Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 9/21/2016 at 1:42 AM, Nebraska said:

is that cartoon based on this video?

the very first example he uses as untruth is a situation where every single person understood what trump meant by his comments. what a joker.

There is some truth in that cartoon. Not what the author intended though. The news companies absolutely love to harp on the 'trump is Hitler etc.' angle. Because I guess they think people are simpletons.

However, if they were doing their job, they'd be pointing out things like how Trump uses his own charity/ and campaign contributions to buy shit for himself, or how he's had every conceivable opinion on each issue, or how he was bemoaning Hillary being bought out, but is now totally bought out himself, or how he outsources his jobs even though he complains about it, or how he's hired David Bossie... DAVID BOSSIE to be his campaign manager, or ETC ETC ETC.
 

  On 9/21/2016 at 1:51 AM, Brisbot said:

There is some truth in that cartoon. Not what the author intended though. The news companies absolutely love to harp on the 'trump is Hitler etc.' angle. Because I guess they think people are simpletons.

 

However, if they were doing their job, they'd be pointing out things like how Trump uses his own charity/ and campaign contributions to buy shit for himself, or how he's had every conceivable opinion on each issue, or how he was bemoaning Hillary being bought out, but is now totally bought out himself, or how he outsources his jobs even though he complains about it, or how he's hired David Bossie... DAVID BOSSIE to be his campaign manager, or ETC ETC ETC.

 

Do you watch CNN? They talk about every single one of those things.

And Trump is about as close to a potential fascist dictatorship leader you could get. The comparison is nowhere near unfounded.

I do not watch CNN. Though I see their bad reporting quite a lot. They only report the truth when it's convenient. They are only so much better than FOX.

I have a general distrust of cable news. I can see them not so subtly trying to influence public opinion. The obvious example is the Clinton worship and denial of the influence of money on her.

Btw read my post again. I never said that Trump couldn't be compared to hitler. I just said that's their main argument when there's so much more that can be said about him.

  On 9/21/2016 at 1:51 AM, Brisbot said:

Because I guess they think people are simpletons.

but, people ARE simpletons 

  Quote

 

but, people ARE simpletons 

 

Anyone fed the wrong information for a long time, from an authority source they trust, will believe almost anything. It was an event for me in my life when I realized how important evidence was for believing things, though I had been raised believing things based on faith.

IF since birth evidence and facts were taught as important criteria, then I think the majority of people would call these cable networks on their BS.

I mean, everytime I watch CNN pretend like Global Warming is still a discussion, I sigh. Or how they get all complain-y about yet another stupid thing Trump said, I sigh. They could be handling Trump so much better.

It's sad that the best news sources are from youtube outlets since they usually don't have an underlying agenda. Or you can browse the associated press.

Btw, CNN and Hillary are much better than Trump and Fox. But we're still getting hoodwinked in the end, yes?

  On 9/21/2016 at 2:12 AM, Brisbot said:

 

  Quote

 

but, people ARE simpletons 

 

Anyone fed the wrong information for a long time, from an authority source they trust, will believe almost anything. IF since birth evidence and facts were taught as important criteria, then I think the majority of people would call these cable networks on their BS.

 

I mean, everytime I watch CNN pretend like Global Warming is still a discussion, I sigh. Or how they get all complain-y about yet another stupid thing Trump said, I sigh. They could be handling Trump so much better.

 

It's sad that the best news sources are from youtube outlets since they usually don't have an underlying agenda.

 

Btw, CNN and Hillary are much better than Trump and Fox. But we're still getting hoodwinked in the end, yes?

 

 

Youtubers are still looking for clicks, just the same as CNN. I'm sure there's some percentage of them that are worried more about facts than clicks, but the same can be said of the 'mainstream media.' The mainstream media is presenting shit, of course, but they're also sometimes presenting knowledge and truth; that stuff just doesn't grab the headlines and isn't easy to chat about at the watercooler. But YT/whatever alternate sources people go for, though it's great that they're out there, are as a whole worse than mainstream journalism, imo. But ultimately it's all the same, it just depends how discerning the end viewer/reader/whatever is. 

  On 9/21/2016 at 1:56 AM, Brisbot said:

I do not watch CNN. Though I see their bad reporting quite a lot. They only report the truth when it's convenient. They are only so much better than FOX.

 

I have a general distrust of cable news. I can see them not so subtly trying to influence public opinion. The obvious example is the Clinton worship and denial of the influence of money on her.

 

Btw read my post again. I never said that Trump couldn't be compared to hitler. I just said that's their main argument when there's so much more that can be said about him.

There's no argument about them being aligned with the establishment but they have on many occasions discussed the things you referred to and they continue to do so. They at least support the positive elements of our society and progressiveness while they are shilling for the democrats.

The most unfortunate thing I see is that fox and the right wing folks associated with it have no issue telling outright lies which I see much less often and more close to never on CNN.

The true cognitive dissonance of an entire party and its supporters claiming liberals are liars when they oftwn are telling the truth and it's the right wing folks coming onto CNN that are outright lying and even worse on Fox News. It's mind boggling to me.

I agree they do a terrible job but what do you expect from a bunch of people willing to compromise themselves for a paycheck?

it's crazy to me that hillarys deplorable comment so easily turns from less than 25% of the country to 50% the moment Hannity throws his insane spin on things.

It's also very distressing to watch everyone involved distort facts, concepts, and realities and constantly frame things in the most reductive way possible to support their positions. I truly feel sorry for the young people of this country that have that as an example to follow.

  On 9/21/2016 at 2:22 AM, auxien said:

 

  On 9/21/2016 at 2:12 AM, Brisbot said:

 

  Quote

but, people ARE simpletons

 

Anyone fed the wrong information for a long time, from an authority source they trust, will believe almost anything. IF since birth evidence and facts were taught as important criteria, then I think the majority of people would call these cable networks on their BS.

 

I mean, everytime I watch CNN pretend like Global Warming is still a discussion, I sigh. Or how they get all complain-y about yet another stupid thing Trump said, I sigh. They could be handling Trump so much better.

 

It's sad that the best news sources are from youtube outlets since they usually don't have an underlying agenda.

 

Btw, CNN and Hillary are much better than Trump and Fox. But we're still getting hoodwinked in the end, yes?

 

Youtubers are still looking for clicks, just the same as CNN. I'm sure there's some percentage of them that are worried more about facts than clicks, but the same can be said of the 'mainstream media.' The mainstream media is presenting shit, of course, but they're also sometimes presenting knowledge and truth; that stuff just doesn't grab the headlines and isn't easy to chat about at the watercooler. But YT/whatever alternate sources people go for, though it's great that they're out there, are as a whole worse than mainstream journalism, imo. But ultimately it's all the same, it just depends how discerning the end viewer/reader/whatever is.

At least people have a choice on YouTube. Not so much with regular television.

  Quote

 

 

Youtubers are still looking for clicks, just the same as CNN. I'm sure there's some percentage of them that are worried more about facts than clicks, but the same can be said of the 'mainstream media.' The mainstream media is presenting shit, of course, but they're also sometimes presenting knowledge and truth; that stuff just doesn't grab the headlines and isn't easy to chat about at the watercooler. But YT/whatever alternate sources people go for, though it's great that they're out there, are as a whole worse than mainstream journalism, imo. But ultimately it's all the same, it just depends how discerning the end viewer/reader/whatever is. 

I partly agree. Secular Talk is my favorite source.  However, TYT for example, will post very clickbaity titles to their videos, and have a bunch of silly stories they're covering.

Check out Secular Talk's video titles, not that many are clickbait-y. They get right to the point. And he's only interested in reporting the facts, though he does give his opinion on the story, but he makes sure you know it's his opinion, and not necessarily reflective of reality in case he has it wrong. CNN doesn't do this. They use subtle language to influence the listener.

He's more reliable than CNN.

But are youtubers worse? Well No. My argument against CNN isn't that they're always wrong or anything. I mean, for example they're obviously avoiding talking about the influence of money in politics, whenever it's brought up on their show, they're dismissive of it. It's what I mean by underlying agenda. Also their use of language, such as when they're very off putting of Hillary being sick, is meant to influence the listener vs tell the facts.

IF the news doesn't affect this agenda, then they'll report the truth/facts. It's still wrong. 

FOX however are on another level. They're trying to make up a reality for their viewers that doesn't exist. Like at all. While CNN usually reports the truth, however still have an agenda.

 

  Quote

 

 

At least people have a choice on YouTube. Not so much with regular television. 

I actually started disliking CNN after I started checking out youtube sources. As I said, my favorite is secular talk. If I had more time I'd probably watch CNN and Secular talk. Though since to me ST is more reliable, I watch him more.

Adieu, I agree with you about Fox. They're one big conservative propaganda machine.

I am just pointing out that CNN aren't innocent as well and do have propaganda.

. Fox are kinda evil though, I wouldn't call CNN evil.

 

  Quote

 

 

I agree they do a terrible job but what do you expect from a bunch of people willing to compromise themselves for a paycheck?

This is why youtube is generally better, and why youtube is giving the news networks a run for their money. They're doing a terrible job, and that's expected from them. So I don't watch them.

  On 9/21/2016 at 1:27 AM, chartnok said:

 

pretty funny (and true) picture

1) How do you feel about Trump saying black people are lazy?

Or about him being sued by the gov't twice for not renting to black people?

Is that not racist?

How do you feel about him saying "I love war"?

Making fun of a disabled journalist and talking about wanting to use nukes?

Praising Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Un and Putin?

About wanting to make a database for Muslims?

About saying we should've taken Iraq's oil (which violates the Geneva Convention btw)?

Or killing the families of terrorists (which also violates the Geneva Convention)?

2) Stefan Molyneaux is advocating for a Neuromancer-style shithole of a world...in his "free" world you would work in a sweatshop (unless your parents were rich) until the irradiated drinking water you drink killed you

 Trumps a straight up racist.

I know you're not talking to me limpy, but I wasn't saying Trump isn't a total racist. I was saying that the media harps on it when it's a preaching to the choir kinda thing. It's a bad strategy if you're trying to convince people who like trump, that he's a bad choice.

  On 9/21/2016 at 2:27 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

At least people have a choice on YouTube. Not so much with regular television.

That depends, of course, on where you get your tv. You can get satellite feeds of hundreds of channels, at least 1 or 2% of that is news. Then there's local news. There's also magazines and newspapers, which I mention because in your assertion that someone would be confined to either YT (the entire internet) or not (poor losers lol wtf it's 2016 get hype oldie) then a person interested in politics but without internet would most likely seek out non-TV media. Plus there's library resources in most first world countries, for historical resource references.

Basically I'm saying that people always have choices, if they want them. But of course most don't want to try very hard, we all know that.

:musulman:

Hmm. Actually reading the associated press is probably the best news source. Noam Chomsky does this.

  On 9/21/2016 at 3:22 AM, Brisbot said:

Hmm. Actually reading the associated press is probably the best news source. Noam Chomsky does this.

Just stick to National Enquirer, they're the only news source with the guts to talk about Obama's AIDS

Brisbot I would say that in general, YTers, or non-professional 'journalists' are worse. There may be shining examples who are individually better (I'll have to check out the Secular Times guy you mention) but as a whole, the people who pass themselves off as sources of information are just giving opinions, regurgitating actual journalists' research and news (often with their own spin of the facts, naturally), and just plain making shit up to suit their narrative, and of course get clicks and attention. Actual journalism, even if it's fed through editors and producers and butchered to fit formats and viewer taste, is still far more important than the entirety of YouTube's 'news' sources. That may not be the case in another decade or two, but for now it is.

  Quote

 

 

Just stick to National Enquirer, they're the only news source with the guts to talk about Obama's AIDS

I already do. Look, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie ARE aliens who just filed for divorce, you know that? 

  Quote

 

 

Brisbot I would say that in general, YTers, or non-professional 'journalists' are worse. There may be shining examples who are individually better (I'll have to check out the Secular Times guy you mention) but as a whole, the people who pass themselves off as sources of information are just giving opinions, regurgitating actual journalists' research and news (often with their own spin of the facts, naturally), and just plain making shit up to suit their narrative, and of course get clicks and attention. Actual journalism, even if it's fed through editors and producers and butchered to fit formats and viewer taste, is still far more important than the entirety of YouTube's 'news' sources. That may not be the case in another decade or two, but for now it is. 

TBH Auxien, I haven't checked out that many YT sources of information. I can usually tell if they're clickbaity or not, and I just don't give them a shot if they are.

Secular Talk is excellent. I recommend him. He majored in journalism btw. That doesn't MEAN much, but he at least knows what it means to be a journalist, and is professional in his approach to news. The main issue is that he's only one guy. Which is upsetting. Hopefully he'll keep growing his audience and become big.

I'm basing my assertions off of watching ST. I'm sure there are plenty of yt news sources that fit what you're talking about. ST really isn't one.

Wasn't there a kerfuffle a week or so ago about an AP story being blown way out of proportion by the reporter...something election related, Clinton emails maybe?

But yeah, I often check out Reuters or AP first for just the facts on important things. Interpretation comes second.

I edited my post.. again.. from above.

Well, AP are just the reported stories. But if the reporter sucks, then the reporter sucks. I actually don't read AP, I was just saying looking at the source is the best news since there's less opinionated swing on it... tho I am sure there are plenty of instances of biased reporters

republican majority leader paul ryan pushing massive tax cut, 99.6% of which goes to the richest of the rich.

my brain is all fucked by the liberal media, can someone please de-spin this?

trump's "other people's money" plan for syrian refugees 

  On 9/21/2016 at 3:20 AM, auxien said:

 

  On 9/21/2016 at 2:27 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

At least people have a choice on YouTube. Not so much with regular television.

That depends, of course, on where you get your tv. You can get satellite feeds of hundreds of channels, at least 1 or 2% of that is news. Then there's local news. There's also magazines and newspapers, which I mention because in your assertion that someone would be confined to either YT (the entire internet) or not (poor losers lol wtf it's 2016 get hype oldie) then a person interested in politics but without internet would most likely seek out non-TV media. Plus there's library resources in most first world countries, for historical resource references.

 

Basically I'm saying that people always have choices, if they want them. But of course most don't want to try very hard, we all know that.

If you get news from television then you are severely limited in what you will be exposed to. There isn't much of a choice on television and a huge portion of our country get most or all of their news from tv. This is a problem for obvious reasons.

  On 9/21/2016 at 4:17 AM, very honest said:

republican majority leader paul ryan pushing massive tax cut, 99.6% of which goes to the richest of the rich.

 

my brain is all fucked by the liberal media, can someone please de-spin this?

Republican tax plans are always a mess. Trumps childcare plan was almost entirely subsidies. regressive tax plans do fuck all for people that barely pay taxes.