Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 176

And now there’s this.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article139695453.html

Federal investigators are examining whether far-right news sites played any role last year in a Russian cyber operation that dramatically widened the reach of news stories — some fictional — that favored Donald Trump’s presidential bid, two people familiar with the inquiry say.

Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically timed the computer commands, known as “bots,” to blitz social media with links to the pro-Trump stories at times when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, these sources said.

The bots’ end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, the sources said. Some of the stories were false or mixed fact and fiction, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the bot attacks are part of an FBI-led investigation into a multifaceted Russian operation to influence last year’s elections.

Investigators examining the bot attacks are exploring whether the far-right news operations took any actions to assist Russia’s operatives. Their participation, however, wasn’t necessary for the bots to amplify their news through Twitter and Facebook.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563298

CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.

When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).

If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.

This is irrelevant to the articles posted. Again, please point out the bias and inaccuracies in the articles.

Again, they are known for hot air, I am entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or not. There is no reason for me to have to be badgered about it.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563298

CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.

When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).

If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.

This is irrelevant to the articles posted. Again, please point out the bias and inaccuracies in the articles.

Again, they are known for hot air.

If anything that article quote was implying the opposite.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563298

CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.

When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).

If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.

This is irrelevant to the articles posted. Again, please point out the bias and inaccuracies in the articles.

Again, they are known for hot air, I am entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or not. There is no reason for me to have to be badgered about it.

I’m not badgering you, I’m asking you to support your position with facts relevant to the articles. Since you refuse to do so, I will drop it.

TV’s Frink said:

I’m not badgering you, I’m asking you to support your position with facts relevant to the articles. Since you refuse to do so, I will drop it.

I refused nothing. I’ve stated this thing about CNN in the recent past and this is the only time you’ve decided to “ask” me to support my position. Dropping it would be great.

TV’s Frink said:

Lol!

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-healthcare-pass-ahca-obamacare-2017-3

President Donald Trump is giving House Republicans an ultimatum: Pass the American Health Care Act on Friday, or Obamacare stays.

Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Budget and Management director, made clear to Republicans on Thursday night that Trump wants a vote Friday and that he is done negotiating on the bill to overhaul healthcare. If it is not passed, the president will move on from the bill, reports said.

This is kind of brilliant, in a way. Republican’s want to repeal and replace, so if it doesn’t happen he’s shifted the blame entirely. Meanwhile, they will continue to benefit from all the Obamacare things they would have otherwise lost. So this is pretty much the only way to ensure this bill doesn’t irreparably damage Trump in the eyes of his voters (which is why Dems will need to start leaning in even harder on calling it “Trumpcare” and making it clear this is his failure).

It will be interesting to see how the vote plays out. Either way some Republicans aren’t going to make it out alive. The Dems lost a lot of seats because of the ACA in 2010, and it wasn’t nearly as unpopular as this.

DominicCobb said:

The Dems lost a lot of seats because of the ACA in 2010, and it wasn’t nearly as unpopular as this.

Indeed.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/this-health-care-bill-may-haunt-the-gop/

DominicCobb said:

it wasn’t nearly as unpopular as this.

Was this in an alternate universe? Obamacare was loathed by huge numbers and it was forced through and no fixing was done until after they got it through. At least these folks are trying to sort issues now so how you deem that as a failure on Trump’s part is confusing. This is still only the first phase as well so I think it’s a tad early to be calling the win for Democrats and everyone that doesn’t like Trump.

Obamacare went through the same growing pains as this one will. With politics being so polarized at the moment I don’t know that these “polls” have an accurate algorithm to predict any failure or success at this point.

More proof that Trump has no idea what he is doing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/23/trump-wants-to-kill-an-agency-that-is-accomplishing-one-of-his-biggest-goals/?utm_term=.796cea16652a

SilverWook said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”

SilverWook said:

Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn

And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.html

CNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.

If someone says they no longer support Trump, how can CNN distort it?

That I get.

The articles I’ve taken issue with from them are subjective as hell considering their verbiage but get posted here and kinda represented as “this actually happened”, “this is the full truth”, “no way anyone can dispute this CNN article” thing and it’s just not true. At this point there is NO full truth about what happened, that is why it’s being investigated. Add to that, you have anonymous Federal Intelligence sources talking to CNN about classified material, any average person should question stories based on such claims.

SilverWook said:

Before the truth about Watergate was known, were things any different?

Investigative Journalism was a far different thing then. They actually cared about what and how they reported. Now, too many people believe that "maybe and “possibly” articles, are more factual than the weather they see developing right outside their windows.

On a side note, I didn’t realize this site was as old as Nixon would be, if he was still alive.

😉 (this wink denotes the last sentence as me being humorous)

chyron8472 said:

As Hillary said, she would have been a good president

No. No she wouldn’t have been. She would have been god-awful terrible. Just like Trump is god-awful terrible, but in a different way.

Just because Trump is a joke, and he is, does not mean she would have been good or better.

It was truly a lose-lose situation in this country.

NeverarGreat said:

People keep underestimating Trump, saying that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. He absolutely knows when to deflect, distract, blame, defame, and call names. He knows how to play Machiavelli’s lion and fox, and I fear that the media is just going to let him slink away on this one.

He knows what he’s doing in the way you described, yes. He doesn’t know what he’s doing as far as governing goes. I guarantee he doesn’t understand what’s in the health care bill.

I’ll repeat this one last time. And it’s not directed at Fo because that’s clearly a dead end.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”

If anyone can point out the bias and inaccuracy in this, feel free.

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll repeat this one last time. And it’s not directed at Fo because that’s clearly a dead end.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”

If anyone can point out the bias and inaccuracy in this, feel free.

Aside from you just not letting this go, as usual, I’ll quote myself.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”

SilverWook said:

Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn

And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.html

CNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.

Read what I wrote, I mention nothing about the “specific article” that you’re obviously quite proud of quoting and reposting. I question CNN itself.

Words/phrases in that article like “claiming” and “I think” don’t lend any credibility to the fact that the article isn’t telling anyone anything new. It’s already heard news that’s just been reworded and rephrased to make it look new.

So, the article I posted about CNN talks about this exact thing, gasbags filling a studio is cheaper and less hot air if they’re going to improve. At this point, CNN just isn’t top echelon reporting when it comes to words, and the one article I posted clearly bears this out. It’s cheap theatrics at best and a ratings grab they cannot master at this point.

The only news I actually follow at this point is H.A. Goodman (who is not a Trump or Clinton supporter) and the live Press briefs.