Midterm Elections

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

If there's something to Trump accepting bribes from the Saudi's like Hayes alluded then I'll call it out too, but I haven't seen any hard evidence of that. ( Payments to Trump foundation or w/e it might be )

Their rentals of his properties are a matter of public record. As I said, you don't hand over brown envelopes with instructions anymore.

mcmoustache

markodaly wrote: »

It seems the other networks are trying to copy the Fox News model and are eating themselves alive and throwing out all their integrity while they were at it. Why do people take these 'journalists' seriously?

Funnily enough, I stopped watching both ABC and MSNBC and started watching some live shows on youtube, TYT and the Dailywire for example. Both on different spectrums but at least they were a) open about it and the level of discourse was much superior and engaging. That is the future right there.

If you're going with the extremes on either side you'll be very misinformed. That's OK if you keep it to yourself but if you repeat what you hear there in public, you'll be ridiculed. Choosing rightwing and leftwing disinformation as your news source is stupid.

markodaly

mcmoustache wrote: »

For all MSNBC's biases, they're in no way the left wing version of Fox. You're thinking of Jimmy Dore or some obscure commy disinfo organisation. MSNBC has no version of Hannity, Carlson, Pirro or the other lying "totally not journalists but "talent" people" that they have on. To say that they are equivalent shows an inability to distinguish reality from nonsense.

You raise Sean Hannity (a douche bag), I give you Rachel Maddow (another douche bag)

How are these people called journalists is beyond me.

markodaly

mcmoustache wrote: »

If you're going with the extremes on either side you'll be very misinformed. That's OK if you keep it to yourself but if you repeat what you hear there in public, you'll be ridiculed. Choosing rightwing and leftwing disinformation as your news source is stupid.

So what news organisation or mainstream media does not do misinformation in your opinion?

At least if a Youtube channel is honest and open about their bias and narrative, then you can watch it knowing this and the discussions can be more interesting and more in depth than the crap that other media outlets put out.
However, if you watch FoxNews or CNN and they both claim that they are 'Fair and Balanced' or whatever then just switch it off as they are trying to fool you first and foremost. This is more dangerous in my opinion.

markodaly

mcmoustache wrote: »

Their rentals of his properties are a matter of public record. As I said, you don't hand over brown envelopes with instructions anymore.

So it's pure conjecture that the money is for bribes, OK so!

2 Scoops

Speaking of the media, this is the funniest thing I've ever seen

WinnyThePoo

How maddow is being compared to hannity is beyond me. Not surprising. Though no ones buying it.

WinnyThePoo

How maddow is being compared to hannity is beyond me. Not surprising. Thought no ones buying it.

ClanofLams

2 Scoops wrote: »

Whatever you say..

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1050219760808591361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fentertainment%2Fmsnbc-star-chris-hayes-floats-conspiracy-theory-that-saudis-pay-trump-massive-bribes

You’re seriously offering a tweet on a journalists twitter, that is certainly irresponsible but may not be inaccurate, as a counter point to claims on fox tv and digital as ridiculous as Obama being born in Kenya and Democratic Party officials arranging the murder of a Hillary Clinton aide.

Right....

Rhineshark

markodaly wrote: »

So it's pure conjecture that the money is for bribes, OK so!

So the speaking fees were definitely and obviously bribes but the vast amount of money going into Trump owned properties from SA definitely isn't because Reasons.

pixelburp

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NickRiccardi/status/1061046501672022016


Pretty close to game over for Mc Sally in Arizona. With Florida looking a basketcase and the Dems finishing strongly in the house races, may not have been as good as result as Trump said it was a few days ago.

Obviously the focus is on the Dem / Rep battle, but that giant, humungous drop back to poor Angela Green (green party?) is depressing and an encapsulation of the problems with that country's out of control 2 party system. I know nothing of Green or the US Greens - bar Jill Stein, who is a bit of a quack, and arguably split the handringing Clinton votes - so maybe her policies are awful, but that she doesn't even stand a chance speaks volumes.

prawnsambo

markodaly wrote: »

Highest? Bush lost more in 2006.

Bush lost 32 in 2006. As it currently stands, Trump has lost 35 and looking likely to be 36.

prawnsambo

markodaly wrote: »

When was the last time a first-term president, who controlled both houses did not lose the house?
Not an argument, but just curious as I want to find out.

Dubya in 2002 gained 8 in the House and 2 in the Senate. But he'd started his term with 49 Senate seats, so didn't hold the Senate then, just the House.

Jimmy Carter in 1978. Started his term with 292 House and 61 Senate and at the midterms held both with a loss of 15 House and 2 Senate.

Before Carter, Lyndon Johnson and JF Kennedy did it as well.

Water John

With the economy on the surface as good as it is, Trump should have had no problem holding both Houses.

I say, economy on the surface as borrowing from tomorrow and tax cuts have fuelled it. If the economy is in poorer shape by 2020 he'll get hammered.

Gbear

Are there any international monitors present for US elections? It probably wouldn't change anything, but it'd be amusing to have a UN body slap the US down for having third world election standards.

Rhineshark

Gbear wrote: »

Are there any international monitors present for US elections? It probably wouldn't change anything, but it'd be amusing to have a UN body slap the US down for having third world election standards.

Ironically;

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/5/russia-readying-election-observers-to-monitor-us-m/

(As part of OSCE).

Fr Tod Umptious

Water John wrote: »

With the economy on the surface as good as it is, Trump should have had no problem holding both Houses.

I say, economy on the surface as borrowing from tomorrow and tax cuts have fuelled it. If the economy is in poorer shape by 2020 he'll get hammered.

Ah come on.

Regardless of the economy the amount of scandal that has followed Trump means that it was always going to be a damage limitation exercise.

And the spin from both sides reflects that.

As I said on this or another thread I'd regard myself as a fair astute US political observer.
But I'm completely lost with this administration, there are so many investigations, so many personell changes, so many accusations that I can't keep up.

It would have been a huge upset if Trump held both in this climate.

Rhineshark

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ah come on.

Regardless of the economy the amount of scandal that has followed Trump means that it was always going to be a damage limitation exercise.

And the spin from both sides reflects that.

As I said on this or another thread I'd regard myself as a fair astute US political observer.
But I'm completely lost with this administration, there are so many investigations, so many personell changes, so many accusations that I can't keep up.

It would have been a huge upset if Trump held both in this climate.

That was the main advantage thst the Dems had vs inbuilt and manufactured disadvantages in terms of basic set up for the Senate where 1 rural (more likely R) votes = x amount of urban (lean D) votes, large scale voter suppression, targeted minority suppression and gerrymandering.

It was by no means guaranteed.

Water John

Totally agree with you. If Trump had been running a nondescript administration not a disaster one, is what I am saying.

That figure of bias needed for the Dems in the national vote, to win all three House, Senate and Pres, is somewhere between 6/9%.

c.p.w.g.w

markodaly wrote: »

You raise Sean Hannity (a douche bag), I give you Rachel Maddow (another douche bag)

How are these people called journalists is beyond me.

Is she supposed to be a journalist. Thought their job is to report the facts without bias

markodaly

Rhineshark wrote: »

So the speaking fees were definitely and obviously bribes but the vast amount of money going into Trump owned properties from SA definitely isn't because Reasons.

Are you having another episode or are you having a conversation with me?
When did I ever mention the words 'speaking fee's' and 'bribes' in the same sentence. I didn't.

pixelburp

You'd want to be naive to think the non Fox channels aren't prone to their own editorial bias - literally every news outlet has one since the dawn of print, and anyone who claims XYZ doesn't is lying; but where I draw the distinction with Fox in particular is the near zeal with which they'll antagonise and attack an entire "Other", be those liberals, migrants, gays or whatever demographic is in their sights. They seem quicker to dehumanise their ideological enemies (those often below them on the social ladder, where more liberal media tends towards mockery and punching upwards). Basically, I find Fox to be bullies, their stock in trade to build fear of the brown person the next street over, the trans woman using the bathroom.

Inquitus

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Is she supposed to be a journalist. Thought their job is to report the facts without bias

Maddow and Hannity give opinion on a news channel, rather than reporting the news. It's not something that we have over in Europe much tbh, at least on TV, we just get the news reported as you say with little to no bias.

c.p.w.g.w

Inquitus wrote: »

Maddow and Hannity give opinion on a news channel, rather than reporting the news. It's not something that we have over in Europe much tbh, at least on TV, we just get the news reported as you say with little to no bias.

Commentary moreso than reporting then

Rjd2

pixelburp wrote: »

Obviously the focus is on the Dem / Rep battle, but that giant, humungous drop back to poor Angela Green (green party?) is depressing and an encapsulation of the problems with that country's out of control 2 party system. I know nothing of Green or the US Greens - bar Jill Stein, who is a bit of a quack, and arguably split the handringing Clinton votes - so maybe her policies are awful, but that she doesn't even stand a chance speaks volumes.

The Green lady pulled out a few days before the election and tepidly endorsed Sinema which may have hurt her chances somewhat.:o

She's been hammered for the last few days online for been a "spoiler" from the left, to her credit she seems to be taking it well enough. She if are to believe her only spent 1k on her campaign and lost her job when running.

https://twitter.com/a_green2020

The Greens are in a really bad spot these days due to how heated things are, if they run in an area and take votes and the Republicans sneak home they get lambasted for taking votes of the Dems.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

You're really pushing me to quote videos of conspiracies from the likes of Maddow but it's going to draw the thread off topic. We won't agree so I won't reply about it anymore, but for all intents and purposes here's a snippet of her Niger conspiracy theory being called out even by hyper partisan outlets like Huffpo.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-niger-travel-ban_us_59ea060fe4b05b4f1c3ad52f

"It was a vintage Rachel Maddow stemwinder. A deft, 25-minute weaving of carefully curated sound bites, screenshots of news reports, slick maps and graphics, all strung together to make the case that something fishy is afoot. It’s a style Maddow has perfected, and it has propelled her to the top of the ratings heap.

There was just one problem. Maddow’s theory was so flimsy that it could be debunked by a quick glance at a map, let alone a phone call with an expert.

Janet Malcolm of The New Yorker recently described Maddow’s show as “a piece of sleight of hand presented as a cable news show. It is TV entertainment at its finest. It permits liberals to enjoy themselves during what may be the most thoroughly unenjoyable time of their political lives.”

You realise you’re quoting opinions that agree with your own. You’re not actually providing evidence. Do you get the difference? You’re basically saying you’re right because someone else agrees.

Captain Obvious

It's hard to appear unbiased when dealing with Trump stories. It's like trying to appear unbiased when discussing climate change or flat earth theory. You can't just put aside facts and logic to appear unbiased. And when you are dealing with Trump supporters you are dealing with Olympic level mental gymnasts. It doesn't matter what he says or does, he will never be wrong. His actions over the last week have been despicable. That rally with Fox News anchors was surreal.

The midterms were a big loss to him. And his tantrums since the results are evidence of that.

Itssoeasy

The Florida senate and governors race are going to a recount by machines. I know Andrew Gillum made a concession phonecall but that phonecall is not a requirement and isn't binding(as we saw in the 2000 US presidential election) and it's the votes that count.

Water John

All the votes were not counted in 2000. Count them all this time.

Matthew Dowd, who worked on that Bush campaign, tweeted: “Not counting all the votes in Florida in 2000 was a grave injustice and caused many to question the legitimacy of Bush election. Let us not repeat that injustice in FL and AZ this year. Count all the votes.”

StringerBell

A recount?

If the recount stage has been reached and the two reps still had the same leads as when I last got to check on the coverage I can't see a recount changing the selection.

If there were still votes to be counted maybe, but a recount isn't gonna close a gap of 15k or more, would have had to been a lot closer.

Must check on Arizona