• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biden closing in on the 80 million total votes

President Elect Joe Biden: 79,537,684

President Reject Donald Trump: 73,617,668

Difference 5,920,016
 
I had a feeling people would be saying "well that doesn't count"

it's Fox News, and more people watch those guys than the "news", and it's mainstream media as much as pundits on other media outlets are mainstream

-edit-

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-ne...cy-theories-about-election-results-nearly-600

it's the "news" too, i should add, even if they have been less egregiously treasonous
You are still conflating the pundits with the news anchors. It's no secret to anyone here that Fox pundits push CTs.

As for audience size, Fox has plenty of people listening to those CTs. But even the news side of Fox is not considered mainstream news.
 
Wayne County has basically abdicated.

This amounts to "here's our number, if you want a different number, count it yourself."

For the fun of it... here's a snippet from that, which pretty well covers the situation.

This is beyond disgusting.

Who is ever going to believe that free and fair elections are possible in the US?

Plenty of people - because they are in much of the country. Not perfectly so, but enough to qualify. There certainly are problems in some places, but the US is a lot more than just those places.

It's not that he is involved in a coup, but his actions and words make it unclear whether he might attempt it, something that we've never had cause to consider before in the entire history of the country. That makes one sit up and take notice, and be prepared for the worst. What has Trump done to make one think, "No, this line is something he would never cross?"

Actually... IIRC, we have had cause. Not in recent history, but, to poke at an obvious example for ease's sake, the Civil War and its aftermath weren't pretty.
 
I never said it was. But dismissing the seriousness of the sitting POTUS's attempt to do exactly that is...a mistake. ...
And how is it a mistake to call the coup a fail and move on to the rest of the damage Trump can and is doing?

Is it a mistake because I don't agree with you?

Is it a mistake because I won't be prepared for said coup?

I'm trying to put some consequences to my failure to fear it is a potential coup.


I think people need to stop giving credence to Trump's con.
 
You are still conflating the pundits with the news anchors. It's no secret to anyone here that Fox pundits push CTs.

As for audience size, Fox has plenty of people listening to those CTs. But even the news side of Fox is not considered mainstream news.

I am not conflating pundits with news anchors, what I'm saying is it doesn't make a difference. And I'm not saying it's a secret that they're pushing CTs either. I said these ridiculous CTs are appearing in the mainstream media, which is exactly what the Fox News network is.

But more to the point, how is it possible for you to claim that the most popular programming on the most popular cable news nework aren't part of the mainstream media? I don't think that makes any sense at all

-edit-

if you google the word "Trump" Fox News is like a third of the articles that pop up. They have a massive media presence.
 
Last edited:
That sounds suspiciously like "kill all political opponents".

Which sounds neither democratic nor anti-fascist.

No, it actually doesn't "sound" like that all, suspiciously or otherwise.

We know where the "second amendment solutions" originate. Being prepared to respond to that isn't an entirely bad idea.

I'm going to echo Babbylonian here - and am somewhat pointedly reminded of Emily's Cat arguing that an NRA ad that called for peaceful discussion and de-escalation with the rabid mobs of irrational, violent leftists who are coming to steal everything you love away from you was completely sincere and that anyone claiming that it was actually much the opposite of an actual call for peace was, well, a partisan hack, in short.

Nope. It's "Buttery males."

:D
 
Personally, I'm inclined to believe that he has no plan, short term or long term.
I think his primary motivation is no deeper than, he's a dick.

Trump personally? Yeah, I think so too. However, there are people who have his ear (Stephen Miller, possibly still Bannon etc.) who are capable of both formulating a plan and playing a certain mental midget like a fiddle.
 
....
But more to the point, how is it possible for you to claim that the most popular programming on the most popular cable news nework aren't part of the mainstream media? I don't think that makes any sense at all ....
Generally speaking for broadcast news, msn refers to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and other local news stations; or even DW (German) or NHK (Asian) or CBC (Canadian) and BBC, etc.

They are not in the business of selling a political POV. There are plenty of issues as they are in the business of selling scandal, controversy and sensationalism. MSNBC has moved to get the liberal market, but they don't purposefully market falsehoods.

Fox is there to specifically support the GOP and they make little attempt to fact check anything.
 
I don't think whether or not you like their programming is a very good basis on whether or not Fox is a mainstream media source. They have a bigger market share than anything you listed.
 
I think people need to stop giving credence to Trump's con.

Who in the ever-living **** is giving credence to Trump's con except his supporters?

He is not conning people into making them think he's staging a coup - he is actually trying to do that.

It's really pathetic that when people say:

"He's trying to overturn a legitimate election"

You wag your finger and say:

"people need to stop giving credence to Trump's con"

It makes no sense at all.
 
And how is it a mistake to call the coup a fail and move on to the rest of the damage Trump can and is doing?

Is it a mistake because I don't agree with you?

Is it a mistake because I won't be prepared for said coup?

I'm trying to put some consequences to my failure to fear it is a potential coup.


I think people need to stop giving credence to Trump's con.

The issue is, that a political leader of one of the main parties is seriously talking about a coup.
And instead of the reaction in that party being something like 'Who do you think you are?!', the reaction is more of 'ah, it's just him being him'.

Trump doesn't work in a vacuum, like you seem to pretend he does, but is part of something bigger.
And that bigger part, the party, does seem to test the waters to see whether this, the coup, is doable. At least they're more than prepared to let Trump test the waters, instead of going out against the concept of a coup.
 
I don't think whether or not you like their programming is a very good basis on whether or not Fox is a mainstream media source. They have a bigger market share than anything you listed.
Mainstream media
Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence many people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought. The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought at variance with the prevailing views of mainstream sources.

The term is often used for large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, that underwent successive mergers in many countries. The concentration of media ownership has raised concerns of a homogenization of viewpoints...

Media mergers and concentration in the United States
The "Big five"

Comcast
The Walt Disney Company
News Corp/Fox CorporationWarnerMedia (AT&T)
ViacomCBS
So by one definition Fox is not part of the MSM because their content is 'at variance with the prevailing views', but they are a conglomerate and their 'dissenting thought' is held by almost half the country and the (currently) most powerful political party.

So are they or aren't they? The answer is simple. When they report actual news they are part of the MSM, but when they are 'at variance' with it they aren't. And since they constantly do both, that means they both are and aren't part of the MSM. It all depends on which Fox programming you are talking about.
 
So are they or aren't they? The answer is simple. When they report actual news they are part of the MSM, but when they are 'at variance' with it they aren't. And since they constantly do both, that means they both are and aren't part of the MSM. It all depends on which Fox programming you are talking about.

This is, of course, known as the Schrödinger's Fox paradox.

Dave
 
I don't think whether or not you like their programming is a very good basis on whether or not Fox is a mainstream media source. They have a bigger market share than anything you listed.

You need to divorce the news part from the opinion part.

News channels have 2 sorts of programming. They have the actual news bulletins, where a news anchor at a desk reads out the stories of the day with reporters on the ground fleshing out those stories on location.

Thats the smaller fraction of their programming.

Then there is the opinion shows. A rotating cast of talking heads offer their opinions about the stories of the day, and those opinions are routinely coloured by the editorial bias of the channel in question.
Of all the 24 hour news channels, none is more biased in it's opinions than Fox.

Fox News, the actual news part is usually reasonably accurate. The news is covered by all of the media so they tend to stick to the accepted facts for their news bulletins. Every so often you'll see something like Fox calling Arizona for Biden for example.

Fox News opinion shows frequently make **** up. They make **** up because it lets them get lots of viewers and no other mainstream news channel goes after the right wing viewers.

See this recent case about Tucker Carlson
The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

They stick closer to the facts for their bulletins to make their opinion content appear more credible. If they made **** up about the actual news, stories that were very easy to show were utterly false then that would turn viewers off the channel as a whole.

All Fox cares about is market share and making money. No more, no less. Like them or not they are certainly very good at that.

They have a big market share because they pander to the right wing nut job market share that noone else wants to go for.

Their market share has no bearing on the accuracy or veracity of either their news bulletins or their opinion shows.
 
I am not conflating pundits with news anchors, what I'm saying is it doesn't make a difference. And I'm not saying it's a secret that they're pushing CTs either. I said these ridiculous CTs are appearing in the mainstream media, which is exactly what the Fox News network is.

But more to the point, how is it possible for you to claim that the most popular programming on the most popular cable news nework aren't part of the mainstream media? I don't think that makes any sense at all.
Fox is mainstream media, but Fox News is not mainstream news. It never officially changed its primary mission from news to entertainment; that's a myth. But has defended on-air personalities by saying they are essentially entertainers, not journalists.
 
Trump Retweeted

John Daniel Davidson
@johnddavidson
Today @FDRLST we have a report on a widespread cash-for-votes scheme in Nevada, where Native American voter advocacy groups broke federal election laws by giving away gift cards, electronics and other "prizes" in exchange for Democratic votes.

In Nevada, A Corrupt Cash-For-Votes Scheme Is Hiding In Plain Sight
In tribal areas, Native American nonprofits illegally offered gift cards, electronics, and other 'prizes' in an effort to get out the vote—for Biden.
thefederalist.com

Elizabeth Harrington
@LizRNC
EVIDENCE
"more than 15,000 votes were cast in Nevada by people who also voted in another state, 1,000 from people who don't meet Nevada's residency requirements and 500 from people who were dead."
This claim about election fraud is disputed
Nevada GOP announces another legal challenge to state election results
The Nevada Republican Party held a news conference Tuesday to announce another lawsuit centered around the GOP’s continued election fraud allegations.
reviewjournal.com
 
Last edited:
Trump Retweets

John Solomon
@jsolomonReports
Breaking:
In dramatic reversal, Wayne County election board Republicans rescind votes certifying results
In affidavits, GOP canvass board members claim they were bullied and say there are too many irregularities in Detroit vote to justify accepting election results.
justthenews.com
 
Trump Tweets

“Statistical sampling to prove widespread voter fraud...multiple accounts of fraud and voting irregularities may overturn election”...call for paper ballots.
@RandPaul @OANN
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom