DanteGabriel Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 48 minutes ago, Ormond said: Tywin, "it's been reported" makes you comment about Murdoch sound like "fake news" unless you tell us WHERE it has been reported. That sounds to me like the Internet trying to make a good story even better unless there is really evidence that's more than just a rumor. I agree about the need to be cautious about accepting this account, but just imagine being a producer on Fox News and making the call to cut off the President live, who also happens to be for all purposes an honorary chairman of the company and is famously thin-skinned and vindictive. The cut off call very likely did have to come from up the chain, if not necessarily Murdoch himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Unless violently sarcastic and caustic directed at the right -- any use of "fake news" immediately invalidates any attempted point. The phrase means absolutely fucking nothing at this point. Allowing it into our normal lexicon is moronic and painful (to all of my senses). eta - THE PAIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 44 minutes ago, dmc515 said: That's like Reagan's Iran-Contra defense. "I wasn't corrupt, I was incompetent!" I mean I guess. I just thought I had read that he was kind of looking the other way rather than actively participating. Granted, () Ulysses’ presidency is one I know little about. Quote That's true. But if the average person was asked to describe Grant as president, I think they'd say "drunk" first. Corruption would be second though. Dude, do you think the average person knows he was a president, or even who he is? Quote Yeah I tried to find something about it as well and couldn't. Ormond's right - FAKE NEWS! Lies! It’s just another layer in the Australian collusion scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 15 minutes ago, Week said: Allowing it into our normal lexicon is moronic. It's in the lexicon whether you want it or not. Also, there actually is a huge, legitimate fake news problem - why do you think Mark Zuckerberg looks so mopey lately? Just because Trump falsely appropriated the term doesn't make it verboten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Just now, dmc515 said: It's in the lexicon whether you want it or not. Also, there actually is a huge, legitimate fake news problem - why do you think Mark Zuckerberg looks so mopey lately? Just because Trump falsely appropriated the term doesn't make it verboten. It means complete nonsense -- there is a completely different meaning based on who is using it which makes it mean, effectively, nothing. Poor sourcing No sourcing Fabricated news Biased reporting etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: I mean I guess. I just thought I had read that he was kind of looking the other way rather than actively participating. Yeah, that would be the details of the defense. It's perfectly plausible - and may well reflect reality in both Grant and Reagan's cases - but not much of an actual defense. 2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Dude, do you think the average person knows he was a president, or even who he is? Maybe? I think the average American knows who he is, at least. Do they know he was president? That's tough. Sitting on the fence on that one. 4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Lies! It’s just another layer in the Australian collusion scandal. Steve Irwin is alive and well and swims in the everglades! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 The only positive point of seeing such a moron as President is that it has (for me at least) thoroughly smashed the idea of the US as some sort of meritocratic society. I mean, we all knew this of course, but now we have a very concrete example and I am ready to extrapolate this theme into all aspects of the zeitgeist (academia, industry, the arts, government etc...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, Week said: Fabricated news This is synonymous with fake news. Your point means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Grant was President in Wild, Wild West. Judging by the box office returns of that turkey, you folks may be right that the average American does not actually know who he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: Grant was President in Wild, Wild West. Judging by the box office returns of that turkey, you folks may be right that the average American does not actually know who he is. Want to blame Grant for that movie fine. You should give him credit for the song and Cartman performance of it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 29 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Maybe, but you're the one that started this moronic discussion. The use of the term fake news doesn't entail anything, nor encourages Trump supporters - they're gonna continue to misuse the term regardless. It's like saying referring to DC corruption as "the swamp" is encouraging Trump. No, he's not the first person to run against Washington, just as he's not the first person to come up with "priming the pump." Peace brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 1 hour ago, dmc515 said: Maybe? I think the average American knows who he is, at least. Do they know he was president? That's tough. Sitting on the fence on that one. I think if I asked the average person, “Is Ulysses Grant a real person or a fictional character?”, it would be a coin flip. If I then asked the people who said he’s a real person “What’s he famous for?”, more people would say the Civil War than he was a president. The amount of people who’d know both is probably smaller than you’d think. People today don’t know anything. Did you ever see Jaw Walking from the Tonight Show? I know they’re cherry picked, but people in this country are uninformed. I bet more people today could name more Kardashians than they could name 19th century presidents. In fact, let’s make this a game. Without cheating, list the number of presidents and Kardashians you can name in separate spoiler tabs and then out side of report back how many you got right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Spoiler Kardashians - Kim, Chloe, Rob (Do Kendall and Kylie count? I don't know). 19th century presidents - Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Tyler, Taylor, Jackson, Harrison, Van Buren, Hayes, Lincoln, Grant Kardashians - 5 Presidents - 11 (I regret forgetting a few more reading the list) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I think if I asked the average person, “Is Ulysses Grant a real person or a fictional character?”, it would be a coin flip. If I then asked the people who said he’s a real person “What’s he famous for?”, more people would say the Civil War than he was a president. The amount of people who’d know both is probably smaller than you’d think. People today don’t know anything. Did you ever see Jaw Walking from the Tonight Show? I know they’re cherry picked, but people in this country are uninformed. I bet more people today could name more Kardashians than they could name 19th century presidents. In fact, let’s make this a game. Without cheating, list the number of presidents and Kardashians you can name in separate spoiler tabs and then out side of report back how many you got right. From memory: Spoiler Washington Adams Jefferson Madison Monroe J.Q. Adams Jackson VanBuren W. H. Harrison Tyler Polk Taylor Filmore Pierce Buchannon Lincoln A. Johnson Grant Hayes Garfield Arthur Cleveland B. Harrison Cleveland McKinnley T. Roosevelt Taft Wilson Harding Coolidge Hoover FDR Truman Eisenhower JFK LBJ Nixon Ford Carter Reagan G. H. W. Bush Clinton G. W. Bush Obama Orange Man Spoiler Kim Chloe Jenners count? Kendal Jenner Caitlyn Jenner The mom...I can never remember the mom's name? Oh well, I'm a bad American I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 4 hours ago, dmc515 said: I have in the past, multiple times. Don't mean to be rude, but at this moment I'm tired of it. So, let me get back to you after at least a smoke. To answer your last question, no, they're not applicable at the state level - not enough data. ETA: @Mudguard - below is a post that explains it pretty well. Thank you forum gods for improving the search function - this only took seconds to find: Again, just because a model predicts the results even correctly (especially at the national level, predicting of all things the national popular vote) does not mean it is correct in the assumption of why people are voting. Really, this is incredibly disingenuous - you're going from saying that a model which predicts the national popular two-party vote by percentage only, not turnout, and only takes into account two simple variables (literally the gallup poll in July + the GNP) and says that'll be the percentage value - and extrapolate that sorry excuse for a model for why, say, Wisconsin voters voted for Trump more. Even more bizarre, you are saying this is attributed to how people feel about the economy, when the massive value of that model is 99.6% based on the popularity of the POTUS. Maybe the reason that you're getting so much pushback on this is that the idea that the economy was the primary factor is largely refuted by the examples you yourself are providing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkess Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: In fact, let’s make this a game. Without cheating, list the number of presidents and Kardashians you can name in separate spoiler tabs and then out side of report back how many you got right. Spoiler Kardashians: Khloe Kim Rob Jenners: Kris Kendall Caitlyn Kylie 7, if you also count Jenners. Never seen their show but they are pretty ubiquitous in pop culture/references. Spoiler Presidents: Washington J Adams Jefferson Madison Monroe JQ Adams Jackson Van Buren WH Harrison Tyler Polk Taylor Buchanan Lincoln A Johnson Grant Hayes Arthur Garfield Cleveland (x2) McKinley B Harrison Taft T Roosevelt Wilson Coolidge Hoover FD Roosevelt Truman Eisenhower Nixon Ford Kennedy LB Johnson Carter Reagan GHW Bush Clinton GW Bush Obama Trump 41 (unique) presidents, think there should be 43? Hmmm gonna bug me now. Also I know the order is not entirely correct! ETA: Spoiler Dammit, Harding, Fillmore, and Pierce! ETA2: Oops, just noticed it was specifically 19th century Presidents. Oh well I just went above and beyond! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 26 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Reveal hidden contents Kardashians - Kim, Chloe, Rob (Do Kendall and Kylie count? I don't know). 19th century presidents - Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Tyler, Taylor, Jackson, Harrison, Van Buren, Hayes, Lincoln, Grant Kardashians - 5 Presidents - 11 (I regret forgetting a few more reading the list) That means your splits were 62.5% of the Kardashian (not counting the babies and spouses) and 48% of the presidents. You are an incredibly informed person who talks politics every day, and you could name a great percentage of America’s first family of stupidity than you could 19th century presidents. What do you think an uninformed person would get. Also, stick to the 19th century, those are the hard ones and yes, Jenners count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: That means your splits were 62.5% of the Kardashian (not counting the babies and spouses) and 48% of the presidents. You are an incredibly informed person who talks politics every day, and you could name a great percentage of America’s first family of stupidity than you could 19th century presidents. What do you think an uninformed person would get. Also, stick to the 19th century, those are the hard ones and yes, Jenners count. I don't think that is really a reasonable comparison. You're welcome to say that knowing about the Kardashians is irrelevant, but you can easily argue that knowing about William Henry Harrison or James Garfield is not just irrelevant (neither accomplished anything of note as President), but irrelevant and outdated. Of course most people are going to know more about entertainers from today than presidential trivia. Whyever wouldn't they? I'm the first to argue that people need to know their history to be informed productive citizens, but this is a bad test to determine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: I was watching the team on CNN live reporting the conversation, switching back and forth from comments to running pieces of the conversation as it went on. And they couldn’t help themselves (who could?) from talking about the looks on the faces of the three Fox hosts. As a not-dumb person I've never had children, so my lady plumbing is generally pretty reliable. But I might have pissed myself when I saw Trevor Noah's recap of the convo where they zoomed in on facial expressions and hand gestures without ever pausing the stream of unconsciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 18 hours ago, Triskele said: Whatever the details are, Avenatti is sure enjoying the shit out of this... Yeah, he's like a cat playing with a mouse. He was on Bill Maher last week (I think) and Maher asked him about plans for running for office and interestingly enough he didn't rule it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.