2024 Presidential Election thread

[romad1]

22 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Whoa whoa whoa, wait, what? The GOP official account is posting this tonight? Is this to imply that Bowman Hamel is gonna get the boot and be replaced by Tulsi Putin?

 

I'm sure Putin operatives do like to hang out.  What next?  Glenn Greenwald and Kim Dotcom joining the ticket?

[Screwball]

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

because even though Stewart has gotten to be a bit of a head case himself now, he is at least interested who he is interviewing and what they are saying. For the typical Cable or Network news interviewer, that's way down the list below 

• their career ambitions
• their own political agenda
• the agenda for the show rating
• the agenda in the memo from the corporate brass
• the hope to be able to put a 'gotcha' moment on their resume.

You have to have a foundational interest in your subject  - view the interview as more than just a means to your own ends, for any interview to ever get off the ground and that's completely missing in just about all of today's talking heads. Until the interviewee senses the interviewer seriously wants to know and understand and begins to respond to that, it just stays adversarial and guarded and all you will get are talking points.

You make it sound like we can't believe anyone, so who do we believe?

[romad1]

scaramucci is a darn near random anti-Trump  noise machine but this is amusing and interesting 

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Screwball said:

You make it sound like we can't believe anyone, so who do we believe?

Damn good question. If there is one unintended effect of all the changes in media since the three network days, it's the loss of people/institutions in the media with proven credentials and widely accepted integrity who you could rely on to be fundamentally trustworthy. And even non-profit media like NPR, where you would assume the lack of profit motive would insulate them from the worst effects, has also gone off the rails in the last few years, though nothing on a par with commercial media. 

Now TBF, I think most mainline newspapers are still good sources for primary events coverage, you just have to ignore everything where they are writing opinion. Technical press in any given field is usually trustworthy.

But I came across one today that just made me scratch my head. WaPo story about the US/Iraqi raid on some ISIS targets where some US personnel were wounded. It was fairly straight up news reporting right through to the last paragraph, where the writer just inserts "Iraqi's oppose the continued presence of US troops" Bang. Just an assertion of what, since there was not a shred of evidence supplied, is simply an opinion. Not even "most Iraqi's we have talked to" or anything. So maybe that is true - probably is, but maybe not - I'm sure it depends on who in Iraq you ask. I'm sure the Iraqi military doesn't feel that way. But regardless of whether they are right or wrong it just violated every rule of good journalism to not keep fact reporting and unsupported opinion assertion separate, and immediately made me question whether anything related in the paragraphs above was trustworthy. That's where we are in today's journalism.

Edited September 1, 2024 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

Whoa whoa whoa, wait, what? The GOP official account is posting this tonight? Is this to imply that Bowman Hamel is gonna get the boot and be replaced by Tulsi Putin?

 

It makes sense.  Trump thinks that Gabbard and Harris are pretty much the same since they are both women and both brunettes.  So, that would take away any advantage that Harris might have.   

[Screwball]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Damn good question. If there is one unintended effect of all the changes in media since the three network days, it's the loss of people/institutions in the media with proven credentials and widely accepted integrity who you could rely on to be fundamentally trustworthy. And even non-profit media like NPR, where you would assume the lack of profit motive would insulate them from the worst effects, has also gone off the rails in the last few years, though nothing on a par with commercial media. 

Now TBF, I think most mainline newspapers are still good sources for primary events coverage, you just have to ignore everything where they are writing opinion. Technical press in any given field is usually trustworthy.

But I came across one today that just made me scratch my head. WaPo story about the US/Iraqi raid on some ISIS targets where some US personnel were wounded. It was fairly straight up news reporting right through to the last paragraph, where the writer just inserts "Iraqi's oppose the continued presence of US troops" Bang. Just an assertion of what, since there was not a shred of evidence supplied, is simply an opinion. Not even "most Iraqi's we have talked to" or anything. So maybe that is true - probably is, but maybe not - I'm sure it depends on who in Iraq you ask. I'm sure the Iraqi military doesn't feel that way. But regardless of whether they are right or wrong it just violated every rule of good journalism to not keep fact reporting and unsupported opinion assertion separate, and immediately made me question whether anything related in the paragraphs above was trustworthy. That's where we are in today's journalism.

To the first two paragraphs; Comcast, or any of the big...what 6? You peddle the lie or you don't have a gig. It ain't about integrity in reporting it's about narrative.

And spin.

Example; article from a Toledo News channel today, kind of long, rambling, but blowing the horn about how great we are about busting our drug trade, fentanyl in particular. Their numbers for fentanyl confiscation was in grams (180k). Coverted, 400 pounds. BFD. The big number looks good I guess.

[mtutiger]

This made the evening news tonight where I live, which is telling.... just absolutely crazy pants stuff that does not comport to any sort of reality.

You cannot even give a kid an ibuprofen without parental permission anywhere FFS

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

"childs"

[mtutiger]

Someone get Dr. Ronny Johnson on the phone....

[Mr.TaterSalad]

8 hours ago, mtutiger said:

This made the evening news tonight where I live, which is telling.... just absolutely crazy pants stuff that does not comport to any sort of reality.

You cannot even give a kid an ibuprofen without parental permission anywhere FFS

[Tiger337]

 

[romad1]

 

Ask it during the debate 

[mtutiger]

29 minutes ago, romad1 said:

 

Ask it during the debate 

It is really infuriating how much Netanyahu has been able to elide any sort of scrutiny for politicking and back-channeling with Trump when actual lives are at stake.

It gets exhausting calling out the failures of the press, but this is another one

[romad1]

Similarly how many Ukrainians are dead because a peace deal is waiting for Trump to be defeated.

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Someone get Dr. Ronny Johnson on the phone....

Wouldn't you rather get a real doctor on the phone?

[chasfh]

47 minutes ago, romad1 said:

 

Ask it during the debate 

The problem with asking the question is that it looks like it's feeding into a conspiracy which, even if widely believed to be true, reflects worse on the questioner than the respondent as long as there is no proof positive to back it up.

[mtutiger]

Another log on the "Tim Walz will be replaced any day now" fire lol

[1984Echoes]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Another log on the "Tim Walz will be replaced any day now" fire lol

Why?

Trump looks WORSE!!!

(I know what you're saying though... They need to put Nikki's numbers up there. That would definitely cause a Trump Kneejerk Reaction...!)

[Motor City Sonics]

9 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Why?

Trump looks WORSE!!!

(I know what you're saying though... They need to put Nikki's numbers up there. That would definitely cause a Trump Kneejerk Reaction...!)

Most Americans don't even know who Nikki is.       Many Americans didn't even know Harris was VP until Joe stepped aside.     Before she was the nominee she got very very low ratings because people didn't know who she was.   That's why doing the Whitmer vs. Trump  or  Shapiro vs. Trump polls made it look like Trump would crush them both. 

They all know every character from 90 Day Fiancee, but usually not people running their government.    

Why do you think Trump won?   He was pre-famous.      It's the same reason Martha Reeves got on the Detroit City Council and it's the same reason Charles Pugh did (that worked out great, didn't it?).  

 

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

He was pre-famous. 

even more than that. A character Trump played was pre-famous and the jerk he is got credit for the character the NBC show managers polished him into.

[CMRivdogs]

never mind

Edited September 1, 2024 by CMRivdogs

[Motor City Sonics]

"When the debate is lost, insults become the loser's tool"  - Socrates     

 

 

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

"When the debate is lost, insults become the loser's tool"  - Socrates     

 

 

 

 

[pfife]

I hope Vice President Kamala Harris crushes these sick ****s.

https://www.newsweek.com/kroger-executive-admits-company-gouged-prices-above-inflation-1945742

Kroger Executive Admits Company Gouged Prices Above Inflation

A top company leader at Kroger has admitted during an antitrust trial the company gouged prices on select items above inflation levels.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, pfife said:

I hope Vice President Kamala Harris crushes these sick ****s.

https://www.newsweek.com/kroger-executive-admits-company-gouged-prices-above-inflation-1945742

Kroger Executive Admits Company Gouged Prices Above Inflation

A top company leader at Kroger has admitted during an antitrust trial the company gouged prices on select items above inflation levels.

there is a certain irony because in a market economy, every price should rise to the maximum that people will pay for the supply available, which is really all that was happening on eggs. They could have left the price lower and they would have sold out sooner and been left with empty shelves. In a "true" market economy, the idea of "price gouging" is an oxymoron - there is no such thing. Just another example of half the people thinking they know what they want policy wise (a government hands off market economy!) but really having no understanding of what they are talking about.

And there is also a counter argument to be made that prices *should* be allowed to rise with scarcity because that way some product will stay on the shelves for people who have more dire need of it. It's easy to imagine cases where it's less disruptive to the economy for people who really need something to be able to get it, even at higher prices, than allow people who don't really need it to be encouraged by a low price of a scare item, to buy more than they need forcing other with greater need to go completely without. This is pretty much what was happening with TP during the pandemic because more retailers *didn't* take the opportunity to "price gouge."

And of course this latter approach can go way overboard as well as happened with scarcity pricing in the Texas electricity grid during the '21 storms.

Every complex problem has an answer that is easy, quick, and wrong.

Edited September 2, 2024 by gehringer_2