My us vs. them thinking? My "us" is the commoners, and the "them" is the globalist elite. Which includes Hillary, and Jeb, and Kasich. Who the hell is your "us" and "them?"
The Donald isn't just my candidate. He's my weapon to expose and destroy the entire wretched, fetid, rotten to the core political system. If you're voting for Hillary you're voting for your continued and likely permanent enslavement. If you're not voting for Trump you're complicit. Would I like him to be a little better spoken? A little more polite to the ladies? Sure. But cometh the hour cometh the man, and this is the man.
That coincides with what I said. Hubris on the part of State. Russia's economy is weak, but their weapons are no joke. Hillary (and the establishment Republicans during the primary debates) loved to talk about getting tough with Putin and establishing a no-fly zone in Syria. And when Putin parks S-4s in Syria? Whatcha gonna do then? Those things are beasts. "Stealth" is a meme.
And if you believe it was an organized effort by the democratic party the same applies.
Of course not. But when a whopping...two? out of millions of attendees to Trump rallies punched obnoxious protestors, that was blamed on Trump's "divisive rhetoric." But Hillary dehumanizes her opponent's supporters as "deplorable" and "irredeemable" and the media goes full tilt on the RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC NAZI rhetoric and that has nothing at all to do with leftist nutjobs firebombing Republicans. You literally have fascists reenacting Kristallnacht while calling their targets Nazis. The irony is off the charts. What's that quote about the "fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists?"
BTW, democrats have gathered over $10,000 to help rebuild it.
Yeah that was really nice. Only piece of civility I've seen on either side this election.
1) They gave it to Hillary and not Bernie because Hillary is the establishment choice. It's not so much a Republican/Democrat thing as it is an elites vs commoners thing.
2) Even if they gave it to Bernie, too, it's still fucking bullshit. It's just kabuki theater. There is no democracy. There is no journalism. There are elites, their chosen puppets, and their propagandists.
Eh, actually I believe the CIA/state department want war with Russia. Pentagon probably does not though.
Remember, the deep state has different factions which are opposed to each other for both ideological and practical purposes. We mere mortals just get to watch the lightening bolts flash upon Olympus and deal with the occasional flood or stray meteor that results from their magicks.
there is no need of a leftist media conspiracy to have an idea of who edits the news of RT.
Which I'm fine with. I know when I read RT to take it with a grain of salt. When I read Breitbart, I know what I'm getting. I like Mother Jones, too, and I know what I'm getting. But when I'm watching a CNN debate, presented to me as fair and impartial, but CNN has given one side a copy of the debate questions ahead of time...uh oh.
how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection?
I wonder if there's any way to use the internet without a physical connection? Dude, I bet if you invented such a mythical "wireless internet connection" you'd get hella rich.
Moron, you just proved my fucking point. You said the little old Christian ladies were going to dump Trump. I told you no, they're not, because they think like Christians and not like you do. So you agree then, the Christians right or wrongly from your point of view aren't dumping Trump. Which means, the tapes didn't hurt Trump among his supporters. The only poll I think is useful for showing changes in opinion amongst the same group of people day to day is the LA Times tracking poll (samples the same group of people) and that's what it showed.
Elite's choice for president shown winning elite media propaganda polls. Who would have thunk it?!
I bet in North Korea the polls show Kimmy winning re-election by 110%. There will be severe consequences for the disloyal when his vote total is only 105%.
I don't care about Russia's honor. I just know that the last time the government gave me UNDENIABLE CONCLUSIVE PROOF of malicious enemy state action to justify a war it was a complete lie, hundreds of thousands or more people died, trillions of dollars were wasted, the reputation of the united states was forever tarnished. So before we go to war with Russia I'd like something a little bit better than "trust us, we're the US government, would we lie to you?"
And no, you can't say "but we're not talking about war right now, just where the hacks came from!" Bull fucking shit. There's a story last week about how the CIA is prepping for a retaliatory cyber attack (which I think is probably retarded bluster or disinfo...why would the CIA be doing it and not the NSA?). But the point is, if we go ahead and conclude the Russians did this now, with no hard evidence, then a month from now something else happens, maybe IRL (jet fighter shot down or something? New "evidence" Putin is "gassing his own people!" That one always seems to work), then we'll have Buzzfeed's "Top 10 Reasons Why Nuking Russia is the Right Thing to Do!" including "They haxx0red the DNC, remember we already proved that!"
The leaks confirmed everything I've always thought. We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The elite own the media and the politicians, they pick the policies they want, the politicians implement them and the media colludes with the politicians to persuade the public to go along with their pre-drawn conclusions, and if the public disagrees they're evil and stupid because all the Smart People in the media say so. The campaigns write news articles the "unbiased" news publishes for them, they time stories to coincide with campaign messaging, the networks give the debate questions to the preferred candidate ahead of time. It's a show. Top down not bottom up. There is no democracy.
Actually they are also yelling "lies." Even in the buzzfeed (jesus christ, buzzfeed?) article they call the leaks a "disinformation campaign." Why is it disinformation?
What do you want? There's only circumstantial evidence it was the Russians, and then it turns out part of the circumstantial evidence is false.
Looks like same-old same-old to me. Government wants war. Government makes up or exaggerates evidence of enemy treachery to justify war (Gulf of Tonkin, aluminum tubes and yellow cake, etc). Get war. Profit!
It seems all you have to do to turn liberals into bloodthirsty warmongers is put a D after the name of the President.
I don't think it really matters. The DNC would have colluded with the media regardless of who the Democratic candidate was (well maybe not as much Bernie...they didn't want him because he's not really a Democrat). Hillary just serves as an excellent means to show how bankrupt the system is, as she's indefensible on pretty much every front and she has no natural charisma she can use to distract people from the festering, rotten political system propping her up.
We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The elite who own both the media and the politicians (Republicans are little better) are going to instruct the media to prop up whatever puppets they appoint. Donna Brazille was always going to give the debate questions ahead of time to the preferred puppet. Nothing to do with Hillary herself. It's just that Hillary is a really, really shitty puppet.
You'll notice the results of polls swing wildly depending on who's doing the polling. This is because that objective data is derived from subjective opinions. But the numbers get reported as if they're facts with no discussion of the underlying assumptions, who's making them, or why they're valid.
The thing that anyone who pays attention has always known is that we don't have a state-run media so much as we have a media-run state. The elite that own the media, also own the politicians. The elite determine what policies they want, tell the politicians to enact them, and then have the media companies propagandize the public as to why this policy is good and just and moral and only stupid and evil people oppose. Take for example illegal immigration. Ignoring immigration laws only serves the interests of the elite (eventual votes for Democrats, cheap labor for everybody). But it hurts the illegal immigrants who are denied protection from our labor laws, it hurts our low-skill citizens who cannot compete with the cheaper labor, it hurts those who become victims of illegal immigrant violence, which are mostly those in the poor communities where the illegal settle, it creates new racial tensions like all the blacks who are being basically ethnically cleansed from Southern California, etc. There's really no coherent argument for why a pro-illegal immigration stance is in the best interests of the average voter, yet you'll find people who will go to the mat excusing this behavior that is entirely negative for them...because the pretty man on TV has them convinced that only stupid, evil people are against illegal immigration.
Back to polling. So if we accept that the point of the news media is not to inform but to persuade (and this is proven in the Podesta email leaks. News outlets are publishing articles written by campaign staff as if they're objective news, coordination to plan story release along with campaign events, Hillary gets the debate questions from CNN ahead of time, etc), then what's the point of media polling? Is it to inform you about what your neighbors think? Or is it to persuade and influence the audience? Jump on the bandwagon for the winning team, or demoralize and depress the opposition team.
Well when you look at the polling methodologies, the assumptions they make are almost always 1) not justified and 2) bear no semblance to reality, particularly in this election. For instance, in several recent polls in order to get Hillary's numbers up over Trump they had to select a demographic sample that was over 60% female. They don't justify this. They just do it. In the past turnout has usually been 52% female and 48% male. Why select 60% now? You'll also find that "Likely Voter" polls typically make a pre-req for being considered a Likely Voter a history of voting in the 2012 and 2014 elections. That means they're not capturing any of the new registrants. Hasn't new registration been through the roof?
And who's funding these polls? Turns out some of them like the "Clinton +11" NBC/WSJ poll that got thrown around last week (and is bizarrely used in the calculation of RCP's average) is paid for by a Hillary Clinton SuperPAC.
So when you run around shoving polls in people's faces, why are you doing it? Do you believe the polls are accurate? If you honestly thought they were legitimate, then that's okay, you were just ignorant, and I hope now you'll see they're pointless propaganda and change your opinion. On the other hand if you know they're bullshit, and you're flashing them around anyway, then you're just a manipulative liar.
That's why I never believe right-wing online nuts "fact-checking" because they always -- ALWAYS -- either intentionally or unintentionally omit something important or misinterpret what is said.
This is why I never believe anything left-wing online sycophants say because they always -- ALWAYS -- either intentionally or unintentionally introduce irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with the original claim so they can arrive at their pre-determined result. Leftists always work backwards.
Already dropped. It was just Trump calling Lil Jon an Uncle Tom, and then Lil Jon corrected Trump, Trump never said it again, and Lil Jon is cool with it.
Slashdot Mirror
My us vs. them thinking? My "us" is the commoners, and the "them" is the globalist elite. Which includes Hillary, and Jeb, and Kasich. Who the hell is your "us" and "them?"
The Donald isn't just my candidate. He's my weapon to expose and destroy the entire wretched, fetid, rotten to the core political system. If you're voting for Hillary you're voting for your continued and likely permanent enslavement. If you're not voting for Trump you're complicit. Would I like him to be a little better spoken? A little more polite to the ladies? Sure. But cometh the hour cometh the man, and this is the man.
It's an exaggeration until it happens. Also it's beyond hacking. I've seen people calling for kinetic attacks in response to alleged Russian hacking.
The elites want war with Russia. They have to manufacture the consent of the people. This is how they're doing it. You're helping them. Why?
I didn't say he wasn't establishment. I said he wasn't the establishment choice. Are you arguing Bernie was the choice of the establishment?
That coincides with what I said. Hubris on the part of State. Russia's economy is weak, but their weapons are no joke. Hillary (and the establishment Republicans during the primary debates) loved to talk about getting tough with Putin and establishing a no-fly zone in Syria. And when Putin parks S-4s in Syria? Whatcha gonna do then? Those things are beasts. "Stealth" is a meme.
How do you breathe, gargling plutocrat cock 24/7?
And if you believe it was an organized effort by the democratic party the same applies.
Of course not. But when a whopping...two? out of millions of attendees to Trump rallies punched obnoxious protestors, that was blamed on Trump's "divisive rhetoric." But Hillary dehumanizes her opponent's supporters as "deplorable" and "irredeemable" and the media goes full tilt on the RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC NAZI rhetoric and that has nothing at all to do with leftist nutjobs firebombing Republicans. You literally have fascists reenacting Kristallnacht while calling their targets Nazis. The irony is off the charts. What's that quote about the "fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists?"
BTW, democrats have gathered over $10,000 to help rebuild it.
Yeah that was really nice. Only piece of civility I've seen on either side this election.
Who in their right minds wants to start a war with Russia, especially over something as inconsequential as this?
Among citizens? Not a fucking one. Elites with multi-billion dollar interests in the political climate of Syria? Lots.
1) They gave it to Hillary and not Bernie because Hillary is the establishment choice. It's not so much a Republican/Democrat thing as it is an elites vs commoners thing.
2) Even if they gave it to Bernie, too, it's still fucking bullshit. It's just kabuki theater. There is no democracy. There is no journalism. There are elites, their chosen puppets, and their propagandists.
Trump's PussyLeaks comments helped him with blacks. Apparently the only men in America who will still admit to liking pussy.
But Romney's a Mexican.
Eh, actually I believe the CIA/state department want war with Russia. Pentagon probably does not though.
Remember, the deep state has different factions which are opposed to each other for both ideological and practical purposes. We mere mortals just get to watch the lightening bolts flash upon Olympus and deal with the occasional flood or stray meteor that results from their magicks.
there is no need of a leftist media conspiracy to have an idea of who edits the news of RT.
Which I'm fine with. I know when I read RT to take it with a grain of salt. When I read Breitbart, I know what I'm getting. I like Mother Jones, too, and I know what I'm getting. But when I'm watching a CNN debate, presented to me as fair and impartial, but CNN has given one side a copy of the debate questions ahead of time...uh oh.
how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection?
I wonder if there's any way to use the internet without a physical connection? Dude, I bet if you invented such a mythical "wireless internet connection" you'd get hella rich.
Moron, you just proved my fucking point. You said the little old Christian ladies were going to dump Trump. I told you no, they're not, because they think like Christians and not like you do. So you agree then, the Christians right or wrongly from your point of view aren't dumping Trump. Which means, the tapes didn't hurt Trump among his supporters. The only poll I think is useful for showing changes in opinion amongst the same group of people day to day is the LA Times tracking poll (samples the same group of people) and that's what it showed.
As for the last part, here's how real black men are talking about PussyLeaks.
Elite's choice for president shown winning elite media propaganda polls. Who would have thunk it?!
I bet in North Korea the polls show Kimmy winning re-election by 110%. There will be severe consequences for the disloyal when his vote total is only 105%.
I don't care about Russia's honor. I just know that the last time the government gave me UNDENIABLE CONCLUSIVE PROOF of malicious enemy state action to justify a war it was a complete lie, hundreds of thousands or more people died, trillions of dollars were wasted, the reputation of the united states was forever tarnished. So before we go to war with Russia I'd like something a little bit better than "trust us, we're the US government, would we lie to you?"
And no, you can't say "but we're not talking about war right now, just where the hacks came from!" Bull fucking shit. There's a story last week about how the CIA is prepping for a retaliatory cyber attack (which I think is probably retarded bluster or disinfo...why would the CIA be doing it and not the NSA?). But the point is, if we go ahead and conclude the Russians did this now, with no hard evidence, then a month from now something else happens, maybe IRL (jet fighter shot down or something? New "evidence" Putin is "gassing his own people!" That one always seems to work), then we'll have Buzzfeed's "Top 10 Reasons Why Nuking Russia is the Right Thing to Do!" including "They haxx0red the DNC, remember we already proved that!"
WE'VE SEEN THIS SHIT BEFORE.
I hope you realize your media is propaganda.
The leaks confirmed everything I've always thought. We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The elite own the media and the politicians, they pick the policies they want, the politicians implement them and the media colludes with the politicians to persuade the public to go along with their pre-drawn conclusions, and if the public disagrees they're evil and stupid because all the Smart People in the media say so. The campaigns write news articles the "unbiased" news publishes for them, they time stories to coincide with campaign messaging, the networks give the debate questions to the preferred candidate ahead of time. It's a show. Top down not bottom up. There is no democracy.
Actually they are also yelling "lies." Even in the buzzfeed (jesus christ, buzzfeed?) article they call the leaks a "disinformation campaign." Why is it disinformation?
"They hacked us!!! And it's all lies!!!"
What do you want? There's only circumstantial evidence it was the Russians, and then it turns out part of the circumstantial evidence is false.
Looks like same-old same-old to me. Government wants war. Government makes up or exaggerates evidence of enemy treachery to justify war (Gulf of Tonkin, aluminum tubes and yellow cake, etc). Get war. Profit!
It seems all you have to do to turn liberals into bloodthirsty warmongers is put a D after the name of the President.
I don't think it really matters. The DNC would have colluded with the media regardless of who the Democratic candidate was (well maybe not as much Bernie...they didn't want him because he's not really a Democrat). Hillary just serves as an excellent means to show how bankrupt the system is, as she's indefensible on pretty much every front and she has no natural charisma she can use to distract people from the festering, rotten political system propping her up.
We don't have a state-run media, we have a media-run state. The elite who own both the media and the politicians (Republicans are little better) are going to instruct the media to prop up whatever puppets they appoint. Donna Brazille was always going to give the debate questions ahead of time to the preferred puppet. Nothing to do with Hillary herself. It's just that Hillary is a really, really shitty puppet.
Well said. The Constitution is only a "living document" when it turns left.
"Islam is incompatible with western civilization. We should ban Islam and burn the Koran."
"But that's unconstitutional!!"
"Well the Constitution is a living document that was never meant to deal with a xenocidial political system masquerading as a religion and..."
Good luck with that argument.
And he's also using statistics based on data
You'll notice the results of polls swing wildly depending on who's doing the polling. This is because that objective data is derived from subjective opinions. But the numbers get reported as if they're facts with no discussion of the underlying assumptions, who's making them, or why they're valid.
The thing that anyone who pays attention has always known is that we don't have a state-run media so much as we have a media-run state. The elite that own the media, also own the politicians. The elite determine what policies they want, tell the politicians to enact them, and then have the media companies propagandize the public as to why this policy is good and just and moral and only stupid and evil people oppose. Take for example illegal immigration. Ignoring immigration laws only serves the interests of the elite (eventual votes for Democrats, cheap labor for everybody). But it hurts the illegal immigrants who are denied protection from our labor laws, it hurts our low-skill citizens who cannot compete with the cheaper labor, it hurts those who become victims of illegal immigrant violence, which are mostly those in the poor communities where the illegal settle, it creates new racial tensions like all the blacks who are being basically ethnically cleansed from Southern California, etc. There's really no coherent argument for why a pro-illegal immigration stance is in the best interests of the average voter, yet you'll find people who will go to the mat excusing this behavior that is entirely negative for them...because the pretty man on TV has them convinced that only stupid, evil people are against illegal immigration.
Back to polling. So if we accept that the point of the news media is not to inform but to persuade (and this is proven in the Podesta email leaks. News outlets are publishing articles written by campaign staff as if they're objective news, coordination to plan story release along with campaign events, Hillary gets the debate questions from CNN ahead of time, etc), then what's the point of media polling? Is it to inform you about what your neighbors think? Or is it to persuade and influence the audience? Jump on the bandwagon for the winning team, or demoralize and depress the opposition team.
Well when you look at the polling methodologies, the assumptions they make are almost always 1) not justified and 2) bear no semblance to reality, particularly in this election. For instance, in several recent polls in order to get Hillary's numbers up over Trump they had to select a demographic sample that was over 60% female. They don't justify this. They just do it. In the past turnout has usually been 52% female and 48% male. Why select 60% now? You'll also find that "Likely Voter" polls typically make a pre-req for being considered a Likely Voter a history of voting in the 2012 and 2014 elections. That means they're not capturing any of the new registrants. Hasn't new registration been through the roof?
And who's funding these polls? Turns out some of them like the "Clinton +11" NBC/WSJ poll that got thrown around last week (and is bizarrely used in the calculation of RCP's average) is paid for by a Hillary Clinton SuperPAC.
So when you run around shoving polls in people's faces, why are you doing it? Do you believe the polls are accurate? If you honestly thought they were legitimate, then that's okay, you were just ignorant, and I hope now you'll see they're pointless propaganda and change your opinion. On the other hand if you know they're bullshit, and you're flashing them around anyway, then you're just a manipulative liar.
That's why I never believe right-wing online nuts "fact-checking" because they always -- ALWAYS -- either intentionally or unintentionally omit something important or misinterpret what is said.
This is why I never believe anything left-wing online sycophants say because they always -- ALWAYS -- either intentionally or unintentionally introduce irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with the original claim so they can arrive at their pre-determined result. Leftists always work backwards.
Already dropped. It was just Trump calling Lil Jon an Uncle Tom, and then Lil Jon corrected Trump, Trump never said it again, and Lil Jon is cool with it.