Actually, she lost in all kinds of places. Oklahoma, for example, she did not win a single county. It looks like Oklahoma uses paper ballots. She also lost every single county in West Virginia, which uses paper or machines with a paper trail.
Here's a list of the states using paper ballots, and who got their votes:
Montana - Trump New Mexico - Clinton North Dakota - T South Dakota - T Nebraska - T Oklahoma - T Minnesota - C Iowa - T Michigan - T Alabama - T New York - C Maryland - C Vermont - C NH - C Mass. - C Conn. - C RI - C Maine - C
The paper-only states are the ones colored gray here:
Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump.
I think that word you put in parentheses is the important one, and the reason why most polls got everything so wrong. Trump is distasteful enough as a person that I think he had a lot of support from people who didn't want to admit it because they didn't want other people to judge them for it. I'm sure that some of Clinton's voters were the same, but I think Trump had significantly more of those types.
At $2.50 a gallon (seems to be current US price?), 300 gallons a day costs $750.
If you're buying it at a pump in the US, sure. If you have to load it onto a plane and send it to the easternmost volcanic island in the Samoa chain, it's going to be a touch more expensive. In Hawaii, for example, (which contains major air and sea infrastructure), diesel is over $4 per gallon. American Samoa is about 2600 miles from Hawaii, or 1800 miles from New Zealand. A chartered flight to the airport on this island from the capital of American Samoa is about $4,400 (obviously, not including the cost of getting the fuel to Pago Pago first). The runway is only 3200 ft / 975 m, so you can't exactly land a C-5 there. In fact that runway is less than half the length required for a Boeing 707. This is the kind of plane that could use that runway, with a maximum cargo capacity of around 8,000 lbs, or about 4200 gallons of diesel, or enough for 2 weeks of power generation. So they need a flight every 2 weeks at least carrying around 4200 gallons of fuel at a time for whatever cost they can get the fuel (probably over $4 per gallon), plus the cost of the flights. That's 26 flights per year. Anyway, the cost of the batteries is definitely less than 10 years of fuel flights, in fact it's probably closer to 3 to 5 years. That's the return on investment (plus the cost of the panels and associated writing and maintenance).
I guess they could also get fuel by boat rather than plane, although the island's 2 boat harbors look like this and this, so they aren't exactly docking a supertanker there.
If what Mr. Trump said was true (grabbing them by the pu**y) there would at least be a court case.
Is that how it works? The only reality is what goes on inside a courtroom?
Double so when you have people like Clinton, who destroyed women her husband was guilty of sexual assaulting, telling people that they have to believe the accusations.
No, I'm sorry, that never happened. The reason I know that is because there would be a court case. The only case filed against Clinton was for sexual harassment, by Paula Jones, not sexual assault. And if Hillary had "destroyed" women that her husband was guilty of assaulting, then there would be a court case against her, too.
Because that's how reality works. Also, I've never smoked marijuana in my life, because if I had, there would be a court case.
Of course, there was that one lawsuit against Trump for attempted rape in 1997, but I guess that one doesn't count because it was settled (although Clinton also settled his case with Jones, so I guess that case doesn't count either). There was also Ivana's sworn deposition that he violently raped her, but I guess that one doesn't count either because after Ivana agreed to a divorce settlement then Trump's lawyers convinced a book publisher to include a note saying that the word "rape" should not be interpreted in "a literal or criminal sense." I suppose Trump's lawyers know better on that one. There's also that lawsuit from a woman who says that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein raped her when she was 13, but that one doesn't count either, because it was filed during his campaign. Lawsuits that are filed when someone is running for office don't count and are always baseless and fictional.
But yeah, no court cases, which definitely proves that Trump has never done the things that he himself has said he has done.
Those accusations are all extremely weak (you can read) so I'd say not plausible that he's guilty.
If you don't mind, I'd like to tap your legal expertise on an unrelated matter. Bill Cosby - do you think it's likely that he assaulted at least one woman?
And the one concrete example that Trump gave of a specific woman, who refused him, somehow does not disprove your "theory" that they are talking about "exactly that type of woman" and that "that type of woman" wants people with money or power to fuck her in order to advance her career. The only example either person gave of any individual woman was one who does not fit your ridiculous stereotype of what you imagine women to be like.
But, yeah, I can't follow a simple 30 second conversation. Right, attack me, not the obvious and basic error in what passes for "logic" in your arguments.
How about those ACs who shot down your "theory" of what a sex party is like? They're also wrong, aren't they? It's not that you have ridiculous ideas about what you think the world is like and just assume that all of them are true, right? It's everyone else who can't see past their biases, not you.
The full conversation that you are talking about is Bush and Trump talking about exactly that type of woman.
Really? They were talking about an entertainment anchor who was married (I'll leave it up to you to find out which one). Trump admits that he didn't get anywhere with her, that she refused him. He said he "moved on her like a bitch." So, if what you claim above is true, wouldn't he have succeeded? I mean, if that's exactly the type of woman who wants Trump to walk up and grab her pussy, wouldn't Trump have closed that particular deal? Once you reach a certain level of wealth or power, is it just assumed that every single woman you might meet at any point in your day is there because she wants you to fuck her so that she can advance in her career? Is that how you think? Or are you just going to reply to this with some stupid attack on me, like you've demonstrated so far in this very thread:
It is not a one sided issue, and you can't seem to follow a simple 30 second conversation. I have no confidence that you can see both sides of the claim.
If real world circumstances "derail" the conversation it simply demonstrates your lack of ability to think and reason.
And yes, it seems like you have difficulty with honesty and reality.
You can attack the messenger all you want, it doesn't make you right.
Make sure you read those AC replies above mine as well. You should probably also question their views on reality and thinking, that will help convince people that you're right. Insulting the people that you're arguing with is a sure-fire way to win any debate.
Is a groupie guilty of sexual assault when they try to sleep with band members, actors, actresses?
Are they walking up and grabbing crotches? If so, yes they are.
How about a more general woman who understands how to use sex appeal trying to sleep with people in power positions to get power?
Is she walking up and grabbing peoples' crotches? If so, then yeah she's guilty of sexual assault also.
It is not a one sided issue
It kind of is though really. The point you're trying to make is that people don't press assault charges if they welcome that behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not assault. The difference between an assault charge and getting laid is whether the other person welcomed the behavior. It's the same behavior though. Grabbing crotches in particular is sort of on the extreme edge of the "do you want to fuck?" continuum, right before just straight up trying to fuck them. I've kissed women without explicit consent, for example (which, yes, is assault also), but that's as far as I would be comfortable going. I wouldn't just go for the crotch grab out of the gate, I would do something like try for a kiss and if they pull away then I've got my answer whether or not they would welcome me grabbing their crotch. And, likewise, they are much less likely to press charges for sexual assault if I tried to kiss them versus grabbed their crotch. It's not hard to figure out.
That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.
What does that have to do with anything? If you walk up to a woman you don't know and grab her crotch, is that sexual assault or not? Has that ever not been sexual assault?
the networks have a responsibility to give us ALL the facts on BOTH candidates.
That's where I disagree, and that statement is a good illustration of the way the system is set up to work, and how it actually works. I think that networks should show people more than just 2 candidates. I think that any candidate who has the ability to win (i.e. is on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral vote) should be included in televised debates. But, the 2 major parties don't want that to happen, so they make agreements with the networks to say that if the network shows any debate featuring any candidate from any party other than the 2 major parties, then that network will not receive any presidential debates. I think that's bullshit, and that's the system I'm talking about. That's the system that was created and is perpetuated by the parties to favor themselves, to make sure that one of them will always be in power. It used to be different, but the parties formed the Commission On Presidential Debates to perpetuate this fraud that we only have 2 choices. And every single network plays along so that they can sponsor, moderate, or air presidential debates. Presidential debates should be publicly funded and any network that wants to show them should be allowed. They should belong to us all, but instead we get this bullshit political theater created by the parties and pushed by the networks. The Commission On Presidential Debates needs to end, and political parties should be banned from organizing presidential debates. We can do that by ourselves, we don't need their collusion in order to get debates. And people should be presented other candidates so that everyone knows that they have a choice other than Dumb or Dumber. If Johnson or Stein would have been included in the debates then they would have gotten a lot more votes, and we probably would have had higher turnout also.
You have to be a mental defective to stand here and tell me that reality has a liberal bias, based on the implementation of these liberal progressive ideas and how well they have worked out.
All of the problems you mentioned sit squarely on the shoulders of liberals, huh? It was Obama's fault for that recession, wasn't it? He caused those problems, right? Also, Obama founded ISIS, right? How did ISIS form again? It was because of some war, I can't remember which though. Maybe you can tell me who led the country into that war. I suppose the answer is endless war until we kill everyone that needs killing though, right? Maybe that will stop the "invasion" of Europe, which is also totally a thing and definitely not made up by conservatives to scare people.
Don't blame it on Bush
Nice debate tactic. "Don't blame the problem".
Obama has had 7 years, 2 with both houses
Let's go to Mitch McConnell for some quotes about how much they wanted to work with Obama, shall we? The Congress over the last 8 years has been shit, they have accomplished nothing. They have been historically bad. Every single one of them should be kicked out.
You seem confused about how balanced debate works.
Thanks, but I'm not. If 95% of people agree on a particular issue, then it would make sense for a debate to feature 19 people in favor versus 1 opposed. Let's take another example. If Fox shows a debate with 1 guy who believes that the Earth is round, and 1 who believes that it is flat, then that makes it look like a 50/50 issue, right? But it's not. If Fox shows a debate with 1 guy who thinks that the Earth goes around the sun, and 1 guy who thinks that the sun goes around the Earth, then that makes it look like a 50/50 issue, but it's not. The same thing applies to climate change. It's disingenuous to put 2 people up there and let them argue and then say "well, the science obviously isn't settled, so we'll leave it up to you, dear viewer." That's the bias of Fo
It was a story about this article, apparently still running live on the ABC News website. It talks about "internet rumors" (complete with a helpful link to a Google search) about people being paid to protest, and then it contains several helpful quotes from a guy who says he answered a Craiglist ad (screenshot in the article). Some of the quotes are pretty funny:
It was mostly women in their 60’s at the interview that I went to. Plus, all the people that I communicated with had an AOL email address. No one still has an AOL email address except people that would vote for Hillary Clinton.
I like this one too:
“I knew those weren’t real protesters, they were too organized and smart,” said 59-year-old Tom Downey, a Trump supporter who attended the rally in Fountain Hills. “I knew there was something up when they started shouting all these facts and nonsense like that. The best we could do was just yell and punch em’ and stuff.”
Remember, this is ABC News, trying to pass this off as fact. The problem is the guy they "interviewed" is Paul Horner (like they say), except he isn't a paid protester, he's a satire author who puts a character with his own name in all of his stories (see here). And also they didn't actually interview him, they just read his satire piece and pulled all of the quotes from that.
I'm not saying anything about that Zulema woman or what her role is. It looks like the campaign paid her to be a campaign manager, and it looks like they used some shady tactics (full disclosure: Hillary Clinton is a cunt). I don't know if they specifically paid her to block Shea Blvd here in town, or if she did that on her own, or whatever, I'm just talking generally about people running with fake stories. Here's a post on his fake CNN site about other stories of his reported as fact.
I know, that's the whole point. Say it with me: "Craiglist is for scammers". But, for whatever reason (hint: the reason starts with a "c", and ends with a "onfirmation bias") people see ads posted for paid protesters and think that, no, these ads aren't fake, they must be real, because I feel like it's true.
That's the whole point. Craigslist is full of fake crap, but when people see what they want to see then they think it has to be true.
The Washington Post has been doing things like this and I've not yet seen them come clean about it
I hope you're not holding your breath on that one.
The Washington Post has been in the tank for Hillary the entire election.
That does not invalidate anything I said.
Now they run a story attacking everybody else on the other side's credibility.
No, they're running a story with an interview of a guy who posts articles which he considers satire, but "the other side" as you say posts his stories as if they're true. But you want to attack the messenger.
The problem is, the Craigslist ads are actually real.
OK, so prove it. Prove that those ads were posted by people intending to pay people to protest against Trump. Show me the proof, because it all looks like a bunch of bullshit. This is a story about not believing everything you read, so please, don't just make dumb assertions, back them up with proof.
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)
You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.
The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.
Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.
in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.
This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.
why they are the most trusted news network in the US
It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.
Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.
The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets
Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015, with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox and CNN. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed.
If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo
Maybe so, but that's exactly what The Onion does (which also, by the way, sometimes gets cited as sources for "news"). The writer wants to be grouped in with sites like The Onion (and any rational person should be able to read his articles and determine that they are in fact satire), rather than the various nameless blogs which push things that are just fake without any hint of humor.
Haha, I was going to post a follow up if anyone bit:
So, did you believe that Washington Post story? Did you do any of your own research?
I did, and I found the guy's sites and saw his articles, but still, it's a good thought exercise. It pays to question what you read and do a little research of your own.
If you do research on Paul Horner, by the way, you'll find a lot of information about Fappy the Anti-Masturbation Dolphin. Good stuff.
and see ads in major cities across the US offering to pay people to protest Trump.
Thank you, you are a perfect example of the people he was talking about. I post an interview with a guy who admits to posting fake Craigslist ads for protesters, and your rebuttal to that is to tell me to look up protest ads on Craigslist. You believe it, because you want it to be true. Do you ever think about it? I mean, actually think about it? People will protest Trump *for free*, they will do it by themselves, organized by themselves, at no cost. So why the hell would someone pay people to do something that they're going to do anyway for free? And, if someone wanted to do something like this and not get called out on it, are they going to post a fucking Craigslist ad? Does that make any sense at all to you? Did you even stop to think whether or not it makes sense, or did you just believe it because it sounds like something that you want to be true?
Here's another question - did you respond to any of those ads? Did you call any of those phone numbers? No? You just think it's true though, don't you?
You're a perfect example of the kind of person who gets taken in by this stuff and just assumes that it's true. Anyone can post an ad on Craigslist, you don't even need an account to do it. Anyone can post any contact information, the only thing you need is a working email address. Maybe try calling some of those numbers on those ads and see who they connect to, if anyone, and if you talk to someone ask them if they posted those ads.
Let me guess your response to that: I called one of those numbers, and it connected to a Planned Parenthood! The people there told me that this was a hoax and that they did not post the ad! Therefore, I know that they are lying and that they actually did post the ad!
Go ahead, let the confirmation bias flow through you.
"Hey man, I'm going to head down to the mailbox and check the mail." "I will pay you $20 if you go check the mail."
Yeah, pay somebody for something that they're going to do for free anyway. This makes perfect sense. Way to use the critical thinking part of your brain there.
There were several reporters on Diane Rehm's show this morning talking about that. One of them mentioned that his efforts to correct articles that were obviously wrong, were in fact proof to the people who believed the article that he was biased and lying himself. So there you go, the effort to try to point out that an article is fake is met by its believers with a belief that you are the one lying. They'll go on believing the fake news, but now they also think you're a liar also.
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The political parties. Thank the Commission on Presidential Debates (composed of the Democratic and Republican parties) for creating an environment where news organizations need to play by the rules of the parties, in return for things like debate sponsorships, interviews, "insider" access, etc. The parties have cultivated this relationship with the media for a long time, it's part of the foundation at this point. The Commission needs to be broken up, and political debates need to be publicly funded and available to air by any outlet. Maybe then news organizations can start having a more critical eye on the political system, and this election should be concrete proof that people want that exposed.
According to DeQuincy city attorney Paul Horner, Jones made four previous attempts to address the issue personally with Edwards, but Edwards became more defiant with each meeting.
St. Louis Police Detective Paul Horner told CNN the ‘Knockout Game’ is extremely dangerous and needs to stop before more people get killed. "How many more of our young African American youths will have to die before it clicks in their tiny little brains not to do this stupid sh*t anymore?"
Washington political analyst, 37-year-old Paul Horner, who has been at The Coronado Healthcare Center since early last month after getting into a severe accident in Rocky Point, told ABC News what led up to this assault gun ban on both sides of the party.
White House spokesman Paul Horner ended the press conference by giving details to reporters about the controversial statue.
“The statue of Azhar Azeez will be displayed on the East side of the White House lawn,” Horner said. “The marble statue will stand approximately 21 feet tall, weigh a little more than a 100 tons and is currently being built by world famous artist Tom Downey from England. The statue is expected to be completed in the next 6 months with a grand unveiling celebration for all to see. This is a great day for Muslims all over the world.”
“The German government’s policy of forcing Jews to wear identifying badges was but one of many psychological tactics aimed at isolating and dehumanizing the Jews of Europe, directly marking them as being different and inferior to everyone else,” Paul Horner of the Holocaust Center said.
An Alabama boy is behind bars tonight after his mother called 9-1-1 when she found her son in his room, watching pornography and masturbating. Montgomery Police were quick to respond, arresting 15-year-old Paul Horner, who attends Jefferson Davis High School.
That goddamn Paul Horner gets around, doesn't he?
Anyway, the guy who runs that site, Paul Horner, appreciates all of the page views and ad clicks on his articles baiting right-w
Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.
I read an interview this morning with a guy who runs of the "fake news" sites. He would refer to what he does as parody or satire, but other people don't see it that way. For example, he wrote a story that someone who was protesting a Donald Trump rally in Arizona was paid $3500 to protest. He thought that was satire. But it was picked up by ABC and tweeted out by Trump's campaign manager as if it were true. He thought that they would fact check and find out that it was fake, but no one ever did. He mentioned how he makes $10k per month from ad revenue, and it's because people share his stories that fit a conservative Trump supporter narrative without ever bothering to fact check anything (or even think critically about whether something is believable - like the "Amish lobby" that was claiming that all Amish people were going to vote for Trump). People eat it up, don't question it, and if it ever does get questioned people have moved on and don't pay attention to the correction, they just assumed it was true and move on.
Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that "no joke... in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it's the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans." That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting conservatives is more profitable.
Yeah, it is. They don't fact-check.
That "bias" that you're referring to is a product of the free market. If conservatives seem to be more gullible, then you write things targeting them. It's not "bias" so much as knowing your audience.
Hey Bush, you might want to wait until the end of the war before you declare the mission accomplished. Trump hasn't even announced a cabinet yet. You have no idea what his administration is going to look like or how they're going to act, just like every other person who voted for him. Not a single person, including and especially Trump himself, knew what they were getting into.
If Trump manages to not break multiple laws over the next year or two and get himself impeached (or just up and resign, talking about how everything is rigged against him), I'll be shocked. Congress would much rather deal with Pence than with Trump. If that happens I'll come back and ask you how the mission is going.
You're thinking that any media organization or journalist or whatever has the ability to breach a server which at this point is probably offline if it's even still assembled, and then scrape the raw contents of the hard drives and try to recover deleted data? And that, if they aren't able to do that, then they're "in the tank". I'm pretty sure that the server is not assembled, is not online, and that the hard drives were removed and given to her lawyer. But if the media can't recover deleted data from those hard drives, they're "in the tank". I'm starting to think that hacking or computers in general "ain't" your strong point.
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but most "journalists" do all of the research that they need to do on places like Twitter and Facebook. The investigative journalist is a thing of the past, with notable exceptions being people like Brian Krebs.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, she lost in all kinds of places. Oklahoma, for example, she did not win a single county. It looks like Oklahoma uses paper ballots. She also lost every single county in West Virginia, which uses paper or machines with a paper trail.
Here's a list of the states using paper ballots, and who got their votes:
Montana - Trump
New Mexico - Clinton
North Dakota - T
South Dakota - T
Nebraska - T
Oklahoma - T
Minnesota - C
Iowa - T
Michigan - T
Alabama - T
New York - C
Maryland - C
Vermont - C
NH - C
Mass. - C
Conn. - C
RI - C
Maine - C
The paper-only states are the ones colored gray here:
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...
For reference:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/...
Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump.
I think that word you put in parentheses is the important one, and the reason why most polls got everything so wrong. Trump is distasteful enough as a person that I think he had a lot of support from people who didn't want to admit it because they didn't want other people to judge them for it. I'm sure that some of Clinton's voters were the same, but I think Trump had significantly more of those types.
When corrected for race, income, and other variables, the exit polls lined up with the actual vote counts.
I'm pretty sure that one could create any number of "variables" and then "correct" for them to show any result they desire.
Yeah, Trump is talking about grabbing pussies but some random programmer in Arizona is the actual problem.
A person's personal anecdote does not disprove human nature.
I think you mean "a person's personal anecdote does not disprove my baseless analogy", but it sort of does.
At $2.50 a gallon (seems to be current US price?), 300 gallons a day costs $750.
If you're buying it at a pump in the US, sure. If you have to load it onto a plane and send it to the easternmost volcanic island in the Samoa chain, it's going to be a touch more expensive. In Hawaii, for example, (which contains major air and sea infrastructure), diesel is over $4 per gallon. American Samoa is about 2600 miles from Hawaii, or 1800 miles from New Zealand. A chartered flight to the airport on this island from the capital of American Samoa is about $4,400 (obviously, not including the cost of getting the fuel to Pago Pago first). The runway is only 3200 ft / 975 m, so you can't exactly land a C-5 there. In fact that runway is less than half the length required for a Boeing 707. This is the kind of plane that could use that runway, with a maximum cargo capacity of around 8,000 lbs, or about 4200 gallons of diesel, or enough for 2 weeks of power generation. So they need a flight every 2 weeks at least carrying around 4200 gallons of fuel at a time for whatever cost they can get the fuel (probably over $4 per gallon), plus the cost of the flights. That's 26 flights per year. Anyway, the cost of the batteries is definitely less than 10 years of fuel flights, in fact it's probably closer to 3 to 5 years. That's the return on investment (plus the cost of the panels and associated writing and maintenance).
I guess they could also get fuel by boat rather than plane, although the island's 2 boat harbors look like this and this, so they aren't exactly docking a supertanker there.
If what Mr. Trump said was true (grabbing them by the pu**y) there would at least be a court case.
Is that how it works? The only reality is what goes on inside a courtroom?
Double so when you have people like Clinton, who destroyed women her husband was guilty of sexual assaulting, telling people that they have to believe the accusations.
No, I'm sorry, that never happened. The reason I know that is because there would be a court case. The only case filed against Clinton was for sexual harassment, by Paula Jones, not sexual assault. And if Hillary had "destroyed" women that her husband was guilty of assaulting, then there would be a court case against her, too.
Because that's how reality works. Also, I've never smoked marijuana in my life, because if I had, there would be a court case.
Of course, there was that one lawsuit against Trump for attempted rape in 1997, but I guess that one doesn't count because it was settled (although Clinton also settled his case with Jones, so I guess that case doesn't count either). There was also Ivana's sworn deposition that he violently raped her, but I guess that one doesn't count either because after Ivana agreed to a divorce settlement then Trump's lawyers convinced a book publisher to include a note saying that the word "rape" should not be interpreted in "a literal or criminal sense." I suppose Trump's lawyers know better on that one. There's also that lawsuit from a woman who says that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein raped her when she was 13, but that one doesn't count either, because it was filed during his campaign. Lawsuits that are filed when someone is running for office don't count and are always baseless and fictional.
But yeah, no court cases, which definitely proves that Trump has never done the things that he himself has said he has done.
Those accusations are all extremely weak (you can read) so I'd say not plausible that he's guilty.
If you don't mind, I'd like to tap your legal expertise on an unrelated matter. Bill Cosby - do you think it's likely that he assaulted at least one woman?
And the one concrete example that Trump gave of a specific woman, who refused him, somehow does not disprove your "theory" that they are talking about "exactly that type of woman" and that "that type of woman" wants people with money or power to fuck her in order to advance her career. The only example either person gave of any individual woman was one who does not fit your ridiculous stereotype of what you imagine women to be like.
But, yeah, I can't follow a simple 30 second conversation. Right, attack me, not the obvious and basic error in what passes for "logic" in your arguments.
How about those ACs who shot down your "theory" of what a sex party is like? They're also wrong, aren't they? It's not that you have ridiculous ideas about what you think the world is like and just assume that all of them are true, right? It's everyone else who can't see past their biases, not you.
The full conversation that you are talking about is Bush and Trump talking about exactly that type of woman.
Really? They were talking about an entertainment anchor who was married (I'll leave it up to you to find out which one). Trump admits that he didn't get anywhere with her, that she refused him. He said he "moved on her like a bitch." So, if what you claim above is true, wouldn't he have succeeded? I mean, if that's exactly the type of woman who wants Trump to walk up and grab her pussy, wouldn't Trump have closed that particular deal? Once you reach a certain level of wealth or power, is it just assumed that every single woman you might meet at any point in your day is there because she wants you to fuck her so that she can advance in her career? Is that how you think? Or are you just going to reply to this with some stupid attack on me, like you've demonstrated so far in this very thread:
It is not a one sided issue, and you can't seem to follow a simple 30 second conversation. I have no confidence that you can see both sides of the claim.
If real world circumstances "derail" the conversation it simply demonstrates your lack of ability to think and reason.
And yes, it seems like you have difficulty with honesty and reality.
You can attack the messenger all you want, it doesn't make you right.
Make sure you read those AC replies above mine as well. You should probably also question their views on reality and thinking, that will help convince people that you're right. Insulting the people that you're arguing with is a sure-fire way to win any debate.
Is a groupie guilty of sexual assault when they try to sleep with band members, actors, actresses?
Are they walking up and grabbing crotches? If so, yes they are.
How about a more general woman who understands how to use sex appeal trying to sleep with people in power positions to get power?
Is she walking up and grabbing peoples' crotches? If so, then yeah she's guilty of sexual assault also.
It is not a one sided issue
It kind of is though really. The point you're trying to make is that people don't press assault charges if they welcome that behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not assault. The difference between an assault charge and getting laid is whether the other person welcomed the behavior. It's the same behavior though. Grabbing crotches in particular is sort of on the extreme edge of the "do you want to fuck?" continuum, right before just straight up trying to fuck them. I've kissed women without explicit consent, for example (which, yes, is assault also), but that's as far as I would be comfortable going. I wouldn't just go for the crotch grab out of the gate, I would do something like try for a kiss and if they pull away then I've got my answer whether or not they would welcome me grabbing their crotch. And, likewise, they are much less likely to press charges for sexual assault if I tried to kiss them versus grabbed their crotch. It's not hard to figure out.
That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.
What does that have to do with anything? If you walk up to a woman you don't know and grab her crotch, is that sexual assault or not? Has that ever not been sexual assault?
the networks have a responsibility to give us ALL the facts on BOTH candidates.
That's where I disagree, and that statement is a good illustration of the way the system is set up to work, and how it actually works. I think that networks should show people more than just 2 candidates. I think that any candidate who has the ability to win (i.e. is on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral vote) should be included in televised debates. But, the 2 major parties don't want that to happen, so they make agreements with the networks to say that if the network shows any debate featuring any candidate from any party other than the 2 major parties, then that network will not receive any presidential debates. I think that's bullshit, and that's the system I'm talking about. That's the system that was created and is perpetuated by the parties to favor themselves, to make sure that one of them will always be in power. It used to be different, but the parties formed the Commission On Presidential Debates to perpetuate this fraud that we only have 2 choices. And every single network plays along so that they can sponsor, moderate, or air presidential debates. Presidential debates should be publicly funded and any network that wants to show them should be allowed. They should belong to us all, but instead we get this bullshit political theater created by the parties and pushed by the networks. The Commission On Presidential Debates needs to end, and political parties should be banned from organizing presidential debates. We can do that by ourselves, we don't need their collusion in order to get debates. And people should be presented other candidates so that everyone knows that they have a choice other than Dumb or Dumber. If Johnson or Stein would have been included in the debates then they would have gotten a lot more votes, and we probably would have had higher turnout also.
You have to be a mental defective to stand here and tell me that reality has a liberal bias, based on the implementation of these liberal progressive ideas and how well they have worked out.
All of the problems you mentioned sit squarely on the shoulders of liberals, huh? It was Obama's fault for that recession, wasn't it? He caused those problems, right? Also, Obama founded ISIS, right? How did ISIS form again? It was because of some war, I can't remember which though. Maybe you can tell me who led the country into that war. I suppose the answer is endless war until we kill everyone that needs killing though, right? Maybe that will stop the "invasion" of Europe, which is also totally a thing and definitely not made up by conservatives to scare people.
Don't blame it on Bush
Nice debate tactic. "Don't blame the problem".
Obama has had 7 years, 2 with both houses
Let's go to Mitch McConnell for some quotes about how much they wanted to work with Obama, shall we? The Congress over the last 8 years has been shit, they have accomplished nothing. They have been historically bad. Every single one of them should be kicked out.
You seem confused about how balanced debate works.
Thanks, but I'm not. If 95% of people agree on a particular issue, then it would make sense for a debate to feature 19 people in favor versus 1 opposed. Let's take another example. If Fox shows a debate with 1 guy who believes that the Earth is round, and 1 who believes that it is flat, then that makes it look like a 50/50 issue, right? But it's not. If Fox shows a debate with 1 guy who thinks that the Earth goes around the sun, and 1 guy who thinks that the sun goes around the Earth, then that makes it look like a 50/50 issue, but it's not. The same thing applies to climate change. It's disingenuous to put 2 people up there and let them argue and then say "well, the science obviously isn't settled, so we'll leave it up to you, dear viewer." That's the bias of Fo
It was a story about this article, apparently still running live on the ABC News website. It talks about "internet rumors" (complete with a helpful link to a Google search) about people being paid to protest, and then it contains several helpful quotes from a guy who says he answered a Craiglist ad (screenshot in the article). Some of the quotes are pretty funny:
It was mostly women in their 60’s at the interview that I went to. Plus, all the people that I communicated with had an AOL email address. No one still has an AOL email address except people that would vote for Hillary Clinton.
I like this one too:
“I knew those weren’t real protesters, they were too organized and smart,” said 59-year-old Tom Downey, a Trump supporter who attended the rally in Fountain Hills. “I knew there was something up when they started shouting all these facts and nonsense like that. The best we could do was just yell and punch em’ and stuff.”
Remember, this is ABC News, trying to pass this off as fact. The problem is the guy they "interviewed" is Paul Horner (like they say), except he isn't a paid protester, he's a satire author who puts a character with his own name in all of his stories (see here). And also they didn't actually interview him, they just read his satire piece and pulled all of the quotes from that.
I'm not saying anything about that Zulema woman or what her role is. It looks like the campaign paid her to be a campaign manager, and it looks like they used some shady tactics (full disclosure: Hillary Clinton is a cunt). I don't know if they specifically paid her to block Shea Blvd here in town, or if she did that on her own, or whatever, I'm just talking generally about people running with fake stories. Here's a post on his fake CNN site about other stories of his reported as fact.
Fake ads on Craigslist are not a new idea:
I know, that's the whole point. Say it with me: "Craiglist is for scammers". But, for whatever reason (hint: the reason starts with a "c", and ends with a "onfirmation bias") people see ads posted for paid protesters and think that, no, these ads aren't fake, they must be real, because I feel like it's true.
That's the whole point. Craigslist is full of fake crap, but when people see what they want to see then they think it has to be true.
The Washington Post has been doing things like this and I've not yet seen them come clean about it
I hope you're not holding your breath on that one.
The Washington Post has been in the tank for Hillary the entire election.
That does not invalidate anything I said.
Now they run a story attacking everybody else on the other side's credibility.
No, they're running a story with an interview of a guy who posts articles which he considers satire, but "the other side" as you say posts his stories as if they're true. But you want to attack the messenger.
The problem is, the Craigslist ads are actually real.
OK, so prove it. Prove that those ads were posted by people intending to pay people to protest against Trump. Show me the proof, because it all looks like a bunch of bullshit. This is a story about not believing everything you read, so please, don't just make dumb assertions, back them up with proof.
Do we, though? Is that true? Where is the video and the proof that those people are who they claim to be?
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)
You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.
The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.
Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.
in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.
This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.
why they are the most trusted news network in the US
It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.
Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.
The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets
Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015, with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox and CNN. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed.
If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo
Maybe so, but that's exactly what The Onion does (which also, by the way, sometimes gets cited as sources for "news"). The writer wants to be grouped in with sites like The Onion (and any rational person should be able to read his articles and determine that they are in fact satire), rather than the various nameless blogs which push things that are just fake without any hint of humor.
Haha, I was going to post a follow up if anyone bit:
So, did you believe that Washington Post story? Did you do any of your own research?
I did, and I found the guy's sites and saw his articles, but still, it's a good thought exercise. It pays to question what you read and do a little research of your own.
If you do research on Paul Horner, by the way, you'll find a lot of information about Fappy the Anti-Masturbation Dolphin. Good stuff.
Yet, you can google
"site:craigslist.org 1500 week stop trump"
and see ads in major cities across the US offering to pay people to protest Trump.
Thank you, you are a perfect example of the people he was talking about. I post an interview with a guy who admits to posting fake Craigslist ads for protesters, and your rebuttal to that is to tell me to look up protest ads on Craigslist. You believe it, because you want it to be true. Do you ever think about it? I mean, actually think about it? People will protest Trump *for free*, they will do it by themselves, organized by themselves, at no cost. So why the hell would someone pay people to do something that they're going to do anyway for free? And, if someone wanted to do something like this and not get called out on it, are they going to post a fucking Craigslist ad? Does that make any sense at all to you? Did you even stop to think whether or not it makes sense, or did you just believe it because it sounds like something that you want to be true?
Here's another question - did you respond to any of those ads? Did you call any of those phone numbers? No? You just think it's true though, don't you?
You're a perfect example of the kind of person who gets taken in by this stuff and just assumes that it's true. Anyone can post an ad on Craigslist, you don't even need an account to do it. Anyone can post any contact information, the only thing you need is a working email address. Maybe try calling some of those numbers on those ads and see who they connect to, if anyone, and if you talk to someone ask them if they posted those ads.
Let me guess your response to that: I called one of those numbers, and it connected to a Planned Parenthood! The people there told me that this was a hoax and that they did not post the ad! Therefore, I know that they are lying and that they actually did post the ad!
Go ahead, let the confirmation bias flow through you.
"Hey man, I'm going to head down to the mailbox and check the mail."
"I will pay you $20 if you go check the mail."
Yeah, pay somebody for something that they're going to do for free anyway. This makes perfect sense. Way to use the critical thinking part of your brain there.
There were several reporters on Diane Rehm's show this morning talking about that. One of them mentioned that his efforts to correct articles that were obviously wrong, were in fact proof to the people who believed the article that he was biased and lying himself. So there you go, the effort to try to point out that an article is fake is met by its believers with a belief that you are the one lying. They'll go on believing the fake news, but now they also think you're a liar also.
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The political parties. Thank the Commission on Presidential Debates (composed of the Democratic and Republican parties) for creating an environment where news organizations need to play by the rules of the parties, in return for things like debate sponsorships, interviews, "insider" access, etc. The parties have cultivated this relationship with the media for a long time, it's part of the foundation at this point. The Commission needs to be broken up, and political debates need to be publicly funded and available to air by any outlet. Maybe then news organizations can start having a more critical eye on the political system, and this election should be concrete proof that people want that exposed.
Here are a couple examples. See if you can spot the trends.
Firefighter Jailed & Suspended By Atheist Mayor For Praying At Scene of Fire
Sounds plausible, right? I'm outraged! Christianity is under attack! I need to share this on Facebook immediately! Here's a quote:
According to DeQuincy city attorney Paul Horner, Jones made four previous attempts to address the issue personally with Edwards, but Edwards became more defiant with each meeting.
94-Year-Old Grandma Kills 'Knockout Game' Thug
The poor woman! She got attacked! If she didn't have her gun, those black youths probably would have killed her! Here's a quote:
St. Louis Police Detective Paul Horner told CNN the ‘Knockout Game’ is extremely dangerous and needs to stop before more people get killed. "How many more of our young African American youths will have to die before it clicks in their tiny little brains not to do this stupid sh*t anymore?"
Obama Signs Executive Order Which Bans The Sale Of Assault Weapons
What?! Just read that article about that poor 94 year old woman, we need more guns! This is an outrage! People have to hear about this! Here's a quote:
Washington political analyst, 37-year-old Paul Horner, who has been at The Coronado Healthcare Center since early last month after getting into a severe accident in Rocky Point, told ABC News what led up to this assault gun ban on both sides of the party.
Obama To Honor Muslim Brotherhood Leader With Statue On White House Lawn
That goddamn Kenyan needs to go back to Kenya! All of my relatives need to hear about this! Here's a quote:
White House spokesman Paul Horner ended the press conference by giving details to reporters about the controversial statue.
“The statue of Azhar Azeez will be displayed on the East side of the White House lawn,” Horner said. “The marble statue will stand approximately 21 feet tall, weigh a little more than a 100 tons and is currently being built by world famous artist Tom Downey from England. The statue is expected to be completed in the next 6 months with a grand unveiling celebration for all to see. This is a great day for Muslims all over the world.”
Donald Trump Introduces New Muslim/Refugee Badges
It's about goddamn time! Let's make it great again! Here's a quote:
“The German government’s policy of forcing Jews to wear identifying badges was but one of many psychological tactics aimed at isolating and dehumanizing the Jews of Europe, directly marking them as being different and inferior to everyone else,” Paul Horner of the Holocaust Center said.
Mom Calls 911 On Masturbating Teenage Son; Boy Arrested, Charged With New ‘Self-Rape’ Alabama State Law
Share to everyone! Here's a quote:
An Alabama boy is behind bars tonight after his mother called 9-1-1 when she found her son in his room, watching pornography and masturbating. Montgomery Police were quick to respond, arresting 15-year-old Paul Horner, who attends Jefferson Davis High School.
That goddamn Paul Horner gets around, doesn't he?
Anyway, the guy who runs that site, Paul Horner, appreciates all of the page views and ad clicks on his articles baiting right-w
Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.
I read an interview this morning with a guy who runs of the "fake news" sites. He would refer to what he does as parody or satire, but other people don't see it that way. For example, he wrote a story that someone who was protesting a Donald Trump rally in Arizona was paid $3500 to protest. He thought that was satire. But it was picked up by ABC and tweeted out by Trump's campaign manager as if it were true. He thought that they would fact check and find out that it was fake, but no one ever did. He mentioned how he makes $10k per month from ad revenue, and it's because people share his stories that fit a conservative Trump supporter narrative without ever bothering to fact check anything (or even think critically about whether something is believable - like the "Amish lobby" that was claiming that all Amish people were going to vote for Trump). People eat it up, don't question it, and if it ever does get questioned people have moved on and don't pay attention to the correction, they just assumed it was true and move on.
Here's the interview if you're curious.
Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that "no joke ... in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it's the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans." That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting conservatives is more profitable.
Yeah, it is. They don't fact-check.
That "bias" that you're referring to is a product of the free market. If conservatives seem to be more gullible, then you write things targeting them. It's not "bias" so much as knowing your audience.
Mission accomplished.
Hey Bush, you might want to wait until the end of the war before you declare the mission accomplished. Trump hasn't even announced a cabinet yet. You have no idea what his administration is going to look like or how they're going to act, just like every other person who voted for him. Not a single person, including and especially Trump himself, knew what they were getting into.
If Trump manages to not break multiple laws over the next year or two and get himself impeached (or just up and resign, talking about how everything is rigged against him), I'll be shocked. Congress would much rather deal with Pence than with Trump. If that happens I'll come back and ask you how the mission is going.
You're thinking that any media organization or journalist or whatever has the ability to breach a server which at this point is probably offline if it's even still assembled, and then scrape the raw contents of the hard drives and try to recover deleted data? And that, if they aren't able to do that, then they're "in the tank". I'm pretty sure that the server is not assembled, is not online, and that the hard drives were removed and given to her lawyer. But if the media can't recover deleted data from those hard drives, they're "in the tank". I'm starting to think that hacking or computers in general "ain't" your strong point.
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but most "journalists" do all of the research that they need to do on places like Twitter and Facebook. The investigative journalist is a thing of the past, with notable exceptions being people like Brian Krebs.