Slashdot Mirror

Let's get some hard data showing the bias that is present in censorship. The US is more conservative than liberal:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/2...

Without algorithmic bias online media would lean conservative for the simple reason that the US has more conservatives than liberals. Yet somehow online platforms (Reddit, Facebook etc.) tilt overwhelmingly liberal.

This can only be a result of bias that has been put into algorithms and sanctioned.

Thus, the people affected are all retired. Nearly close to zero people in the current workforce, knew this time.

Lets just remember, the men that are heroes for gender equality.

This "poll" is from the "Yale Program on Climate Change Communication" - it seeks to push the entire narrative. Now, when you actually ask people what they think is the most important problem, you find environmental issues down around 2-3%. And that's right around where it's been for a LONG time. Push polls make great headlines, and when it's mrsmash as editor - you know it's pushing a defined agenda!

I for one am getting tired of msmash's global warming spam on Slashdot. No wonder the readership is down. I've lived long enough to hear that the world is going into an ice age, then it's going to fry, yada yada yada. And NO --- the science is NOT settled. We just have some high priests of the global warming faith installed at the U.N. who burp out scare documents from time to time for true believers of the faith to feed on. And we all know that anything greater than 0.04% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere spells doom for planet Earth, what with it being the least effective greenhouse gas and all. We may as well all kill ourselves tomorrow.

This "poll" is from the "Yale Program on Climate Change Communication" - it seeks to push the entire narrative. Now, when you actually ask people what they think is the most important problem, you find environmental issues down around 2-3%. And that's right around where it's been for a LONG time. Push polls make great headlines, and when it's mrsmash as editor - you know it's pushing a defined agenda!

something that the majority of Americans support

In your deranged fantasies, maybe, Comrade. According to polls of actual Americans, the majority of them oppose the wall. See here and here.

That's probably because it's an obviously moronic waste of money. Which it would still be even if people supported it. Which, once again, they do not.

And virtually everybody in the US intelligence apparatus disagrees with him.

The only statement we have which tries to make the opinion (an "assessment") from the Obama administration which I can't find anyone who seriously believes; nobody believes all of those agencies agree on anything much less that opinion. Sy Hersh says as much when he talked about that assessment and the media's lacking coverage of it ("What does an assessment mean? It's not a national intelligence estimate. If you had a real estimate you would have five or six dissents, people saying, 'cause I can tell you right now. One time they said 17 agencies all agreed. Oh really? The Coast Guard and the Air Force, they all agreed on it? And it was outrageous and nobody did that story."). Even the ostensible source of Russiagate stories—alleged collusion between some Russians and the Trump campaign—isn't looking so rosy for proponents anymore (it never looked relevant for the American public; Russiagate doesn't address the public's concerns it only reflects elite's interests). As the title indicates, "Mueller report PSA: Prepare for disappointment." and one report concurs. And this kind of downplaying has been done before. To think this is all being done in service of a neoliberalist losing a rigged election in search of an excuse to distract us from her culpability, what those leaked emails actually said, and possibly manufacture lies that could help foment a future war with Russia.

No they don't, they're morons.

Sources and evidence, not namecalling, are required to sustain convincing arguments.

Not really. Democrats and Republicans both have about 25% share of the registered voters.

That's not true. You better look at those numbers again. Democrats have had 5-8 point larger share since at least 2004. That's why in every national election since that time the Democratic candidates have gotten a majority of the votes. If it hadn't been for gerrymandering, both houses of Congress would have been in Democratic control for the past 15 years.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1...

The general population thinks you're wrong. Immigration is the number two issue...

Claiming that harsh drug laws represent "the will of the people" is absurd.

Hardly. Using marijuana as an example, you can see that as it became more favorable it became more decriminalized and legal in more places.

When those laws were put in place there was a general approval for them (88% thinking marijuana should be illegal in 1969). It's changing and so are the laws. What is the problem here?

is just as much a "liberal" thing

Conservative pundits and politicians talk much more about increasing military spending than their progressive equivalents. Many had accused Obama of "gutting the military". Do you dispute this pattern of theirs?

I do agree that talk and action don't always match up, but I'm pretty sure most conservatives want or support a bigger military relative to progressives, based on many hours of debating conservatives online. Here is one survey that backs this. (Scroll to about the middle.)

You know, you could read before posting.

Did you know that it is not "illegal," for a person to enter the United States without documentation for the first incident?

By way of evidence, consider that first-timers are not charged with anything -- they are simply deported at taxpayer expense.

Did you know that the US has a pretty decent immigration policy that includes administration buildings and staff along the border where a bloke can get a decent meal and a cuppa joe? Congress never funded it.

Your obsession with the word, "illegal," is transparent as a mindless trigger to mask ignorance.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1...

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance

Do you really need to go through all five stages? Just move to acceptance and save us the time.

Funny, and here I thought it was the democrats that are on the #walkaway train.

Unsurprisingly, like many GOP talking points, this one was projection, too. Pew and Gallup agree that D party id has remained relatively flat, while R party id dipped in 2017, although the Gallup numbers that go into 2018 suggest that R party id has recovered in recent months.

The average number of seats lost by a sitting president's party in midterms going back to 1862 is 38 seats.

You're a little off. The number is 37, and that's only for unpopular presidents.

Since we're looking at an eventual swing of 39 or so, I don't see how you can call that "underperforming". It's just above average for an unpopular president, and Trump is historically unpopular.over the course of his first two years.

What did you call it when Obama lost 63 seats in 2010? You're delusional.

I bet you didn't know that after the 2010 election the Democrats still held a commanding lead in the Senate. Bigger, in fact, than any lead won in a Republican "wave".

Here are the actual numbers, not the Breitbart numbers:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/2...

That would make sense if doctor and nurses wages were the major driver of our over the top healthcare costs. As with all things, labor makes up a very small amount of overall costs.

The nail in the coffin for your overall claim though, is that doctors and nurses are still well paid people in every other first world country.

Doctor and nurse salaries are a part of the issue. You want to claim you can magically transform the system and everything will magically work out. Except the doctor and nurse salaries, but it'll still magically work out even then.

Did you read the article at the link? Did you follow the links from that?
- Hospital rooms are bigger in the US. You plan to remodel all the hospitals? That won't be expensive?
- Drugs are more expensive. Do you plan to completely change the pharma industry? That will take a huge amount of political power, to deliver a pharma industry that comes up with fewer drugs, but is a little cheaper.
- There are costs associated with the insurance industry. Do you plan on eliminating that industry? That will take a huge amount of political power. You'll save a little money.
- The US has lots more MRI machines and other expensive equipment that adds to costs. That equipment is already purchased. It can't be un-purchased.

The fact remains that no country has ever gone from high-cost health care to low-cost health care. You don't have the political power to get it done, because no one does. No one ever did -- not in a Western-style democracy. In the US, the vast majority of us are satisfied with our health care.

So the reason I'm saying we can't change to one of the lower cost systems is because it literally can't be accomplished. It's a fantasy.

After 9/11, people were scared and ready for war. Gallup did talk to these folks personally. Poll

Don't worry, the Approval Rating for Republicans is currently the highest it's been since they swept into control of the House in 2010.

source

Folks don't seem to realize how many evangelicals America has. Our Vice President is a Dominionist, for example.

For instance, the number one reason is because you want to.

Most smokers do not want to smoke, and wish they had never started.

The number one reason for smoking is addiction.

Most smokers want to quit, and have tried multiple times

"Last century the rest of the world was moving towards communism..."

No it wasn't. Some portions certainly were but the entirety of the West never seriously entertained communism and neither did most third world countries.

"Transgender "rights" are for something like 0.1% of the population, of which 99.9% of society are required to reprogram themselves and respect the delusions of an extremely tiny minority."

One of the founding philosophies of this country was the need to protect minority rights.

"of which 99.9% of society are required to reprogram themselves and respect the delusions of an extremely tiny minority. "

Quite a bit of our population had to "reprogram" after slavery ended and the civil rights movement and we all agree we came out the better for it now. Maybe that's just the reprogramming talking though. What do you think?

Furthermore, it wouldn't be 99.9% requiring reprogramming, it would only be whatever percentage of people get enraged by some one taking a dump in a public rest room that matches the sex they identify with rather then the one they were born. Right now it looks like that is slightly less than half the country ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/2... )

"Yes, you are hard-left if you think that a biological male that "identifies" as a woman has a right to hang out with biological women with his male genitalia hanging [tmj4.com] out."

And you've never used a public rest room if you think that's what goes on in them. You make it sound like a porn shoot in one of those things. In all my time on this earth I've never seen a mans dick in a public rest room and we men use urinals. Lady's have all their sensitive business conducted in stalls.

Neat fantasy. I hope it helps you get through the next 7 years without a psychotic break and/or suicide.

I look forward to the studies decades from now detailing the psychological damage done by the media's constant Russia/Mueller blueballing. Going years and years constantly believing that A) Literal Hitler is in charge of the world and is actively conspiring with Russians and Israelis and The Sith to literally kill everyone, and B) The brave, noble Special Prosecutor is mere moments away from bringing him down must be SO stressful.

I'm especially curious how the true believers will react when nu-Ken Starr finally nails Trump for jaywalking after 6 years of investigating and Trump gets the same 20 point "OH MY GOD NO ONE FUCKING CARES" poll bump that Bill Clinton got as the sad impeachment shitshow proceeds.

So it took 3 solid weeks of the most hysterical Hitler-baiting since Actual Hitler was alive to drop his approval rating a small fraction of the margin of error?

Well, according to gallup his approval rating the day he was elected was 34%, or 8 points below where they have him now, so I can't wait to find out how they plan on closing that gap...

So it took 3 solid weeks of the most hysterical Hitler-baiting since Actual Hitler was alive to drop his approval rating a small fraction of the margin of error?

Well, according to gallup his approval rating the day he was elected was 34%, or 8 points below where they have him now, so I can't wait to find out how they plan on closing that gap...

The same media that so easily drives you and the rest of the weak minded into terrified frenzies of paranoid, xenophobic outrage every time Trump scratches his nuts has been almost completely tuned out be the rest of the country. The media in general has a 14% trustworthiness rating among conservatives and a 37% rating among independents, and CNN specifically has a 33% trustworthiness rating among its own viewers. They went full-"Literal Hitler" in the first week of his candidacy and no one on the right ever listened to them again. Absolutely *none* of the fake, apocalyptic outrage spewed forth over every retarded """scandal""" from Megyn Kelly to Gonzo Curiel to Khzir Khan to Pussygate to Pissgate to Flynn to Charlottesville to Manafort to Wolff to Shitholegate to Children In Cages to Helsinki ever moved his poll numbers a millimeter. All it's ever done is drive the left further and further into its hateful, irrational rage, which - if you can believe it - is a big part of Trump's PR strategy and has been from the start.

The left aren't the ones making travel bans for muslims.

Islam is the most intolerant, violent, and supremacist religion on Earth. Sane people want to limit immigration, which is not a right, from this violent and supremacist culture. The left wants to import them in massive numbers, and will call you an "Islamophobe" and "xenophobe" if you don't.

They aren't the ones ostracizing LGBT people.

The left wants 99.9% of society to re-engineer itself to recognize the delusions of the 0.1% of transgender people. Some guy "identifies" as a woman, and he wants to hang out with biological women with his male genitalia hanging out.

They aren't the ones advocating for police brutality.

Black Lies Matter was a phony narrative that did not stand up to scrutiny. The end result has been dead cops and more dead blacks due to less policing in crime-ridden neighborhoods.

They aren't the ones trying to disenfranchise minorities from voting.

The left wants to disenfranchise American citizens by flooding the country with illegals and making it harder to reserve rights for American citizens. That's why they put up a big stink when the US Census was going to ask about citizenship status, because they're afraid illegals won't be counted for congressional representation and the electoral college.

By the way, even the majority of minorities support voter id laws.

They aren't the ones pushing against womens rights to control their reproductive systems.

Just ignore the human life that's terminated by these "womens rights".

You think the left is intolerant?

Yes, I think harassing people in public, hounding them out of their jobs, and shutting down their free speech events is massively intolerant.

When over 90% of black people and the majority of other minorities vote for the left it's because they think (correctly) that the right is actively working against them.

No, it's because they are on the Democrat welfare plantation.

Tell you what, go ahead and tell a conservative christian that you are gay and that jesus is a lie and see what happens to you.

For fuck's sake, "piss christ" was an actual thing, and nothing happened. Do you know what would happen if you actually performed this experiment? They would probably politely tell you to stop bothering them.

Now go post a sign that says, "It's okay to be white", and see what happens.

Democrats have consistently polled their opposition to the Electoral College, not just after this recent election, or even 2000, but back to when Gallup started polling.

Sorry, but the desperation of your own bias is showing.

Reminds me of how Trump called for revolution in 2012. Then...ooops, he only thought Obama lost the popular vote.

I don't know why we talk about Republican and Democratic percentages so much. 42% of the population identifies as a independent, and since affiliation is not static why even bother comparing over timespans https://news.gallup.com/poll/2...

If all that's true, how come the US is such a terrible polluter, given so much of it's population believes in god? http://news.gallup.com/poll/19...

As for me, without faith, I don't throw litter in the street when I'm out and about because I don't want litter in my street. I don't throw litter on the floor in my house, so why would I want to do it outside?

You don't need faith to be a decent person to your fellow (or future) humans. You need empathy. If you had some, you'd be able to see that faith has nothing to do with being environmentally conscious.

Trump isn't technically a Democrat OR a Republican

Huh? He absolutely is a Republican. And the rank and file of the party agrees - to the tune of a 90% approval rating among people who identify as Republicans.

No, my clams are based on pure logic.

Ok, since you said that they must be, because that's how pure logic works apparently...
Before you waste another paragraph telling me how superior your logic is because you said it is, maybe digest this and give me your pure logical response: http://news.gallup.com/poll/22...

You don't get to be president of the United States by being stupid

The record of American presidents would suggest otherwise...

If the general population in the United States actually cared and felt this was an important issue - then the Senate, House and Oval office wouldn't be run by people who adamantly scream this is a liberal hoax.
They are busy appointing judges who will rule in favor of the corporate oligarchy doing exactly what we're seeing: disincentivizing renewable energy, disemboweling clean air/water laws, doling out tax breaks to polluters, attacking scientific processes and thought, defunding education to eliminate critical thinking skills... and they are winning. Only 1/2 of Americans believe global warming is real. http://news.gallup.com/poll/20...
And other BS/disproven ideas are on rise - like Immunizations cause autism and the growth of flat earthers... Till we value and fund education and critical thinking, we're lost.

It was also gerrymandered up the wazoo when Democrats were in power.

Yes. Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr. Of course, those Democrats were often entirely different in politics. Such is history.

Gerrymandering simply strengthens whoever is currently more popular.

Wrong. In some cases, actually weakens those who are more popular, as shown in Wisconsin and North Carolina.

If congressional districts were assigned rationally, Democrats wouldn't do very well anyway

Yes, but that's because your definition of rational which is 100% Republican Agenda. You do realize your biases, however, are not supported in actual math that is independent of your partisan bias.

The only way Democrats could do well if the US went to strict national popular majorities, but that is utterly unacceptable and incompatible with federalism.

Or you know, actually voting. Of course, that is utterly unacceptable to the Republican agenda which relies on voter suppression.

In actual fact [people-press.org], liberals only make up about 17% of the US political spectrum and California is thoroughly unrepresentative of the country.

Actually, California is highly representative of the country, and it's only because of zealots like you that it gets demonized as some outside nemesis.

The reason Republicans are so strong is because Democrats have fallen out of favor with the political center: moderates and independents.

Also untrue, the truth is quite contrary.

It is actually the Republicans who have become more extremist, but they rely on moving the perceptual concept to turn the tables instead of embrace reality.

I'm a good example of that: I used to be a registered Democrat but loathe what the Democratic party has become over the last decade. I won't vote for Democrats again until they clearly disavow people like Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Corey Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

You're actually a good example of the lying fraud of the GOP, as you vacuously and repetitively pretend to claim to be a Democrat and a moderate, yet entirely espouse the hard-core right-wing agenda, and blame Obama for creating conflict.

Tell you what, maybe people will believe you when you disavow individuals like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thoma

No, it's an actual majority. http://news.gallup.com/poll/16...

You should read your own link, the clear majority feel they would be safer if more people carried guns.

No, it's an actual majority.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/16...

Bush Jr. wasn't reviled in 2004. He was popular, because people tend to support a president in wartime, and the war hadn't started to go bad yet.

Uber's entire business model is based on (a) outright breaking laws duly passed by democratically elected legislatures

You've heard of gerrymandering, right? The USA is an oligarchy, not a democracy. There is more democracy the further away you get from Washington, but that still doesn't mean that all of those legislatures were democratically elected. If the democratic process is subverted, which it totally has been, then you can't say you've got democracy.

Since the rest of your comment is based on the fallacious notion that we have democracy in America, it can be ignored. ERR_NO_DATA

And hey, guess what! Maybe those crusty hidebound taxi regulators weren't quite a stupid as the tech world (or the tech world's boosters) like to think.

The argument is not that they are stupid, it is that they are corrupt.

Because another key to Uber's business model was convincing its drivers to ignore how freaking expensive it is to operate a vehicle as a taxi for any length of time, and to accept remuneration below the (total depreciation of the vehicle + hourly wage).

That's not anything Uber's done, though. They're simply taking advantage of the fact that the American economy is in the toilet, and rapidly circling the bowl and heading for the drain. Actual unemployment is at levels not seen since the great depression. The numbers are a lie as usual, but the particular nature of the numbers make them a bigger lie now than that usual state of affairs; since people drop off the statistics when they are no longer eligible to collect unemployment benefits. When people are so unemployed that the state has given up on helping them, they are no longer counted as unemployed. In an environment like this, are you surprised that people are willing to work for less than minimum wage? When there are no minimum wage jobs left, they will go looking for something even lower.

And speaking of lower, Some of these people are actually sleeping in their Uber car. It's not just a car loan, and a car in which to do business. It's a home.

TL;DR: I do not think you have any notion of just how bad things are in the USA right now.

We live in such economic times with low income owing to stagnant wages (adjusted for inflation), inflation and expensive health care and what does the younger generation do in response to this? It does the math and picks Uber over the Ambulance because it's the economically practical thing to do to avoid being thrown out on the street. They also decide it's worth the additional risk to their lives from an economic perspective. At what point does America itself not recognize that we have serious social problems that we desperately need leadership for? Sadly, true leadership is nowhere to be found and in fact there has been little or no leadership for about 18 years now on growing problems. Sad sad sad. I just finished watching a series of videos by Edelman on the trust barometer data that they've been collecting for 18 years and yes ladies and gentleman, this year, 2018, we hit the lowest point since they started collecting the data. They have a lot of great ideas about how to address the problem and it all takes this basic form: Leadership needs to step up to the plate.

I seriously don't know why no one will acknowledge these problems. The data is very clear.

Really?

http://news.gallup.com/poll/16...

Polls suggest they are on the side of the majority on gun control.

The man is sitting at 50% approval right now.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/11...

Followed that link, found only ex-presidents listed, looked for myself:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

Shows he HAD 50%, a year ago, but I see 39% as the most recent.

On and on and on. The man is sitting at 50% approval right now.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/11...

Your link doesn't show 50%. In fact, it doesn't even show an approval rating at all for Trump.

The most recent approval rating I can find from Gallup is for Feb 18th with 37%. If you have something that shows it has jumped to 50%, I'm genuinely interested in seeing it. Thanks.

On an issue by issue basis, polls have consistently supported positions he's also supported.

What is more, if Trump policies are cited as Obama or Hillary policies, you find that many people that reflexively oppose Trump agree with the policies. This makes clear that the opposition is not to the actual policies but rather to the R after his name and his self presentation which rubs many people the wrong way.

Again, those that find this an inconvenient observation will say it is opposition to policies that are immoral.

Policies such as what and according to what clearly undefined moral code are we supposed to be judging him?

Not supporting effectively open borders? Americans don't want that. There has been support for reducing immigration and making more strict the policies that allow existing immigration for well over 30 years.

What about so called "free trade"? Its a farce and everyone knows it is a farce. Free trade was something the US pushed during the Cold War as an inducement to join the First World. It was one of the carrots to side with the West over the Russians. It has generally acted to grant foreign companies access to US markets with few questions asked or conditions required. Now that the Cold War is over, there is no justification for it anymore. It is not infinitely sustainable even if we saw infinite political utility for it. There is obvious damage to many American industries and communities to no particular value to our society besides some geopolitical buy in.

What about government corruption? Here any faction that claims this isn't an issue of import is just lying. The last several years have been an endless embarrassing laundry list of corruption, conflicts of interest, nepotism, theft, incompetence, and dereliction of duty. This is actually starting to become an existential issue for the US government itself. If the government neither is doing the things it was created to do reliably nor has the confidence of the people to do those tasks then the role of the government in society collapses. This is how great empires die with some frequency. They hollow out... rot from within... and then one day... the shiny veneer that promised solidity and perfection collapses. Consensus exists that this should be taken seriously.

What else? Gun policy? If the anti gun people had the votes they'd just go to constitutional convention rather than whining endlessly about restrictions and living constitutions etc. We've changed our constitution as recently as the 1980s. If you have the votes, you can change it. If you don't have the votes then all you can do is bitch. That the anti gun people are bitching makes it very clear they don't have the votes.

On and on and on. The man is sitting at 50% approval right now.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/11...

Most presidents don't pull 50 percent. Naturally this is an average statistic from Gallup... we'll have to see what Trump pulls at the end of his term. But if he gets anywhere near 50 percent then he'll have gotten about as much approval from the public as the average president which is impressive considering the military grade invective thrown at the man.

Lastly we get into this issue of his immorality. Well, according to what? What are the principles of this morality? Is it written down anywhere so we can examine it? Where does it come from? I'm not saying anything he does is or isn't moral because whatever his morality is will be subjective to whatever standard we're using. It is like judging if someone broke the law without citing which legal code the person is under. So where does this moral code come from? Because it sounds increasingly like the code of "you're a bad person because you disagree with my politics". And whilst I can understand that moral code, it is clearly not one that anyone outside that moral paradigm should take seriously.

Incidentally, I wish the SJWs would never have coined the term, and would stop using it. Trump et. al. has done an excellent job of turning it around to mean anything they disagree with.

It was a hamfisted, blatant, hypocritical operation for the mainstream media/elites/whatever to try to reassert control of the information flow in the internet age. They raised the spectre of Onion-style, literally-made-up stories fooling millions of rubes - something that has never been a significant issue in the 30+ years of widespread internet use until Hillary woke up November 9th in sudden need of a scapegoat - then almost immediately bait-and-switched it up and started lumping popular conservative sites like Breitbart and Drudge in with the literally-fake stuff that almost no one was reading in the first place. As poorly as this effort has gone, that hasn't stopped them from continuing to try even to this day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html
https://politics.slashdot.org/story/18/02/06/2224253/fake-news-sharing-in-us-is-a-rightwing-thing-says-oxford-study

Trump so successfully co-opting the tactic only speaks to its inherent foolishness. It's accomplished absolutely nothing in the direction of making conservatives and independents pay attention to mainstream media sources again - which they almost unanimously haven't been since the media collectively lost their damn minds over Trump in early/mid 2016 - but it seems to have succeeded in further isolating liberals from conservative points of view, increasing lefty extremism and partisan hostility and whatnot.

You misunderstood my point entirely. I feel that what the law IS conflicts with what the law WOULD BE under an equitable system that is a democracy instead of an oligarchy. By public opinion, corporate tax rates should increase, but policy does not reflect public opinion.

It's similar to, and directly related to, how lobbyists are the least trusted profession because the public perceives their role as bribery. Legally, it is distinct from bribery, but it is a legal distinction without a practical difference.

The law can be and often is a farce, as anyone who has studied history will know well.

The root of this problem is that MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, and virtually all the mainstream media has lost all credibility in the eyes of conservatives and independents (only 32% of Americans trust the media, coincidentally aligning with the dyed in the wool alt left crowd who have no knowledge of history and "think" with their emotions). http://news.gallup.com/poll/19...

This has occurred for a simple reason. Traditional constitutional journalism necessary for democracy targeted one simple principle: find the truth no mater what it was and follow it no matter where it led. Throughout history journalists have achieved this with varying degrees of success. However, the modern alt left infested main stream media now has the motto: "Change the world." They have divested all semblance of independence, fair reporting or pursuit of the truth instead choosing to only report stories and/or slant stories (i.e. lie by omission) that further their world view and political candidates. This is not some grand conspiracy, but rather an organic result of the alt left fascist cesspool that is the college campuses in the US where the next generation of journalists are spoon fed the alt left propaganda.

The democracy has recognized and is rejecting this poisoned fruit and is in the process of finding new avenues to get accurate news that covers the entire set of facts including historical background and objective facts. In the 1990s we saw the explosion of talk radio, then Fox news, then citizen journalists online, and now Facebook and more broadly online sources.

There have always been propaganda stories during elections, it is up to the individual voter, more than ever, to find the truth and sources that are trustworthy. The Democrats last election cycle ran Hillary Clinton, and most people knew exactly who and what she was (a grasping, lying, cheating, back stabbing politician lawyer who only wants power and money, in that order; don't believe me, ask the Bernie Sanders supporters). You could have run a false story that she ate babies for dinner every night to stay young and most conservatives would believe it because she has been in the public eye for 20 years and has extremely high negatives with conservatives and those who actually pay attention to politics.

The fact is that Russia and China try to meddle in US elections every time to varying degrees of success (the Chinese successfully funneled millions into Bill Clinton's campaign and no one said boo until he gave them ICBM guidance technology, Ted Kennedy tried to work with the Russians to get Reagan out of office, etc. etc.) https://www.dailywire.com/news...

Well stated. If I had a buck for every time the media at large conflates legal immigrants with illegal immigrants I'd be retired.

The root of this problem is that MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, and virtually all the mainstream media has lost all credibility in the eyes of conservatives and independents (only 32% of Americans trust the media, coincidentally aligning with the dyed in the wool alt left crowd who have no knowledge of history and "think" with their emotions). http://news.gallup.com/poll/19...

This has occurred for a simple reason. Traditional constitutional journalism necessary for democracy targeted one simple principle: find the truth no mater what it was and follow it no matter where it led. Throughout history journalists have achieved this with varying degrees of success. However, the modern alt left infested main stream media now has the motto: "Change the world." They have divested all semblance of independence, fair reporting or pursuit of the truth instead choosing to only report stories and/or slant stories (i.e. lie by omission) that further their world view and political candidates. This is not some grand conspiracy, but rather an organic result of the alt left fascist cesspool that is the college campuses in the US where the next generation of journalists are spoon fed the alt left propaganda.

The democracy has recognized and is rejecting this poisoned fruit and is in the process of finding new avenues to get accurate news that covers the entire set of facts including historical background and objective facts. In the 1990s we saw the explosion of talk radio, then Fox news, then citizen journalists online, and now Facebook and more broadly online sources.

There have always been propaganda stories during elections, it is up to the individual voter, more than ever, to find the truth and sources that are trustworthy. The Democrats last election cycle ran Hillary Clinton, and most people knew exactly who and what she was (a grasping, lying, cheating, back stabbing politician lawyer who only wants power and money, in that order; don't believe me, ask the Bernie Sanders supporters). You could have run a false story that she ate babies for dinner every night to stay young and most conservatives would believe it because she has been in the public eye for 20 years and has extremely high negatives with conservatives and those who actually pay attention to politics.

The fact is that Russia and China try to meddle in US elections every time to varying degrees of success (the Chinese successfully funneled millions into Bill Clinton's campaign and no one said boo until he gave them ICBM guidance technology, Ted Kennedy tried to work with the Russians to get Reagan out of office, etc. etc.) https://www.dailywire.com/news...

Perhaps an over abundance of intelligence upsets the balance of those qualities in a non-optimal way, the same as adding too much sugar to our hypothetical cup of coffee spoils it.

Except the evidence does not bear this out, over 75% of people in the US still are religious in some sense a sizable chunk rejecting scientific knowledge and having negative effects on policy.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/151760/christianity-remains-dominant-religion-united-states.aspx

The west wing says it better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

Trump is hated only by a tiny, noisy, vacuous group of snowflakes.

Indeed. That Gallup poll showing his all time low of 33% job approval a couple of weeks ago is just Fake News.

Maybe you should up your meds. Or pull your head out.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/20...

Ok, you don't like Trump; we get it. But you don't just get to make shit up and call it facts. This is exactly how things get labeled "fake news" - inserting some absolute fucking bullshit into otherwise relevant information.

Trump approval rating, according to Gallup: 38%

Low approval rating, historical Presidents, also according to Gallup:
Harry S Truman: 22%
Lyndon B Johnson: 35%
Richard M Nixon: 24%
Gerald Ford: 37%
Jimmy Carter: 28%
Ronald Reagan: 35%
George H. W. Bush: 29%
George W. Bush: 25%
Barack Obama: 38%

Lowest Term approval rating averages, historical Presidents (still Gallup):
Harry S Truman: 36.5%
Richard M Nixon: 34.4%
George W Bush: 36.5%

Source: http://news.gallup.com/poll/11...

Trump is an orange douchebag, but not (yet) the "lowest approval rating...ever." Not even within 10 percentage points.

Ok, you don't like Trump; we get it. But you don't just get to make shit up and call it facts. This is exactly how things get labeled "fake news" - inserting some absolute fucking bullshit into otherwise relevant information.

Trump approval rating, according to Gallup: 38%

Low approval rating, historical Presidents, also according to Gallup:
Harry S Truman: 22%
Lyndon B Johnson: 35%
Richard M Nixon: 24%
Gerald Ford: 37%
Jimmy Carter: 28%
Ronald Reagan: 35%
George H. W. Bush: 29%
George W. Bush: 25%
Barack Obama: 38%

Lowest Term approval rating averages, historical Presidents (still Gallup):
Harry S Truman: 36.5%
Richard M Nixon: 34.4%
George W Bush: 36.5%

Source: http://news.gallup.com/poll/11...

Trump is an orange douchebag, but not (yet) the "lowest approval rating...ever." Not even within 10 percentage points.

...One of the most divisive Presidents in US history famous for his identity politics and class-warfare and attacks on political/ideological opponents using agencies of the Federal government like the IRS.

And still the most admired man in the US.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/22...