Best Post-Election Reaction

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

This is simply baloney. Those of you who claim the media is equally biased against right and left need to pull your heads out of the sand. As I wrote before, LOOK AT WHAT THEY WRITE. It's obvious.

If you still cling to the ignorant statement that the media is equally biased against right and left, then I defy you to show me the half of the media that wants abortion to be restricted or that wants our southern border more actively defended.

Are CBS, NBC, ABC and the New York Times biased against conservatives? Yes, absolutely. But those sources are dinosaurs. Literally their readership/viewerships are dying off or getting incredibly old. No, I'm not being snarky or pejorative, it's simply demographics. What you might not understand is that the bias isn't "We're going to get those nasty conservatives and advance our own liberalism." that wouldn't be tolerated. No not even by the New York Times. 

Now with the internet people under 60 get their news from all sorts of sources, both right and left. 

Edited November 19, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Now with the internet people under 60 get their news from all sorts of sources, both right and left. 

Yes. I think that is both a blessing and a curse. I love that we have alternate sources of media.  But some of those sites out there (both sides) have no basis in reality. Still people eat them up. 

[Guest MormonGator]

The bias is that of culture, not politics.

 People in Manhattan and DC don't own a handgun-and more importantly don't know anyone who does. They are all pro-choice and don't know anyone isn't. They don't go to church, and don't know anyone who does either. So they begin to think "Since I don't know anyone who disagrees with me, everyone who does must be morally deficient in someway because only good people are pro-choice , pro gun restriction, pro-gay marriage, etc" 

Now, look at small town America. We all know of cultures where everyone is pro-life. Everyone owns a gun. No one is gay. Everyone is in favor of traditional marriage. So in that culture too you begin to think "No one can be a good person and disagree with me because everyone I know thinks that way." 

So we're all biased. 

[unixknight]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Are CBS, NBC, ABC and the New York Times biased against conservatives? Yes, absolutely. But those sources are dinosaurs. Literally their readership/viewerships are dying off or getting incredibly old. Not being snarky or pejorative, it's simply demographics. 

Now with the internet people under 60 get their news from all sorts of sources, both right and left. 

I think it would be useful to define what we mean by "the media."  Because it really could mean a lot of things.  You have news networks, news programs on broadcast networks, you have TV nonfiction programming, fiction programming, movies, radio, podcasts, websites, etc.

The nice thing about the Internet is you can get your news a la carte.  The bad thing about the Internet is you can get your news a la carte.  By that I mean if you want to read/watch news from ONLY your own point of view, you can do that at the expense of hearing anyone else's.  That's a BAD thing.

But what are the alternatives?  If you like to get your news from TV, it's coming in from the Left unless you watch Fox News.  The problem I personally have with Fox is that they do love to sensationalize.  Even worse, they have the monopoly of television news from a right-wing perspective, so it's  not like I can go elsewhere.

Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative on the AM dial and FM is mostly entertainment which typically means it's got a left wing perspective, similar to movies and fiction TV.  Christians are often portrayed as backward, quaint, silly people at best, or as psychotic, angry zealots.  That's if religion is mentioned at all, which it usually isn't.  That's why I was astonished when Captain America said "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that!"  In the Avengers movie.  But then, I've also noticed a strangely conservative slant to superhero movies.  I am not complaining.

LP mentioned earlier she goes outside the U.S. for news that's closer to the truth.  That's a good strategy and one that I also use, but I think I'm done with BBC News.  This election has brought out the liberal slant in BBC like you wouldn't believe.  It's like reading CNN.  I used Al Jazeera during the election and liked what I saw there.  I may try them again.

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Yes. I think that is both a blessing and a curse. I love that we have alternate sources of media.  But some of those sites out there (both sides) have no basis in reality. Still people eat them up. 

I totally agree. It's a blessing to me because I'm a news junkie who loves the constant stream of information. For many reasons I love living in 2016 and would never go back in time even at gunpoint. To me the good ole' days were absolutely awful for many, many reasons. 

Edited November 19, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I think it would be useful to define what we mean by "the media."  Because it really could mean a lot of things.  You have news networks, news programs on broadcast networks, you have TV nonfiction programming, fiction programming, movies, radio, podcasts, websites, etc.

The nice thing about the Internet is you can get your news a la carte.  The bad thing about the Internet is you can get your news a la carte.  By that I mean if you want to read/watch news from ONLY your own point of view, you can do that at the expense of hearing anyone else's.  That's a BAD thing.

But what are the alternatives?  If you like to get your news from TV, it's coming in from the Left unless you watch Fox News.  The problem I personally have with Fox is that they do love to sensationalize.  Even worse, they have the monopoly of television news from a right-wing perspective, so it's  not like I can go elsewhere.

Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative on the AM dial and FM is mostly entertainment which typically means it's got a left wing perspective, similar to movies and fiction TV.  Christians are often portrayed as backward, quaint, silly people at best, or as psychotic, angry zealots.  That's if religion is mentioned at all, which it usually isn't.  That's why I was astonished when Captain America said "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that!"  In the Avengers movie.  But then, I've also noticed a strangely conservative slant to superhero movies.  I am not complaining.

LP mentioned earlier she goes outside the U.S. for news that's closer to the truth.  That's a good strategy and one that I also use, but I think I'm done with BBC News.  This election has brought out the liberal slant in BBC like you wouldn't believe.  It's like reading CNN.  I used Al Jazeera during the election and liked what I saw there.  I may try them again.

 

 

Great points. I think it's an age thing. To my 70 year old Aunt (whom I love dearly) her "media" is the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, both of which she reads obsessively. I read the Journal ever day and the Times every Sunday. 

[unixknight]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Great points. I think it's an age thing. To my 70 year old Aunt (whom I love dearly) her "media" is the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, both of which she reads obsessively. I read the Journal ever day and the Times every Sunday. 

Yikes!  And in my list I forgot newspapers and magazines.  Sheesh.  We really are spoiled by all the options.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Yikes!  And in my list I forgot newspapers and magazines.  Sheesh.  We really are spoiled by all the options.

I subscribe to several magazines. Among them National Review and The New Yorker. Along with Rolling Stone. 

[Vort]

27 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Great points. I think it's an age thing. To my 70 year old Aunt (whom I love dearly) her "media" is the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, both of which she reads obsessively. I read the Journal ever day and the Times every Sunday. 

The Times is not worth the paper it's printed on. The WSJ, on the other hand, is perhaps the only example of true journalistic excellence in the US (and the world).

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

The WSJ, on the other hand, is perhaps the only example of true journalistic excellence in the US (and the world).

Holy cow, we agree on something, Vort.  I love WSJ.  

@unixknight I like Al Jazera to so far.  Good to know about the BBC.  I also read DAWN, but not for US news.  Mostly I'm interested in the situation in Pakistan.

@MormonGator  I don't think I've ever read the National Review.  I'll have to check it out.  

Edited November 19, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Holy cow, we agree on something, Vort.  I love WSJ.

Ironically, I'm not a businessman and have no real nose for business, so one might think it unusual that I would like the WSJ. It has the most insightful political analyses I've read in US print; the NYT is grade-school level, in comparison. But I'm no political junkie, either. I just like solid, insightful, truthful, intelligent journalism. That is rarely found in the NYT, but is the norm in the WSJ.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

The Times is not worth the paper it's printed on. The WSJ, on the other hand, is perhaps the only example of true journalistic excellence in the US (and the world).

 lol. I love the New York Times Sunday edition. Always read it after church. 

[Backroads]

22 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Many of us are disappointed over the results of this election...  Many of us have expressed that disappointment since the Republican Primary finished...  thus before and after election..

She wants to share her feelings that is fine...  But she is trying to dictate what an acceptable response is, and that is where she is getting into trouble. 

Yeah... I'm a fixer, too, as was discussed. I suppose it creates response problems.

[Traveler]

 

Late last sprint I traveled to Europe for a vacation.  I very much enjoyed taking official tours in many countries and talking with our tour guide.  At the time I was quite taken by the interest in Europe with our presidential candidate Donald Trump.   Mr. Trump was viewed by many in Europe as an antiestablishment candidate rising up from a general distrust of establishment government bureaucrats and elected officials that have forgotten and ignore the citizens.   Trump was viewed by many I talked to as a possible catalyst for political change not just in the USA but throughout Europe.

It is important to note that the only country whose citizens were happy with their leader was Russia.  All others openly expressed that they did not believe the people had a voice in their government policies.  Only Russian citizens seemed to openly express that their leader listened to and valued the opinions of it citizens.  I wondered if Trump was to be elected if it would be (sort of speaking) as a ballot heard round the world!

My personal view is that secret combinations have infiltrated significant levels of our government and hold strong influence over the administration of many segments and departments of our government.  My understanding of scripture is that when secret combinations have gotten hold and established themselves in government – that the will (election) of the people is acceptable only if such does not threaten the power of the corrupt secret combinations.  That when people desire a return to a government of liberty that there will be great bloodshed.  It is my opinion that there will be a substantial increase violent demonstrations – and that some violence will result in the death of prominent individuals that threaten secret combinations hold on power.  BTW did anyone else catch the WSJ article concerning the identification of several of the rioters involved in the murdered our ambassador in Benghazi as being on the payroll of the USA State Department?  Also despite the promise of the current administration - not a single individual has been held accountable or to account for that murder or death of those that tried to save him. 

Does the possibility of rioters being paid by a department controlled by Hillary change anyone's opinion about why there is so much effort to keep Trump from being sworn in?  Or why Trump is now saying we ought to leave Hillary alone and not pursue any issue with Hillary?
 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

On 11/19/2016 at 2:26 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

The conclusion I've come to is that the media is in it for the money. Whatever sells papers, as the saying goes. Sure there are some media sources that lean left and some that lean right, but when it all comes down to it, they just want the stories that will bring in the money. Thats my opinion anyway. I try to read from both sides, and lately I've started reading news from other countries to try and get closer to the truth. 

 

On 11/19/2016 at 3:09 PM, MormonGator said:

I totally agree with you @LiterateParakeet. Both the right and the left claim that the media is against them. And you know what? They are right! It's the job of the media to be a thorn in both sides. To be skeptical of all power and all politicians. To me a good, watchdog media will growl at Obama, Trump, the right, the left, and everyone in between.  

 

On 11/19/2016 at 3:54 PM, Vort said:

This is simply baloney. Those of you who claim the media is equally biased against right and left need to pull your heads out of the sand. As I wrote before, LOOK AT WHAT THEY WRITE. It's obvious.

If you still cling to the ignorant statement that the media is equally biased against right and left, then I defy you to show me the half of the media that wants abortion to be restricted or that wants our southern border more actively defended.

 

On 11/19/2016 at 4:33 PM, MormonGator said:

Are CBS, NBC, ABC and the New York Times biased against conservatives? Yes, absolutely. But those sources are dinosaurs. Literally their readership/viewerships are dying off or getting incredibly old. No, I'm not being snarky or pejorative, it's simply demographics. What you might not understand is that the bias isn't "We're going to get those nasty conservatives and advance our own liberalism." that wouldn't be tolerated. No not even by the New York Times. 

Now with the internet people under 60 get their news from all sorts of sources, both right and left. 

 

On 11/19/2016 at 4:41 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

Yes. I think that is both a blessing and a curse. I love that we have alternate sources of media.  But some of those sites out there (both sides) have no basis in reality. Still people eat them up. 

 

On 11/19/2016 at 4:43 PM, unixknight said:

I think it would be useful to define what we mean by "the media."  Because it really could mean a lot of things.  You have news networks, news programs on broadcast networks, you have TV nonfiction programming, fiction programming, movies, radio, podcasts, websites, etc.

The nice thing about the Internet is you can get your news a la carte.  The bad thing about the Internet is you can get your news a la carte. 

I'm a political junkie.  Been at it all my life... pretty much since I was old enough to listen to my father read the newspaper to us after dinner.

It has become VERY RARE now to find a legitimate news source that is consistently non-propagandist - international sources included.  LP stated that is is because of what sells papers.  Some yes, most no.  I'd deign to say that the main reason is because the major sources of information (the international press corps for the most part) are incestuous.  I was just listening to Nigel Farage give a comment on the state of journalism today and he hit the nail right on the head... "The government and the press are married to each other's sister".  That's not literal, of course... it's a juxtaposition to the old Royal Houses who used to rule the "world".

Decades ago, it used to be that you have a Campaign Season then that season ends and then you Govern.  Now, especially with the creation of CNN and its 24-hour news cycle... there's the Campaign Season but instead of that season ending, it keeps going so that politicians - win or lose - continue to Campaign in lieu of governing... governing just means positioning for the next election.  The problem here is, the old traditional way of governing - as designed by the Founders - of different ideologies duking out their ideas on the floor of Congress and then reaching a common compromise that best serves the people does not exist anymore.  Because, compromise doesn't gain any advantage for the party's positioning for the next election.  So, if you're a little politician in a major party, you get ceaselessly pressured to "toe the party line" and promote the party's campaign in your governance even when it goes against the people you represent.

Now, add the Press to this mix who are another set of foot soldiers in the endless campaign and you got an entire press corps that is untrustworthy.  This press corps feeds all other news sources - local, national, and international... so even when you pick up a news story from Manila Bulletin on the state of American governance, you are still reading the corrupted news story.

This is not about money.  CNN's viewership has dropped like anchors to rock bottom and they still wouldn't change their narrative because... tat-tada... Virginia Mosley, a CNN bigwig, is married to Tom Nides, an Obama bigwig...

You might think... well, that doesn't mean anything - I mean, who you're married to doesn't make your organizations related to each other.  Well, true.  Except that, the reason they are in these positions in the media and in government is because they are related to each other... the Wikileaks trove has proven that, at least.

 

Okay, so with all this press corruption going around, who do you get reliable news?  Well, my answer to that is, nobody and everybody.  I read news and put it in the vegetable spinner to shake out the "spin" so I end up with nothing more than pertinent facts.  So, for example, the Benghazi thing - the Sunday shows put up that clown Susan Rice to explain what was going on in Benghazi.  The shows also added more narrative to it and pointed to certain facts.  I threw that all out, including Susan Rice's statements.  Instead, I gathered the facts - ambassador Stevens is dead, it happened at this time, these are the people there, this is what happened in that area for these months, there is a video... etc. etc.  A lot of these facts I got from Bret Baier (he was the only one that gave a blow by blow of what happened), but I also grabbed more from other sources including international news.  The Why is a narrative, I throw that out - e.g. when Susan Rice and all news sources say Benghazi happened because of a video - I only keep something happened in Benghazi and there's a video as separate facts.  I throw out that they are somehow related.  Then I assemble these facts like a puzzle in my head and come up with my own Why... my own Spin.  That's how I get my news.  Of course, this only works because I've been following all these stuff for years and years so I can form a narrative in my head.

So, another example - Trump is a racist.  Narrative.  Give me the facts and I'll decide if he is a racist or not.  BLM hates cops.  Narrative.  Give me the facts and I'll decide if they hate cops or not...  Now, if you read a wide variety of news sources, chances are you won't get caught in the narrative of inclusion and omission... because, yes... news sources - even as they only peddle in facts - can still control the narrative by selecting which facts to mention and which facts to omit.

 

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Late last sprint I traveled to Europe for a vacation.  I very much enjoyed taking official tours in many countries and talking with our tour guide.  At the time I was quite taken by the interest in Europe with our presidential candidate Donald Trump.   Mr. Trump was viewed by many in Europe as an antiestablishment candidate rising up from a general distrust of establishment government bureaucrats and elected officials that have forgotten and ignore the citizens.   Trump was viewed by many I talked to as a possible catalyst for political change not just in the USA but throughout Europe.

It is important to note that the only country whose citizens were happy with their leader was Russia.  All others openly expressed that they did not believe the people had a voice in their government policies.  Only Russian citizens seemed to openly express that their leader listened to and valued the opinions of it citizens.  I wondered if Trump was to be elected if it would be (sort of speaking) as a ballot heard round the world!

 

Traveler, this has been happening all around the world for a while now.  Trump is just a recent addition.

I mentioned this a while back on lds.net.  Okay, just off the top of my head...

1.)  Philippines elected Duterte president.

2.) Iceland elected a history teacher president.  The 2 major political parties were dead last.  The one that was head to head to the history teacher in the run-up to election day was a business woman.  Both teacher and business woman were anti-EU.

3.) Scotland almost exiting Britain and became the harbinger for Brexit that is also the Cameron-xit.

4.) The election of the leaders of Turin and Milan earlier this year - both of whom were from an independent political party recently formed by a comedian.  Note that Italy government power is not centralized even as they have a Prime Minister.  The loud echo of these elections then led to PM Renzi to issue a referendum on a centralization of power in Italy by expanding the representation of the Senate.  People soundly voted the referendum down because even as they desire representation in the Senate, it would be meaningless as Rome continues to be a puppet to Brussels.  Renzi resigned his post amid the growing demand for Italexit... Italy, like Britain, is a founding member of the EU.

5.) And in super German-like Austria... Van der Bellen almost got toppled by the anti-EU Hofer... No, I wouldn't call this a win for the leftist EU.  I'd call this a - you seriously need to reflect on your policies dudes.

6.)  And so in Germany... you get Merkel now trying to save her seat by banning burqas.

All over the world, man... Trump is just another cog in that big wheel.  The silent majority is not so silent anymore.

Edited December 7, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

Hillary couldn't stop crying.  So, of course all her supporters can'ts top either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbN4RqeSfPw

Has anyone seen that snowflake video satire of "treatment" for post-trump-stress-disorder?  I can't find it.

I don't know why progressives believe they need MORE liberal media outlets, but:

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/new-ptsd-post-trump-stress-disorder

Edited December 15, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

Found it!

http://savethesnowflakes.org/

And SNL has a wonderful parody

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

49 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Found it!

That is brilliant.

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And SNL has a wonderful parody

That might well be the single most honest SNL skit I have ever seen.

[anatess2]

Here you go.  I think this reaction tops all reactions... from highly esteemend (sic) Hollywood! 

(This is my prediction:  These guys are going to look back on this video not too long from now and turn beet red with embarrassment for having been involved in it)

 

 

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Here you go.  I think this reaction tops all reactions... from highly esteemend (sic) Hollywood! 

(This is my prediction:  These guys are going to look back on this video not too long from now and turn beet red with embarrassment for having been involved in it)

 

 

Not asking to vote for Hillary? So..... McMullin's back in?

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Not asking to vote for Hillary? So..... McMullin's back in?

I was thinking of that.  I'd wonder how they'd react if that were the result.  They'd realize they were the ones who caused it.

[unixknight]

On 12/15/2016 at 9:47 AM, anatess2 said:

Here you go.  I think this reaction tops all reactions... from highly esteemend (sic) Hollywood! 

(This is my prediction:  These guys are going to look back on this video not too long from now and turn beet red with embarrassment for having been involved in it)

And just think, Electors, you could have earned the respect of these celebrities!  I know, I know, too good to be true, right?

[NeuroTypical]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/electoral-college-vote-seals-trump-white-house-victory-n698026

Yeesh, talk about adding insult to injury:

Quote

And some electors did break with how their state voted, albeit in unexpected ways. In Washington, a state Clinton won by 16 points, the former secretary of state received just eight of the state's 12 electoral votes.
...
An elector in both Maine and Minnesota attempted to cast a ballot for Bernie Sanders, who unsuccessfully challenged Clinton in the Democratic primary. However state laws requiring electors to follow the statewide vote invalidated both efforts.

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

This is the FLOTUS saying we don't have hope anymore:

 

And this is Trump's gracious response continuing his unification efforts: