Jump to content

How Fox News works


retread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:
9 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:
the burden of proof is on those who claim the Russian meddling had a material impact on the election outcome, which it did not until proven otherwise. Can you do it?

I'm not claiming anything one way or another. You are.

you dont' understand how life works. When a claim is made, it's up to that person to show some substance. In other words, prove the affirmative. 

I'd like to know how Russian meddling, which i don't deny, actually produced verifiable results in Trump's favor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orca of Peace said:

that's up to the people making the claim, don't you think?

Point is, no matter how much evidence and supporting testimony I throw, you will just disregard and say it’s not enough to qualify as proof.  It’s intellectually disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Point is, no matter how much evidence and supporting testimony I throw, you will just disregard and say it’s not enough to qualify as proof.  It’s intellectually disingenuous.

your presumption is intellectually disingenuous. I will entertain any real hard facts. Now it's up to you to produce or STFU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you dont' understand how life works. When a claim is made, it's up to that person to show some substance. In other words, prove the affirmative. 
I'd like to know how Russian meddling, which i don't deny, actually produced verifiable results in Trump's favor. 
You just wrote that the person making the claim is the same person that gets to determine what qualifies as proof. You are a fire hose of life lessons, Pelosi. I shall treasure them always.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orca of Peace said:

your presumption is intellectually disingenuous. I will entertain any real hard facts. Now it's up to you to produce or STFU. 

What are real hard facts?

 

I am sure ide this is you

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Point is, no matter how much evidence and supporting testimony I throw, you will just disregard and say it’s not enough to qualify as proof.  It’s intellectually disingenuous.

Swam'd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:
13 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:
you dont' understand how life works. When a claim is made, it's up to that person to show some substance. In other words, prove the affirmative. 
I'd like to know how Russian meddling, which i don't deny, actually produced verifiable results in Trump's favor. 

You just wrote that the person making the claim is the same person that gets to determine what qualifies as proof. You are a fire hose of life lessons, Pelosi. I shall treasure them always.

the person making the claim has to provide proof. Simple.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

your presumption is intellectually disingenuous. I will entertain any real hard facts. Now it's up to you to produce or STFU. 

Just read the Mueller indictments on the Russians and decide for yourself.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Also this:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

And this:

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/news/388939-clapper-no-doubt-russia-is-the-reason-trump-won%3famp

And this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/without-the-russians-trump-wouldnt-have-won/2018/07/24/f4c87894-8f6b-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html

And this

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

i never denied Russian meddling, but how many votes did it change in the grand scheme of things? A few hundred, a few thousand, millions?  Are there any metrics on that? Did it hand the Presidency to Donald J. Trump? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orca of Peace said:

 

i never denied Russian meddling, but how many votes did it change in the grand scheme of things? A few hundred, a few thousand, millions?  Are there any metrics on that? Did it hand the Presidency to Donald J. Trump? 

Even if provided you wouldn't believe them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

So orca of peace's assertion is that if someone shoots at me and misses, I shouldn't care because I wasn't hurt and the cops shouldn't care or arrest the person because I wasn't hurt.  

The next pivot will be "Everyone does it, we've meddled in plenty of elections. This is just something that always happens. It's normal"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

you dont' understand how life works. When a claim is made, it's up to that person to show some substance. In other words, prove the affirmative. 

I'd like to know how Russian meddling, which i don't deny, actually produced verifiable results in Trump's favor. 

Do you think advertising increases sales? Can you quantify exactly how much is due to the advertising and how much isn't? Or do you just know that it works?

It's not possible to know to what extent voters were influenced by Russia's campaign of misinformation on social media, hacking, dark money, etc. it's foolish to think it had no effect at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Do you think advertising increases sales? Can you quantify exactly how much is due to the advertising and how much isn't? Or do you just know that it works?

It's not possible to know to what extent voters were influenced by Russia's campaign of misinformation on social media, hacking, dark money, etc. it's foolish to think it had no effect at all. 

marketing departments carefully track ads and sales correlation.  Not sure that analogy works here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

marketing departments carefully track ads and sales correlation.  Not sure that analogy works here. 

The analogy works 100%.  The only difference is the empirical proof.  You can't compare Trump v. Hillary elections with Russian propaganda versus Trump v. Hillary elections without Russian propaganda because there is no such thing as the latter.  That is why there is no 'proof.'  But you can take it on faith that advertising works, note that (illegal) advertising for Trump was done here, and accept that the needle was therefore moved.  But no one will ever be able to know the amount the needle moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

marketing departments carefully track ads and sales correlation.  Not sure that analogy works here. 

Think harder. You can do it. 

"Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us. All we ask is that you let us serve it your way."

"Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, on a sesame seed bun."

Can you tell us exactly how each affected sales at Burger King and McDonald's? Can Burger King or McDonald's? If not, were those marketing campaigns a waste of money? Are all marketing campaigns a waste of money? Should  politicians stop running political ads altogether?

Check this out. I can still do this from memory. You'll have to trust me..."bun seed sesame a on, onions, pickles, cheese, lettuce, sauce special patties beef all two."

That got you a free, or at least discounted, Big Mac somewhere around 40 years ago. I don't remember exactly what the benefit was but I remember the promotion. The shit works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2018 at 8:34 PM, Message Board User said:

 

Of course they did.  Because Fox caters to the Cult of Asshole, where the most important character trait is being a miserable, detestable prick.  That’s basically the right wing these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2018 at 10:03 AM, HenryJames said:

The next pivot for Trump supporters is that they will be ok with Russian intervention because it prevented Hillary from becoming President.

Of course.  And the Russians hate gays, blacks, browns...I have a feeling that might sell well to the present day Party Numero Uno.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...