Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Vox is great. My good analysis is that you're wrong.kali o. wrote:I didnt watch the video yet, but you can absolutely not post anything from Vox and use the words 'good' or 'analysis'.
I won't believe you mean that. I challenge you to go to google, type "Vox Trump", hit the news tab and review...say, just the first two pages. Come back here and say with a straight face Vox is a good unbias news source (please don't...you'll lose any credibility with me, for what little that is worth).ManaMan wrote:Vox is great. My good analysis is that you're wrong.kali o. wrote:I didnt watch the video yet, but you can absolutely not post anything from Vox and use the words 'good' or 'analysis'.
Well, by definition, anything bias is not going to contain good analysis. It's going to be slanted, cherry-picked and subjective. It's only going to be a good analysis if you already subscribe to the inherent bias.Oracle wrote:What's the koolaid in this case, Kali? That Trump is basically a clown show in his public displays?
And did someone actually claim that Vox was unbiased? It's totally biased, but that doesn't mean what they choose to report are lies - just means they only really represent one side of the argument, like most (unfortunately) news sources.
What would you say is a good source for unbiased reporting in this campaign?
While I may question your use of the term 'regressive', I agree that sticking to news sources that simply echo your own internal biases is not going to make you better informed.kali o. wrote: If you solely visit sites like Vox, kotaku, Jezebel, etc. you will end up fucking retarded before you know it and completely drunk on regressive koolaid.
Meh, Vox definitely is biased in a center-left Obama/Clinton kind of way, at least their core contributors: Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, & Sarah Kliff. They do have some conservative authors from time-to-time (like Avik Roy's recent articles on Obamacare) as well as leftwing SJW type authors. They definitely are anti-Trump and unabashedly. The important thing is that you understand the author's biases. I like Vox because they dig deep into the details of things and get wonky about policy. They were one of the few places to actually analyzed Trump's policy proposals when everyone else was treating him as entertainment.kali o. wrote:I won't believe you mean that. I challenge you to go to google, type "Vox Trump", hit the news tab and review...say, just the first two pages. Come back here and say with a straight face Vox is a good unbias news source (please don't...you'll lose any credibility with me, for what little that is worth).
Like I said previously, I don't like either candidate, but my huge issue is with dishonest media and their impact on voters. Vox is one of the worst offenders. Even Breitbart is less bent. If you've already drank the koolaid, then places like Vox won't offend you...but in that case, the problem is you drank the koolaid and are no longer concerned with facts, but safe echo chambers.
Just 11 days before the election.In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, and that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant.
Yeah, that was a pretty dumb one. I can't say I read and/or support every article they write. I mean, what is "Rape Culture"? Rape is a thing and a serious crime. Calling being rude to women or cat-calling "rape" is bullshit. Trump was a bit of an ass in the video and sexist but he sure wasn't raping her.kali o. wrote:http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/2 ... ss-onstage
Thats good analysis? I only clicked that article because of this thread -- and immediately regretted it. I literally feel gross; like I am covered in a film of sjw and slightly more retarded as a result.
Talking about education, it looks like Trump will be the first Republican in 60 years to not win a majority of the White-University-Graduate vote.Julius Seeker wrote:I was looking at some election polls, and Trump is WAAAAY down right now. But the states he is still winning in:
<States...>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... attainment
Of that list, the most highly educated State on the list is Nebraska, which ranks 22nd. The next highest ranked state is Missouri at 33rd. The remaining states all rank at the bottom of the list with only the exception of Nevada. Now, I don't think the evidence shows that all regions/people in those states is stupid or conservative; just the majority. The evidence does highly suggest a strong correlation between Trump supporters/Teabaggers (or Alt Right, whatever they like being called now) and the uneducated.
He's been predicting a Trump win for a while. (How's that "landslide" coming along Scott?) Recently he said he endorses Trump because something or other. I think it was that SWM are discriminated against because he claims was denied promotions at two companies in the 80s that were trying to increase diversity. He did an interview on the Rubin Report where he went into more.Don wrote:Anyone following the Scott Adams (of Dilbert) endorsing Trump deal? It seems to me he supports Trump because he thinks Trump is as awesome as he is, or something, except it doesn't really work. He claimed to support Hillary earlier to avoid being assassinated too. I guess he's trying to imitate Trump to sound cool and somehow doing an even worse job at it than the real Trump.
Overall I tend to agree with PEC's assessment that this election really isn't that close but all the news media had an incentive to make it sound like anything could happen. Well, the only way the prediction can be wrong is if the polls are totally wrong, which is not impossible but if you don't trust any of the polls out there, then why even talk about analysis when your underlying data is simply wrong? Guess we'll find out tomorrow.
He's basically saying Trump is a genius that only a genius like him understands so if you don't see his viewpoint you're just dumb or part of the MIB guys working for Hillary that's trying to assassinate him, and I think he shares similar view as Trump. I think he had a promotion passed up and another woman took it or something in his past and his romantic life didn't exactly work out well. But while Trump is sometimes mildly amusing, Scott Adams is not. He also said he has so much faith in Trump that he'd be willing to assassinate him if Trump starts displaying Hitler like tendencies.ManaMan wrote:He's been predicting a Trump win for a while. (How's that "landslide" coming along Scott?) Recently he said he endorses Trump because something or other. I think it was that SWM are discriminated against because he claims was denied promotions at two companies in the 80s that were trying to increase diversity. He did an interview on the Rubin Report where he went into more.Don wrote:Anyone following the Scott Adams (of Dilbert) endorsing Trump deal? It seems to me he supports Trump because he thinks Trump is as awesome as he is, or something, except it doesn't really work. He claimed to support Hillary earlier to avoid being assassinated too. I guess he's trying to imitate Trump to sound cool and somehow doing an even worse job at it than the real Trump.
Overall I tend to agree with PEC's assessment that this election really isn't that close but all the news media had an incentive to make it sound like anything could happen. Well, the only way the prediction can be wrong is if the polls are totally wrong, which is not impossible but if you don't trust any of the polls out there, then why even talk about analysis when your underlying data is simply wrong? Guess we'll find out tomorrow.
I'd love to say I predicted a Trump win -- but I only insisted he could because the polls and media coverage were irrelevant. Whether he wins or not, I think it says something -- politicians and the media have never been more outta touch with the public. And the troll army of the internet can effect shit. It'll be interesting to see the fallout, what changes occur, how the extremes (regressives / nationalists) find common ground, etc.Eric wrote:Kali was right. Trump is going to win.
Hildog, but I live in Louisiana, doesn't matter who I vote for, state has been red since the 60s heh.kali o. wrote:I'd love to say I predicted a Trump win -- but I only insisted he could because the polls and media coverage were irrelevant. Whether he wins or not, I think it says something -- politicians and the media have never been more outta touch with the public. And the troll army of the internet can effect shit. It'll be interesting to see the fallout, what changes occur, how the extremes (regressives / nationalists) find common ground, etc.Eric wrote:Kali was right. Trump is going to win.
Who did you vote for?
Hours agoManaMan wrote:Has Hillary conceded yet?
...so basically another George W Bush?Julius Seeker wrote:You have my sympathy.
He's going to do one of two things: first is nothing, because he doesn't know what he's doing. The second is that he's going to reem your country harder than a Corinthian slave boy, because he doesn't know what he's doing.
It's signifigantly worse then Bush, because he's going to undo everything Obama did for the last 8 years and redhape our supreme court to a conservative lean for decades.ManaMan wrote:...so basically another George W Bush?Julius Seeker wrote:You have my sympathy.
He's going to do one of two things: first is nothing, because he doesn't know what he's doing. The second is that he's going to reem your country harder than a Corinthian slave boy, because he doesn't know what he's doing.
I think people are over-exaggerating what Trump will do. Get rid of Obamacare? Big deal - it was a clusterfuck anyway as-is. The supreme justices...whats battles are the left championing over the last few years? Trannies in bathrooms? The right to acceptable pronouns? The shark has officially been jumped.Eric wrote:It's signifigantly worse then Bush, because he's going to undo everything Obama did for the last 8 years and redhape our supreme court to a conservative lean for decades.ManaMan wrote:...so basically another George W Bush?Julius Seeker wrote:You have my sympathy.
He's going to do one of two things: first is nothing, because he doesn't know what he's doing. The second is that he's going to reem your country harder than a Corinthian slave boy, because he doesn't know what he's doing.
And you know, health insurance for everyone, access to birth control for everyone, maternity leave, etc... but I see your point. There is far too much emphasis on LGBTQ stuff on the left (I know, crucify me!). Why is that? It's because it's inoffensive to the wealthy Dem donors. They don't want economic leftism, it might hurt their bottom line & or raise their taxes... but sexuality & race-based leftism? Fine by them! So that's what we get. Most of the rest of the country hates it though. I think that's why Bernie Sanders was so popular in rural areas.kali o. wrote:The supreme justices...whats battles are the left championing over the last few years? Trannies in bathrooms? The right to acceptable pronouns? The shark has officially been jumped.
It's not going anywhere.Maybe it's time to scrap the Electoral College?
That certainly was something. Look, I know where she's coming from. She's from St. Louis like myself and yes, there *is* racism in St. Louis. HOWEVER, going around implying that all White People are racist and/or complicit in white supremacy isn't the way to reduce racism or increase the acceptance of diversity. She's just breaking everyone into tribes and saying her tribe are the victims and the white tribe is bad bad bad. Not helpful. It was BLM rhetoric like this that drove white people to white-identity-politics buffoon Trump in the first place. Why can't everyone be individuals? Why this need to resort to tribalism? Isn't that what classical liberalism is supposed to be all about? Racism is bad because it downgrades people based on their group instead of treating them as an individual IMO.kali o. wrote:Lol...oh Vox... Overt racism and intellectual vapidness - last gasps of SJWs I hope.
http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11 ... on-protest
Also Obama was a charismatic candidate. He was like if scientists combined JFK and MLK in some lab to build the perfect liberal candidate. Clinton is.... NOT charismatic.Don wrote:Trump got less votes than Romney or McCain especially after factoring that there are more eligible voters now compared to 4/8 years ago. So it's not the case that guys who normally don't vote for Republic voted for him. It seems almost surely less people voted Democratic than normal. Back in the Obama years when he won big people were all talking about how this new approach where they only campaign in where fancy new data tells them that matters is the new way to go because there's no point to waste energy on places that would've voted for you anyway. Well, it worked well when Obama won big but it sure didn't work this time around. It turns out that just because a state voted for one way for the last 28 years doesn't mean they're somehow supposed to always vote for your party. I don't think it's a shift of demographics because Trump did not get more votes compared to other Republican candidates before, but merely that even guys who would normally vote for you might not care to actually vote if you act like they're worth nothing because they always vote for you. That'd explain why the polls got it wrong, as in you poll someone who would've voted for Hillary they'd say they're voting for Hillary, even though they didn't actually vote since the polls don't try to measure that.
I think they were counting on Trump to be especially uncharismatic, but he actually got his so-called hidden Trump supporters, in the sense that his dropoff compared to Romney/McCain was less than expected even with all the negativity around him. Clinton obviously was no Obama in terms of charisma, though I don't think that alone can explain why she lost the blue wall states. These states, after all, are still solidly leaning toward Democrat so it should've been relatively easy to hold on to them. I saw an article saying that demographics is not destiny, namely just because you're a certain kind of guy doesn't mean the will of the universe compels you to vote Democratic or Republican. I think that's where the Democrats screwed up and they literally didn't think about the possibility that their normally reliably demographic could still use some attention. It's ironic that people say US presidential election comes down to only a few states having too much power, but surely nobody thought the states that decided this election was the ones everyone expected to vote blue. Sure, only a handful states decided the outcome of this too, but they're the ones that are neglected which is why they flipped red and decided the outcome.ManaMan wrote:
Also Obama was a charismatic candidate. He was like if scientists combined JFK and MLK in some lab to build the perfect liberal candidate. Clinton is.... NOT charismatic.
Whats wrong with Bannon?Oracle wrote:Hey! Look at the bright side, at least there should be no gridlock now (unless the dems in the senate get as petty as the republicans have been the last several years).
On the other hand, Bannon, hey? Quite the stand-up guy...
Hey, I said he was a stand-up guy.kali o. wrote:Whats wrong with Bannon?Oracle wrote:Hey! Look at the bright side, at least there should be no gridlock now (unless the dems in the senate get as petty as the republicans have been the last several years).
On the other hand, Bannon, hey? Quite the stand-up guy...
Remember this exchange?Zeus wrote:I mean, really, how else could you explain a reality in which we're gonna soon be watching a State of the Union address from President Tru......sorry, threw up in my mouth a little there. I'm working on that uncontrollable gag reflex, it's gonna take time
http://tows.cc/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17800Replay wrote:A lot can happen before November. And the anti-Trump coalition thinking it already has this one in the bag is one of the biggest mistakes you can possibly make.Zeus wrote:You guys do realize that Hillary just won the presidency this past Tuesday, yes?
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick DouglassSadly, I have to disagree - not about the abortion issue, but on the notion that the Trump Presidency will not attempt to usher in other sweeping societal changes.kali o. wrote:I think people are over-exaggerating what Trump will do. Get rid of Obamacare? Big deal - it was a clusterfuck anyway as-is. The supreme justices...whats battles are the left championing over the last few years? Trannies in bathrooms? The right to acceptable pronouns? The shark has officially been jumped.
Its not like abortions will be made illegal, despite the doomsayers.
Then there's Mike Flynn - our new national security advisor, whom Obama removed from power because he could not be made to draw a distinction between enemy Muslim combatants and their families or other innocent civilians - he is known to be viciously anti-Muslim and has advocated killing the families of suspected terrorists without trial or mercy, which is really a very, very stupid policy if you actually understand and have studied the radical Islamic threatscape from a cultural standpoint. Half the Islamist terrorists out there right now joined the global jihad because their families were killed in earlier military actions.The New York Times wrote:Accusations of racism have dogged Sessions's career: Actually, they almost derailed it. In 1986, a Senate committee denied Sessions, then a 39-year-old U.S. attorney in Alabama, a federal judgeship. His former colleagues testified Sessions used the n-word and joked about the Ku Klux Klan, saying he thought they were "okay, until he learned that they smoked marijuana."
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." --Frederick Douglass
