencing anything like that, it could more immediately be dismissed as too speculative.

But a lib pessimist is probably not going to see the wisdom and the potential of any of that, it goes strictly against the grain.
 
Double posting a tldnr...who does that?
 
bubbabgone said:
When you can detect the position of the person doing the reporting then they're doing it wrong ... or they're just a tool reading what what another ideologue wrote and he/she is doing it wrong.
Bad either way.
What makes it worse is that advocacy journalism is becoming a common, and accepted, practice.

And it's also a reason why Trump tweets so damn much. If he didn't, all the typical media **** would go unchallenged.

I saw that the CNN and ABC polls going into the Inauguration over-sample Democrats by 9 points ... yet Gallup (2017 Jan 4-8) says ...
Republicans - 28 ... Independents - 44 ... Democrats - 25
Party Affiliation | Gallup Historical Trends

And so it goes.
Click to expand...

Spot on Bubba. Depending on the poll, the first thing I do is search for the actual polling data. I look at the sampling demographics. Usually they expose that these polls are worthless. Anyone with a semester of statistics knows how easy it is to manipulate data.

When the data set is derived from a sample that doesn't reflect reality, there is nothing to be learned.

Any polling agency that engages in that type of effort has no credibility and will forever be erased as illegitimate.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Its a fools errand, with all the nonsense you throw up on the screen here, to go point by point with those who argue as you do. Your method is to produce so much trash that you hope nobody will rise, or in this case sink, to the occasion.

If a news outlet gave verifiable facts as its main impetus, many people here on site have given the nod that they would be interested. So WRONG there to start. If, again, you had read my posts fully, you would know that in my concept of a news organization, it would include that as its mainstay with accessible editorial/speculation from many sides as well.


Actually NO, pure verifiable facts favor Republicans. Hate to have to break it to ya but Politifact, Snopes et al are all verifiably biased... through commission and omission.

"Sure seems" sure seems a wishy washy way to describe that which is that to be relied upon as fact.

I have seen no public "evidence", only statements and accusations from some of the politically appointed "intelligence chiefs" that allude to this, but NO verifiable proof. What we did see reported was the dossier on Trump reported to O bomb a and Trump was faked... why was this false thing created by a political opponent's operatives even reported at that level? So NO, it could not be reported as verified.

NO, not verifiable.

Have not studied it enough to say no or maybe or yes.

Mercantilism wrong in what way... and when...and where? That is a debatable question, not a verifiable fact. So. NO.

Are you speaking of the current structural racism, and gender discrimination, against white males... or to what do you exactly allude? Start a thread on it, bet you will find that, NO, it is not verifiable.

But there are verifiable facts in EACH of those issues. Verifiable facts are the bones upon which you can start supporting the organs, the muscle and flesh of that which might get us closer to the truth. If the bones show us a structure allowing a foot, then we can look for a foot, bones showing support for five fingers then you have a normal hand. If someone says there were also wings... but there was not a bone structure evidencing anything like that, it could more immediately be dismissed as too speculative.

But a lib pessimist is probably not going to see the wisdom and the potential of any of that, it goes strictly against the grain.
Click to expand...


Really? And where did you get this information? Fox News?
 
truthatallcost said:
Never. Not even when the American MSM lurved him.
Click to expand...
Clarification: Not much lurv there. I take it you didn't read the article itself, which was titled "Choosing Order Before Freedom":

"TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership. Putin is not a boy scout. He is not a democrat in any way that the West would define it. He is not a paragon of free speech. He stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years. Whether he becomes more like [Stalin]—who himself was twice TIME's Person of the Year—or like Peter the Great, the historical figure he most admires; whether he proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression—this we will know only over the next decade. At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power. For that reason, Vladimir Putin is TIME's 2007 Person of the Year."
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Wow, back to your ol' MO I see.
Click to expand...
You were warned


"Whatever", just like "lol", is not an argument.
Click to expand...
Correct. The former is a dismissal, the latter is expressing amusement at how utterly wrong you are. Bad form, perhaps, so maybe I'll stop.


Sorry, I don't listen to Rush. Sounds like YOU listen to Rush and that you mimic the style of someone you seem to intensely distrust and detest speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
lol

(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

No, I don't listen to Limbaugh. I am aware of his tactics -- and his appeal. I don't have to agree with his views to recognize his skills and techniques. There is nothing wrong with using humor, or being charismatic, or being fast on one's feet, or being articulate.

The tactic of his that I dislike -- and do not share -- is that he constantly distorts facts. (Another is that he lacks any sense of tact or class. Hmm.)


See my signature at the bottom? If I believed ANYTHING you say as being even close to the truth, I would not have hazarded that prediction.
Click to expand...
You, uh.. DO know that your prediction of a Trump landslide was deeply wrong, yes?

• Lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, or 2% -- a verifiable fact
• Polls were only off by the margin of error -- a verifiable fact (it was the analysis that was wrong)
• Won the Electoral College by one of the narrower margins in US history (46th out of 58 elections) -- a verifiable fact
• Won the EC because of approximately 80,000 votes -- a verifiable fact
• Democrats still picked up 6 House seats in the 2016 election (verifiable fact), and the odds are stacked against them due to decades of effective gerrymandering by local and state Republican figures (also verifiable)

Gotta say, this is really not looking good for your ability to distinguish fact from opinion. More on that in a bit.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Its a fools errand, with all the nonsense you throw up on the screen here, to go point by point with those who argue as you do.
Click to expand...
And yet you did so -- without actually citing any facts. Did I mention this is not looking good for your perspective?

Unsurprisingly, you vastly missed my points, which were:

• You are not presenting a coherent or even usable definition of "verifiable fact."

• It seems very obvious that you are ruling out a variety of claims not based on any facts, but your personal opinions and/or bias.

• Rather amusingly, you declare that certain claims can't be "based on facts," without actually knowing what they are or mean. (In other words, yes, you can use facts to determine if mercantilism is true or false)

• You make definitive claims without bothering to back them up -- e.g. how is it "verified" that Snopes is biased?

• And how should we handle important news that is difficult to verify? E.g. I didn't mention the Russian hacking to claim "ZOMG it's verified!" I mentioned it because the very nature of classified information makes it unwise to publish the evidence for the general public, but we still have to figure out what happened and why.

Since you don't seem to like handling more than one task at a time, let's make things easy for you. What qualifies as a verifiable fact?
 
ocean515 said:
Totally agree.

For those of us who have been around for a bit, there was a time when News was just that, News. Uncle Walter was the most trusted person in America. Those with fewer miles on the odometer don't have reference to that, nor understand what that actually means.

When the News Divisions in broadcast media were tasked with turning a profit, they were folded into the Entertainment Divisions, and the die was cast for creating slanted, audience focused "stories".

I think the opportunity exists for a real news outlet. Just facts, just reporting what happened, and if it calls for it, what is going to happen next.

I honestly don't know how that could be done, and how it could be judged.

Until then, it's incumbent on everyone to apply due diligence and reason to not only what is presented, but more important, what wasn't presented.
Click to expand...

Bwhahaha you were living in a fantasy world apparently. Yes even the great Walter Cronkite was biased.
 
Fletch said:
If you remember during the campaign, Trumps support was always around 40%. Yet he won. Now the same pollsters who got it wrong then are showing him with the same 40% approval. It wouldn't surprise me if he support never tops 50% and yet he wins re election by an even larger margin than he did in 2016. Conclusion: who cares what the polls say.
Click to expand...

Rasmussen has Trump at 52% today. I found that a little surprising.
 
Visbek said:
You were warned



Correct. The former is a dismissal, the latter is expressing amusement at how utterly wrong you are. Bad form, perhaps, so maybe I'll stop.



lol

(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

No, I don't listen to Limbaugh. I am aware of his tactics -- and his appeal. I don't have to agree with his views to recognize his skills and techniques. There is nothing wrong with using humor, or being charismatic, or being fast on one's feet, or being articulate.

The tactic of his that I dislike -- and do not share -- is that he constantly distorts facts. (Another is that he lacks any sense of tact or class. Hmm.)



You, uh.. DO know that your prediction of a Trump landslide was deeply wrong, yes?

• Lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, or 2% -- a verifiable fact
• Polls were only off by the margin of error -- a verifiable fact (it was the analysis that was wrong)
• Won the Electoral College by one of the narrower margins in US history (46th out of 58 elections) -- a verifiable fact
• Won the EC because of approximately 80,000 votes -- a verifiable fact
• Democrats still picked up 6 House seats in the 2016 election (verifiable fact), and the odds are stacked against them due to decades of effective gerrymandering by local and state Republican figures (also verifiable)

Gotta say, this is really not looking good for your ability to distinguish fact from opinion. More on that in a bit.
Click to expand...
Yes, more like Br're Rabbit and the sticky tar baby...stuck now, eh?

Oh, but sorry to inform, you actually have to outrank someone to dismiss, and while your inability at getting much of anything ever right might instantly serve up that other definition of rank, it does not rise to any level, so nixes that option. We are all so glad you are amused, ha ha, ha. Does not seem like it takes much, tho.

Au contraire, you very well do share the one skill that you most dislike... you are about to make use of it in this very next section of off asertions.

Distortion is exactly what you are doing. Landslide presidential victories do not have ANYTHING to do with the overall popular vote. NOTHING. Nada. Zip zero zilch. If you happen to get that too, thats sweeeet, but unnecessary.

All the polls were off by that same margin of error? Please verify.

Just because this landslide is situated among others that are better, well that hardly precludes it from being a landslide. If it was within 5 electoral votes that would be damned close. Ten? Still pretty close. Twenty, twenty five, thirty, thirty-five, forty, forty-five, fifty even...wow, not even close. Sixty, nope... Seventy-four vote difference is definitely a landslide. 30 states to 20?

Dems picked up 6 seats, too funny your silver lining, hopefully its a watertight lining to those adult diapers your folks must have to wear now near constantly after ****ing your pants as to just how dominant the Republicans really are ha ha ha....I mean, do not even get me started on how many governorships, state houses and all three the Republicans have...

Oh hell, might as well...so tomorrow the White House, both National Legislative Houses, and sweetly the next Supreme Court pick is already up in the batters box... with some aging libs judges on the bench that probably are just not gonna last the next 8 years. Certainly not a maybe 12 or 16 years. Then those 33 governorships, 68 out 99 state houses, 25 where they have the complete control trifecta...

And OMG such an overwhelming number of counties compared to Clinton. The GOP now controls the most legislative seats it has held since the founding of the party.

Trump did have to thread so many needles... AND he did. Hillary was out campaigned and lost states NOBODY on your side anticipated.

It was huge fun watching the shock, the melt from haughty grins to furrowed brows, then head scratching, complete horror and the wailing and gnashing of teeth... I was just glad to be alive to actually see it. Simply wonderful. Could not have asked for a better Christmas present.

Yeah yeah yeah. According to libs, its never looking very good for Republicans, Conservatives...Hell, for anybody on the right on ANYTHING. So, as you would no doubt phrase it: LOL.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
Bwhahaha you were living in a fantasy world apparently. Yes even the great Walter Cronkite was biased.
Click to expand...

Bwhahaha.

No, that world is a recent creation, as witnessed by the psychotic melt down of the precious snowflakes, convinced by their masters the world is coming to an end.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
If anyone finds a source that will give me the news, cold dry and boring, please let me know.

I don't need to be entertained, I don't need to be told what to feel, I don't need a lecture, I don't care what celebrities are up to... just. the. news.
Click to expand...

But told what to feel is all the news can be. As i like to say, there's 7 billion stories every day, and the news has time to cover maybe a handful. At best, the news can reflect what you feel, but because not every viewer has the same preferences, media found it flatly easier to create certain narratives. So out of those handful of stories, 4 will be about black on white crime, or whatever. Then they can get people to tune in cause viewers know what to expect, they want to see the next chapter.

"Just the news" would be random ****, and you may as well go outside for that. Just "important" news, well someone else might have a different idea of what's important and then you'll complain when nothing that holds interest gets covered. You'll interpret it as what you feel doesn't matter and they're telling you what to feel all over again. And hey, if there's truly nothing important going on, 24/7 means the media is compelled to invent a controversy

I do think a way out of the tabloid celebrity worship and "news" bought and owned by political parties would be admirable, but you're better off learning to research your way to your own conclusions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom