OT: watching the sunday shows

[bob]

WARNING to all unbiased and fair minded voters:

this election season has turned so rancid i don't believe we'll get a
*single* true word out of the media going forward. smart people will
have to sift through all the data and make a logical conclusion on
their own, the media isn't going to give it an ounce of a fair shake.
the polls i'm reading have it dead tie atm.

bob

[Carey]

Well and tactfully said, bob.



Jill Stein for President '16

[calim...@gmx.de]

Yeah, of course - all the media are bought by the Democrats ...
What a whining douche you are!

Max

[TT]

That makes no sense, other than as a statement to ignore facts.

It's true that "mainstream media" is biased towards Clinton... that
should be obvious considering she's running against a incompetent
borderline psychopath. But that's just opinions in the media - the
content is valid. You're not going to find factual errors in something
like Washington Post or New York Times... at least I haven't, they're
very high standard.

As for the polls. Yes, Nate Silver's site shows them at 50-50 currently.
However I don't think that is true odds. During DNC someone interviewed
Clinton campaign person and showed her that Nate Silver's site says that
Trump is favourite in Florida. Her reply was rather sensible: "Hard to
believe that, Florida is too diverse for Trump to win it". She had a point.

One would expect that in the long run people see the flaws with Trump
better and better and Clinton should win it. However at the same time it
seems that Trump can do and say anything without consequence to his
popularity. It's strange and rather worrying phenomenon in context of US
politics, democracy and perhaps even humanity.

Betfair says Clinton has 69% odds to win. That's probably closer to the
truth, I think.

[bob]

simply warning my fellow americans to use their own logic as to what
to believe, as the media has gone off the deep end with bias this
cycle.

i could smell this coming a year ago when i saw the anti establishment
guy getting some steam, i knew that boat didn't want to be rocked.

bob

[Shakes]

I can see that happening. A very similar thing happened a couple of years ago in the elections in India. The media ran a tremendous campaign against one of the PM candidates and, unfortunately for them, he won with the largest majority in 30 yrs. MSM is establishment controlled in most places these days.

[Guypers]

+1, ggod post TT, more knowledgeable about our politics than the local rednecks who vote for drumpf, or the ones who post here!

[bob]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:12:37 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>31.7.2016, 20:31, bob kirjoitti:
>> WARNING to all unbiased and fair minded voters:
>>
>> this election season has turned so rancid i don't believe we'll get a
>> *single* true word out of the media going forward. smart people will
>> have to sift through all the data and make a logical conclusion on
>> their own, the media isn't going to give it an ounce of a fair shake.
>> the polls i'm reading have it dead tie atm.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>That makes no sense, other than as a statement to ignore facts.
>
>It's true that "mainstream media" is biased towards Clinton... that
>should be obvious considering she's running against a incompetent
>borderline psychopath. But that's just opinions in the media - the
>content is valid. You're not going to find factual errors in something
>like Washington Post or New York Times... at least I haven't, they're
>very high standard.

the media should cover the news, not make it. the media shouldn't be
campaigning for a candidate either.

>As for the polls. Yes, Nate Silver's site shows them at 50-50 currently.
>However I don't think that is true odds. During DNC someone interviewed
>Clinton campaign person and showed her that Nate Silver's site says that
>Trump is favourite in Florida. Her reply was rather sensible: "Hard to
>believe that, Florida is too diverse for Trump to win it". She had a point.

50-50 doesn't matter, it's analyzing each state's votes. this far
ahead, guessing it'll boil to 3 states IMO: fla, ohio, pennsylvania.
if trump takes those 3 he's president, but that's unlikely.

>One would expect that in the long run people see the flaws with Trump
>better and better and Clinton should win it. However at the same time it
>seems that Trump can do and say anything without consequence to his
>popularity. It's strange and rather worrying phenomenon in context of US
>politics, democracy and perhaps even humanity.
>
>Betfair says Clinton has 69% odds to win. That's probably closer to the
>truth, I think.

yes, i say 2/3 chance at least. although i saw today assange said he
has lots more on the election to release....

bob

[TT]

1.8.2016, 1:58, bob kirjoitti:
> yes, i say 2/3 chance at least. although i saw today assange said he
> has lots more on the election to release....

Assange would of course release the stuff when it hurts Clinton the most
(likely just before the election day). He did so with DNC emails as
well. He has personal quarrel with Hillary.

That possibility/uncertainty is of course included in that 69%...

I say take down Assange. Send James Bond to kill him, or take him out of
the embassy where he hides. Or even better - negotiate with Ecuador to
kick him out of the embassy.

[Gracchus]

I didn't realize that Assange said that. Now I'm a real fan of his. :)

Look, why should there be anything in those e-mails to "hurt" Hillary unless she and/or the DNC did something very wrong that they should be embarrassed about? Good job, Julian!

I think Hillary will win regardless, but at least her elephantine buttocks will be quivering with fear for a while.

[TT]

1.8.2016, 2:31, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:12:50 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> 1.8.2016, 1:58, bob kirjoitti:
>
>>> yes, i say 2/3 chance at least. although i saw today assange said he
>>> has lots more on the election to release....
>
>> Assange would of course release the stuff when it hurts Clinton the most
>> (likely just before the election day). He did so with DNC emails as
>> well. He has personal quarrel with Hillary.
>
>> That possibility/uncertainty is of course included in that 69%...
>
>> I say take down Assange. Send James Bond to kill him, or take him out of
>> the embassy where he hides. Or even better - negotiate with Ecuador to
>> kick him out of the embassy.
>
> I didn't realize that Assange said that. Now I'm a real fan of his. :)
>

Assange claims it's not personal but it most certainly is. I think
Clinton wanted him to answer for his deeds in US court... which he still
may have to do when he leaves the embassy.

In any case, the timing of the leak reveals that Assange is very much
biased and not just a messenger.

> Look, why should there be anything in those e-mails to "hurt" Hillary

There of course wasn't.

But the idea was to disturb Democratic Convention, to make good news to
bad news for the party and in media. In that context it could have
influenced Hillary as well, as in replacing some positive DNC coverage
with negative.

[bob]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 16:31:55 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:12:50 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> 1.8.2016, 1:58, bob kirjoitti:
>
>> > yes, i say 2/3 chance at least. although i saw today assange said he
>> > has lots more on the election to release....
>
>> Assange would of course release the stuff when it hurts Clinton the most
>> (likely just before the election day). He did so with DNC emails as
>> well. He has personal quarrel with Hillary.
>
>> That possibility/uncertainty is of course included in that 69%...
>
>> I say take down Assange. Send James Bond to kill him, or take him out of
>> the embassy where he hides. Or even better - negotiate with Ecuador to
>> kick him out of the embassy.
>
>I didn't realize that Assange said that. Now I'm a real fan of his. :)

admitted he has more on hillary, and timed 1st wave with convention.
:-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716498/Julian-Assange-confirms-Wikileaks-material-related-Hillary-Clinton-s-campaign-admits-publication-bombshell-DNC-emails-timed-coincide-convention.html

>Look, why should there be anything in those e-mails to "hurt" Hillary unless she and/or the DNC did something very wrong that they should be embarrassed about? Good job, Julian!
>I think Hillary will win regardless, but at least her elephantine buttocks will be quivering with fear for a while.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 02:58:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>1.8.2016, 2:31, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:12:50 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>> 1.8.2016, 1:58, bob kirjoitti:
>>
>>>> yes, i say 2/3 chance at least. although i saw today assange said he
>>>> has lots more on the election to release....
>>
>>> Assange would of course release the stuff when it hurts Clinton the most
>>> (likely just before the election day). He did so with DNC emails as
>>> well. He has personal quarrel with Hillary.
>>
>>> That possibility/uncertainty is of course included in that 69%...
>>
>>> I say take down Assange. Send James Bond to kill him, or take him out of
>>> the embassy where he hides. Or even better - negotiate with Ecuador to
>>> kick him out of the embassy.
>>
>> I didn't realize that Assange said that. Now I'm a real fan of his. :)
>>
>
>Assange claims it's not personal but it most certainly is. I think
>Clinton wanted him to answer for his deeds in US court... which he still
>may have to do when he leaves the embassy.
>
>In any case, the timing of the leak reveals that Assange is very much
>biased and not just a messenger.

you mean like the press?

bob

[TT]

I mean that if you're going to propagate stolen secrets then you better
make sure you have damn high morals and are doing it for freedom of the
press only. Assange is not. He's complicit of the crime.

[bob]

like the press? lol.

bob

[TT]

Maybe you'd prefer Russian press instead.

But hey, you always has fair and balanced Fox News.

Liked Trump's lovely words about Ayers btw...

[bob]

maybe. ours is an embarrassment right now.

>But hey, you always has fair and balanced Fox News. Liked Trump's lovely words about Ayers btw...

bob

[TT]

In that case I urge you to read about freedom of speech and the press in
Russia...

Russia is in bottom 20%...
https://rsf.org/en/ranking

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

Turkey
is a NATO member, meaning it should be part of the free
world, right?
It's bellow Russia.

Iraq and Libya, countries liberated by neocons, are bellow Russia
as well.

Saudi Arabia, a staunch US ally in the region, is bellow as well.



Now, that's even without putting in question the credibility of
the those who made this list.

There is certainly a great deal of political motivation to falsely
portray status in the Russian media.


Like e.g. in the case of Masha Gessen who got fired after refusing
to write about Putin's environmentalist efforts with Siberian
tigers of something, claiming they're politically motivated. Well
of course they are.

Imagine CNN reporter refusing to report about Al Gore global
warming story claiming it's ballooney. And when that journo gets
sacked it's Bush to be blamed???

You see the deviousness of anti Russian propaganda.

What the editor supposed to do with a worker who won't work?

And I am sure her case is presented as a one pearl in the long
necklace of Russia's undemocratic media.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[bob]

and by november we'll be in that same categoy, if not already.

bob

[TT]

Most of politics in Russian media is outright lies and propaganda coming
from Putin, who controls media, justice, parliament, army and business.
Everything. If you don't like that then you'll be killed or sent to
Siberia with some excuse.

BUT I think Russian media is often very informative - especially Putin's
and Lavrov's statements... the rule of thumb is that if they claim
something the truth is exactly the opposite. This was nicely highlighted
during Ukraine conflict.