Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country
- This topic has 503 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 7, 2017 at 12:28 PM #807560August 7, 2017 at 1:29 PM #807561
FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=no_such_reality]
frankly the crap in this thread is what drives moderates to vote for the Orange one IMHO.[/quote]
Nothing of the kind. The popular vote gap is getting larger in favor of Democrats.
Trump just flipped some stagnant industrial states using the same strategy as Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
Orange County is now blue. And Hillary voters represented 64% of GDP. The free market spoke but the retrograde political framework benefited Trump.
August 7, 2017 at 2:11 PM #807562no_such_reality
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=no_such_reality]
frankly the crap in this thread is what drives moderates to vote for the Orange one IMHO.[/quote]
Nothing of the kind. The popular vote gap is getting larger in favor of Democrats.
Trump just flipped some stagnant industrial states using the same strategy as Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
Orange County is now blue. And Hillary voters represented 64% of GDP. The free market spoke but the retrograde political framework benefited Trump.[/quote]
They voted against you.
Nothing else.
Go look in the mirror.
You caused the loss.
August 7, 2017 at 2:13 PM #807563Anonymous
Guest[quote=no_such_reality][quote=harvey]That article doesn’t even have numbers for Fox.
Your “data” doesn’t support any argument at all.[/quote]
Sheesh, the same site has data for Hannity, Fox News, CNN, you can look at the numbers.[/quote]
I don’t see that. And you provide no links.
[quote]Fact, the three major news networks nightly news broadcasts together have over 20 million viewers.
Cable news Fox, from your numbers, around 2.9M.
Of course, three major networks (CBS,NBC & ABC each have over 7M viewers of their news.[/quote]
You’re just throwing around numbers incoherently. Some from your links, others just made up.
How hard is it to provide a simple summary of the data from a single source compares all the news networks…and supports your claim?
[quote]And of course, with 130M people voting, it’s the 2.9 million that tuned into Fox versus the 2.5 million that tuned into CNN and MSNBC that dominated everything.[/quote]
Maybe it’s not the same 5+ million people viewing every night?
Are you really arguing that the TV news doesn’t influence political opinion?
[quote]ESPN had almost as many primetime watchers as FNC.[/quote]
That’s starting to explain your confusion…do you understand the ABC/CBS/FOX and especially ESPN have shows that aren’t news?
[quote]Talk about doubling down on being wrong.[/quote]
Lol, I am talking about you. You were completely wrong about the unemployment numbers in the other thread and now you attempt to claim that widely-available ratings numbers are the exact opposite of the truth.
Read the numbers is my post above. It’s simple data collaborated by multiple sources that present all the network news ratings. To anyone with 3rd grade math skills it is very clear which network is bigger.
Your claim about Fox a few posts ago is the complete opposite of reality. You’ve presented no data that supports your claim.
[quote]frankly the crap in this thread is what drives moderates to vote for the Orange one IMHO.[/quote]
You keep bringing that up.
What kind of pathetic logic is that?
People are “driven” to vote for an obviously incompetent con man because they don’t like what they read in an internet conversation of complete strangers?
Who are these people can’t help themselves?
August 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM #807564ParticipantWhatever Harvey, I’m done wasting my time. I hope you figure it out over the next three years.
August 7, 2017 at 3:11 PM #807565GuestNo, there’s nothing to figure out. You don’t hold some wisdom that others have failed to attain.
Yup, many voted for Trump as some desperate attempt to lash out at the PC movement. And it’s obvious to anyone reading your posts that you are likely one of these voters.
It’s pathetic, and embarrassing as an American that so many made their choice of president just to spite random strangers. And then they blame the random strangers for the outcome. But that’s where we are today.
I figured out a long time ago that I’ll vote for the more qualified candidate. That won’t change in the next three years.
August 7, 2017 at 3:44 PM #807566Guest[quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=no_such_reality]
frankly the crap in this thread is what drives moderates to vote for the Orange one IMHO.[/quote]
Nothing of the kind. The popular vote gap is getting larger in favor of Democrats.
Trump just flipped some stagnant industrial states using the same strategy as Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
Orange County is now blue. And Hillary voters represented 64% of GDP. The free market spoke but the retrograde political framework benefited Trump.[/quote]
They voted against you.
Nothing else.
Go look in the mirror.
You caused the loss.[/quote]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.
Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.
August 7, 2017 at 3:49 PM #807567Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.[/quote]
ROFLMAO. I’m sure that wins so many over to your viewpoint.
August 7, 2017 at 3:58 PM #807568Participant[quote=harvey]No, there’s nothing to figure out. You don’t hold some wisdom that others have failed to attain.
Yup, many voted for Trump as some desperate attempt to lash out at the PC movement. And it’s obvious to anyone reading your posts that you are likely one of these voters.
It’s pathetic, and embarrassing as an American that so many made their choice of president just to spite random strangers. And then they blame the random strangers for the outcome. But that’s where we are today.
I figured out a long time ago that I’ll vote for the more qualified candidate. That won’t change in the next three years.[/quote]
Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.
August 7, 2017 at 4:02 PM #807569Guest[quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.[/quote]
ROFLMAO. I’m sure that wins so many over to your viewpoint.[/quote]
So let’s summarize the two arguments you’re making in this thread:
– Fox is not the biggest news network, despite overwhelming data to the contrary
– Trump won the election because of FlyerInHi
If you say so.
August 7, 2017 at 4:02 PM #807570Participant[quote=harvey][quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.[/quote]
ROFLMAO. I’m sure that wins so many over to your viewpoint.[/quote]
So let’s summarize the two arguments you’re making in this thread:
– Fox is not the biggest news network, despite overwhelming data to the contrary
– Trump won the election because of FlyerInHi
If you say so.[/quote]
Don’t worry, you had a part too. 😉
August 7, 2017 at 4:09 PM #807571Guest[quote=no_such_reality]Don’t worry, you had a part too. ;)[/quote]
You voted for Trump because of me?
I’m flattered, but that sure is pathetic.
August 7, 2017 at 4:41 PM #807572Guest[quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.[/quote]
ROFLMAO. I’m sure that wins so many over to your viewpoint.[/quote]
What? the free market and wealth aren’t good enough?
August 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM #807573Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.[/quote]
ROFLMAO. I’m sure that wins so many over to your viewpoint.[/quote]
What? the free market and wealth aren’t good enough?[/quote]
November 8, 2016.
Res ipsa loquitur
August 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM #807574
svelteParticipant[quote=zk]For a long time I’ve been saying that the right-wing media is destroying our country. This is what I’m talking about:
Republican voters, being human and therefore credulous and gullible, believe whatever they hear on Fox Propaganda (and Breitbart and the rest of the right-wing media). They support republicans and con man don no matter what they do, because Fox Propaganda tells them republicans and con man don are doing a great job no matter what they do.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think right-wing voters are more credulous than left-wing voters or anybody else. The difference is that there is a massive industry dedicated to right-wing propaganda.
Sure, the left has some propaganda available. But there are big differences between what’s available on the left and what’s available on the right. Mainly Fox Propaganda, but there is a lot more. Fox Propaganda is propaganda masquerading as real, hard, actual news. And it’s the go-to “news” outlet of tens of millions of Americans. The left has nothing like that. [/quote]
The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
This is nothing new. It has been around well over 100 years and is a part of what made William Randolph Hearst rich…or more accurately what kept him rich. Only a lot of it was Democratic back then. Ever hear of Yellow Journalism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
“Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism”
Hmmm…sounds very familiar.
“The term was coined in the mid-1890s to characterize the sensational journalism that used some yellow ink in the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. The battle peaked from 1895 to about 1898, and historical usage often refers specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well. An English magazine in 1898 noted, “All American journalism is not ‘yellow’, though all strictly ‘up-to-date’ yellow journalism is American!”
As I said, the more that things change, the more they stay the same.
Take a chill pill. The sun will come up tomorrow. And 100 years from now, our decendants will be complaining that the Thought Permeating Devices (TPDs) are filling our heads with political propaganda from the newly formed SpaceCadet party. TPDs having replaced the internet of the early 2000s, which replaced the newspapers of the 1900s…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.