Jump to content

Kamala Harris 2021


GRHorn

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So you can’t read a table. Good to know.

NPR does depend on government funding. It’s also one of our most non biased news sources. Unless you have some data that proves them wrong. Oh you don’t and are jjst talking out of your ass.

I commented only on the x axis, bias. Not sure why you’re extrapolating anything else from what I said. 

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

I commented only on the x axis, bias. Not sure why you’re extrapolating anything else from what I said. 

I’m not extrapolating anything. You read a single axis on a two axis chart. That’s a really dumb way to analyze a chart with x and y. The entire chart measures media bias. That bias is presented in two ways, political bias, and reliability. Both of those things determine the bias of the news source not just one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And there THAT is.  What a lazy-ass, garbage troll take.  I literally listened to NPR speak to congresscritters from both parties on the issue  of the various spending bills/proposals the past couple of weeks, and the interviewer 1) kept the conversation topical, and 2) asked hard/uncomfortable questions of both, giving them a chance to state their case, but not unchallenged.  It was about as close to objective and unbiased interviewing as you can get.

What a piss-ant troll take.  You haven't been banned enough.  You're a flat-out troll.

Ding ding ding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And there THAT is.  What a lazy-ass, garbage troll take.  I literally listened to NPR speak to congresscritters from both parties on the issue  of the various spending bills/proposals the past couple of weeks, and the interviewer 1) kept the conversation topical, and 2) asked hard/uncomfortable questions of both, giving them a chance to state their case, but not unchallenged.  It was about as close to objective and unbiased interviewing as you can get.

What a piss-ant troll take.  You haven't been banned enough.  You're a flat-out troll.

It also demonstrates that he never listens to NPR.  Their news reporting is pretty highly factual, although occasionally you can hear the disdain in the reporter-with the unspellable name's voice.

Some of the "shows" do have a bit more explicit liberal bias.  But it never masquerades as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It also demonstrates that he never listens to NPR.  Their news reporting is pretty highly factual, although occasionally you can hear the disdain in the reporter-with the unspellable name's voice.

Some of the "shows" do have a bit more explicit liberal bias.  But it never masquerades as fact.

Oh, shit, the "shows" in the evening often end up exploring the artistic struggle of a ethnically maori lesbian playwright or somesuch -- cool, cool.  Those are an entirely separate production from NPR news, which is an excellent source that is well within the group of "reasonably free of bias, and makes an honest effort to get input from opposing perspectives."  Shit, they were talking about the Texas abortion law the other day, and they interviewed a gal with Texas Right to Life -- they asked her some good, open-ended questions that let her state her position and perspective, they asked a few hard questions that made her defend certain stated criticisms of the law, etc.  It was a fair and objective interview.  I learned about her group's position and expectations.  I found them scary as shit, but that wasn't because of any "bias" in reporting -- in fact, it was because of the matter-of-fact statements coming directly from her mouth.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chart posted above is two years out-of-date -- they revise it regularly. The one above also does a poor job distinguishing between FOX's online news site versus the channel. Below, you can clearly see their placement and where they show Newsmax on the line between "selective" and "misleading." OAN TV is in the latter category.

Here's the most recent:

Media-Bias-Chart-8.0_Sept-2021-Unlicense

Also, Satoshi/GRHorn is way out of bounds on how much NPR relies on federal funding. In other words, he is as always full of shit.

While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPR has the word Public in it so it's socialist. lulz

Anyone that listens to NPR knows that all the affiliates are constantly running pledge drives and playing credits to the businesses that provide underwriting. 

NPR news is pretty fucking objective. To the point they give undue respect to some absurd shit like Trump. "The President stated XYZ although that is factually incorrect. We are unsure as to why the President would make that statement."

The other shows are not liberal unless you consider a discussion on the mundane liberal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also demonstrates that he never listens to NPR.  Their news reporting is pretty highly factual, although occasionally you can hear the disdain in the reporter-with the unspellable name's voice.
Some of the "shows" do have a bit more explicit liberal bias.  But it never masquerades as fact.
And half the time they go out of the way to be neutral, even the topic is clear right wing fuckery: " what do you think Mr Trump is trying to accomplish here" (reality Trump was lashing out full Id no plan)


Edit: What F250 said
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there THAT is.  What a lazy-ass, garbage troll take.  I literally listened to NPR speak to congresscritters from both parties on the issue  of the various spending bills/proposals the past couple of weeks, and the interviewer 1) kept the conversation topical, and 2) asked hard/uncomfortable questions of both, giving them a chance to state their case, but not unchallenged.  It was about as close to objective and unbiased interviewing as you can get.
What a piss-ant troll take.  You haven't been banned enough.  You're a flat-out troll.
I listen to it daily and npr is far from neutral Nowhere near the opposite spectrum as fox but definitely leans left of center
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listen to it daily and npr is far from neutral Nowhere near the opposite spectrum as fox but definitely leans left of center

Yeah, I’ve questioned that myself in recent years. I listen to a story, and come away thinking the “right wing” subject of the story is a dumbass/up to bullshittery. So I play it back in my head to think about what gave me that impression. It is very rarely a “slant” by the commentator. Instead, it’s usually the result of the right wing subject answering a question with “I’m a dumbass up to bullshittery.” Kind of like how we got constant complaining about how the media was obviously biased against Trump because they insisted on….playing his exact words, unedited.

The right regularly comes off looking like shit because….they actually look like shit. It’s not makeup, it’s not the lighting. They genuinely look like shit. Occam’s razor.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smax said:
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:
And there THAT is.  What a lazy-ass, garbage troll take.  I literally listened to NPR speak to congresscritters from both parties on the issue  of the various spending bills/proposals the past couple of weeks, and the interviewer 1) kept the conversation topical, and 2) asked hard/uncomfortable questions of both, giving them a chance to state their case, but not unchallenged.  It was about as close to objective and unbiased interviewing as you can get.
What a piss-ant troll take.  You haven't been banned enough.  You're a flat-out troll.

I listen to it daily and npr is far from neutral Nowhere near the opposite spectrum as fox but definitely leans left of center

I think they landed it perfectly on the chart.  It’s not pure center, it’s not difficult to listen to no matter your politics.    I think it was closer to pure center 7-10 years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2021 at 11:31 PM, Satoshi said:

This is an obvious insider hit piece on Kamala. So you have to ask why is CNN publishing it? Seems to me that it’s Biden friendly people throwing this story out there. 
 

 

Let me get this straight: a report is packed with reporting?  Do I have that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I think they landed it perfectly on the chart.  It’s not pure center, it’s not difficult to listen to no matter your politics.    I think it was closer to pure center 7-10 years ago. 

Well, one problem for NPR is that it is staffed entirely by sentient, educated, intelligent people.

There's not a soul at NPR that isn't absolutely revolted by Trump and all that he stands for and the complete abasement of the GOP at his feet.   So, yeah, that probably kind of comes through.  And that makes it librul these days.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Let me get this straight: a report is packed with reporting?  Do I have that right?

There was quite a bit of angst in the twitterverse over this story, because it came out on the same day that CNN apparently had a big special on Chris Christie that many claimed to be trying to clean up his reputation.

At the same time, Kamala was in France cleaning up relations and, by all accounts, acquitted herself very well and was warmly welcomed by their politicos. The twitterati claim that none of that was covered on CNN or other American cable channels. They felt like it was a hit piece released while she was actually doing good stuff.

Personally, I don't know. I cut the cord in 2009, so I have no idea how any of this played out on cable news. But that was the gist of it as I understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot, educated intelligent pubs do not exist, only D’s.  

It’s kind of a self-fulfilling feedback loop. There used to be plenty of Repubs who were intelligent, had integrity, defensible positions, etc. Now, the only common thread is that they must debase themselves to a cult. And they have to show that they are on bird with the team ethos: be cruel dicks. That group self selects - people with honor and integrity bail, leaving only the worst behind.

It didn’t used to be that way. You and I both know it.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Great so according to that chart CNN level of bias is essentially equal to Fox News. Thanks for sharing. 
 

But that chart is a fucking joke. NPR falls in the neutral category? Their existence is largely dependent on leftist government funding. Lolololol

You're a fucking idiot.

 

6 hours ago, VivaNaranja said:

I mean, Satoshi is definitely illiterate (Fox News Network clearly skews further than CNN in that chart), but I think there's issues with those rankings. In what world are OANN and Newsmax as centrist as CNN and Newsweek? Not to mention the New York Post's placement

Look at the date. December 2019. OANN and Newsmax got way more alt-right whackadoodle during the pandemic/2020 election cycle. (At least I think. I wasn't even aware of their existence until then.)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s a contingent that hold their nose, or hold out altogether.  We may not be large in numbers, but it exists. 

So….you hold your nose….and vote for the exact people who have demonstrated that they have no honor, integrity, or principles. Maybe you shouldn’t do that. Maybe you should take a whiff, realize they stink, and walk the fuck away. That’s what I did.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, C-Man said:

You're a fucking idiot.

 

Look at the date. December 2019. OANN and Newsmax got way more alt-right whackadoodle during the pandemic/2020 election cycle. (At least I think. I wasn't even aware of their existence until then.)

i heard of newsmax ("spewsmax") nearly 20 years ago.  iirc they were big in the swiftboating thing.  then they fell off the map for me, only to come back hard and fast in the last couple years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Will voted for "Lets go Brandon." When the top Republican intellectual bails on the GOP along with the rest of the intelligent ones (RINOs because they read books) it means your party is full of imbeciles.

I don't even like the Democratic party and don't like Liberals but Holy Shit, the GOP is full of Know Nothing Knuckle Dragging Fucking Mouth Breathers. The GOP doesn’t even have a platform. It stands for nothing. Conservativism now just means shit I am going to bitch about today but will change my mind tomorrow depending on what Trump says.

With that said, Kamala is ass, my dude. I'll still vote for her over whatever Right Wing Nationalist the GOP rolls out.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I forgot, educated intelligent pubs do not exist, only D’s.  

There are a number of former Republicans that are now Democrats on this board.  Myself included.

I can think of only one D who is thinking of switching parties, and that person is Joe Manchin, and coincidentally is a big, slimy bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

There’s a contingent that hold their nose, or hold out altogether.  We may not be large in numbers, but it exists. 

One of my oldest friends from Corpus happens to also live in NJ.  In 2008 he said he "held his nose" and voted for McCain, who happened to be one of the last decent and reasonable Republicans (ignoring that S&L money he took in the '80s).

This friend is a one issue voter -- taxes.  I think his stance is kind of short sighted but it has a kind of logic to it.  

So pick a R in office right now and tell me what logic they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

There are a number of former Republicans that are now Democrats on this board.  Myself included.

I can think of only one D who is thinking of switching parties, and that person is Joe Manchin, and coincidentally is a big, slimy bitch.

Not sure how slimy of a bitch this guy is 

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I forgot, educated intelligent pubs do not exist, only D’s.  

Name one

I say this as someone who has voted Republican as often as Democrat in the past. Republicans are a dying species. The ones that are left are fucking lunatics. The decent ones are retiring from office. There is no one coming up through the ranks to replace those decent ones

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Name one

I say this as someone who has voted Republican as often as Democrat in the past. Republicans are a dying species. The ones that are left are fucking lunatics. The decent ones are retiring from office. There is no one coming up through the ranks to replace those decent ones

I was speaking to the voters. But I’m certain there are intelligent, well educated R’s in elected spots. Their ideas being a bit wacky doesn’t mean they are dumb. Of course there’s always a few like old tits McGee down in Co, etc.  Even the dipshit with the toes and space lasers is a UGA grad iirc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 6th Street said:

I remember she got destroyed in the primaries, so not surprising to see her poll so poorly. Worse than those other scrubs like Warren, Klobs, and Castro

She's the D Palin but Trump was awful enough for the electorate to ignore her.  Does the power of incumbency apply when neither the POTUS nor the VP are on the incumbent ticket?  I guess the current plan is for Biden to run again but she has no chance of making it to the top of the ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, alincoln said:

She's the D Palin but Trump was awful enough for the electorate to ignore her.  Does the power of incumbency apply when neither the POTUS nor the VP are on the incumbent ticket?  I guess the current plan is for Biden to run again but she has no chance of making it to the top of the ticket.


In what way at all is she similar to Palin other than being female and nominated for VP? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Great so according to that chart CNN level of bias is essentially equal to Fox News. Thanks for sharing. 
 

But that chart is a fucking joke. NPR falls in the neutral category? Their existence is largely dependent on leftist government funding. Lolololol

This is some next level stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And there THAT is.  What a lazy-ass, garbage troll take.  I literally listened to NPR speak to congresscritters from both parties on the issue  of the various spending bills/proposals the past couple of weeks, and the interviewer 1) kept the conversation topical, and 2) asked hard/uncomfortable questions of both, giving them a chance to state their case, but not unchallenged.  It was about as close to objective and unbiased interviewing as you can get.

What a piss-ant troll take.  You haven't been banned enough.  You're a flat-out troll.

Guy has never listened to NPR. It’s “leftist” or so he’s been told. He’s good little boy.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I was speaking to the voters. But I’m certain there are intelligent, well educated R’s in elected spots. Their ideas being a bit wacky doesn’t mean they are dumb. Of course there’s always a few like old tits McGee down in Co, etc.  Even the dipshit with the toes and space lasers is a UGA grad iirc. 

 

4 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Im just going to withhold, like last election. Not going to vote for the other pile of shit just because I don’t like my usual pile of shit.  

The problem with that is by sitting out you are helping to elect people who want to thwart the constitution so that minority rule can exist in perpetuity. That may (probably will) work in your favor in the short term.  I know you don’t think it will happen, but eventually those maniacs will come after the middle. The purity tests are already eroding the fairly right wing of the party. Just look at what Huffines has done to Abbott. We need to put the nuts down once and for all and then we can get down to the business of sorting reasonable disagreements.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

So you were talking out of your ass? Throwing shit and hoping it sticks?

They were both chosen as VP nominees almost entirely based on their identity, had zero appeal to independents, have no chance of ever leading a presidential ticket, were immediately ignored by McCain/Biden following the general election, are walking gaffes, and are historically unpopular among the general electorate.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...