2018 Senate (& House)

They discredited themselves through decades of slant and bias. The bias has simply become more obvious to everybody in the last 10 years or so.

 

You act as if the "media" is a single entity. That's the intention of the alt-right and their minions. You see, if they can find a few examples of bad behavior by the significantly diversified center and left media, it invalidates it all. A single nefarious journalist from the NYT can be leveraged to discredit an organization that has 5,400 employees. Heck, often times they don't even find a nefarious actor but rather try to purposely confuse opinion columnists with news journalists. JoeFan does that here nearly daily. Of course, these purveyors of this narrative rarely show the alternate is true, when they take down a liberal or have a conservative columnist that makes some good points. Why? Their collective narrative is to paint all non-right wing journalists as liberals, whether true or not. All media that doesn't push their world view is seen as progressive so they do everything in their power to discredit their facts, usually through half-truths, memes and outright fabrications. The fact that a well-informed conservative such as yourself has bought into the confusion is why I say that the alt-right has won.

 

Respectfully, you're throwing up a strawman here. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but you're doing it. Yes, the media bias gets overplayed and exaggerated by some who are exploiting it for political purposes, but that doesn't nullify the general point. Tons of research has been done on the issue, and it's pretty And the NYT isn't a good example to bring up. Their partisanship is pretty obvious. No Republican presidential endorsements since 1956? Seriously? You have to be pretty lopsidedly partisan to do that.

It's true that some blur the opinion columnists with news journalists, but that's an unnecessary distortion. Consider this quote from a source that I'm pretty sure you've cited to. "They (meaning the Times) often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes." Couple that with the fact that some of their alleged news journalists have been caught in the sack with Democratic campaigns, and it's pretty clear that they're carrying an agenda, and it's closely aligned with the Democratic Party's. It's more than a single nefarious journalist who's compromising the Times' credibility.

Also, I think bias can come through in how a paper approaches opinion work as well. Consider the liberal writers they publish. It's hardcore, confrontational, and uncompromising liberal partisans - people like Michelle Goldberg, Paul Krugman, Charles Blow, Nicholas Kristof, etc. Who are their conservative writers? David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Bret Stephens. All three are very conciliatory in their approach and tone and far less partisan. Where is somebody who's as confrontational and partisan as Charles Blow but on the Right? It doesn't exist at the Times. (By the way, Fox News does the same thing. They'll hire liberals but none who are as combative and partisan as Sean Hannity and most of their conservative commentators.)

And since you stipulate that I'm a "well-informed conservative" who has argued with and denounced the alt-Right on several occasions, you shouldn't assume that I'm that easily confused. Like the 2016 election, this isn't a binary issue, and it isn't cut and dry. The Times can be partisan hacks without the alt-Right's vision being accurate. Most propagandists (like those associated with the alt-Right and others) don't come up with a completely groundless narrative. That's too hard to pitch and get people to accept. They take a narrative that has truth to it (like that the political media is partisan and frequently applies double standards) and and them embellish upon it with false ancillary information to drive a much more potent and inflammatory narrative. I'm well-informed enough to buy the underlying narrative that I've recognized on my own after reading thousands of news and opinion articles in mainstream media sources for the last 29 years and reading up on the issue of bias from respectable sources while rejecting the sensationalism that your Alex Jones types come up with to drive a more sinister narrative.

 

The Lib MSM has moved well beyond bias and into blatant collusion.

How many times have we seen MSM headlines all parrot the same adjective after a major action or speech by DT? They've went on the unified 'dark' rampage at least twice I can recall since DT won the election.

Then there's all the nonsense stories that were equally plastered all over MSM about DT's two scoops of ice cream, SHS not baking a real pie, etc.

It's clear as day they are guided to use specific words, talking points, and narratives from a Lib power above.

If only the Lib citizens were smart enough to realize a weaponized, propaganda media is as dangerous as it gets for all Americans.

Sooner or later their guns will point in your direction and it will no longer be trivial and blown off as exaggeration. Just ask Bernie supporters how it feels.

 

The House has opened its own investigation into leaks
And one of the suspects for the leak is that creep Evan McMullin.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/335340-house-gop-leaders-launch-review-into-leak

 

That Tim Wise guy needs to be shot.

 

I get not voting for Doug Jones but voting for Roy Moore based on what we know now says "My party winning is more important than individuals character." Roy Moore still being in the race is a travesty and an insult to rational thought.

 

I said that after reading a couple of dozen twits from Tim Wise, not based solely on the post copied to this thread.

 

"My party winning is more important than individuals character."

Well SH, now isn't that familiar? Can't imagine where I've heard that before in these American politics.

 

Personally, I wouldn't vote for Roy Moore and wouldn't have voted for him even without these revelations basically for the same reason I didn't vote for Trump. However, the issue isn't raw partisanship. The media and Democrats are pitching that narrative, but it misses the mark and cheapens the real issue, which is the perception of what the stakes are. If you think your culture and values depend on who wins elections, then backing Moore is a perfectly rational and sensible thing to do. I'm not saying they're right to think that, but that's what politics has become. It's war. It shouldn't be, but it is.

And Democrats are spouting some phony righteousness here. They'd never just willingly toss a Senate seat just because they realized that they nominated a bad guy.

 

If was in Alabama and I saw Franken not forced to resign, I would have no compunction to vote against Moore.

 

Is 30+yr old Roy Moore showing up to your daughter's school (or worse) is the same as Franken grabbing your wife's *** while taking a picture? To me, one would warrant a fist fight, the other a gun. The fact that we can't discern between attacks on adults and those on kids is unconscionable.

 

One was recent, the other was 30 years ago. If we can’t discern that, then what can we do?

 

One was with minors and other adults. That isn't enough? He admits to scoping out his wife when she was 15 (at a dance competition) before he started dating her when she was 23.

 

One was consensual, one was not. We can play this game all night. Just saying a Franken supporter isn’t going to cause a lot of grief for a Moore supporter.

 

Democratic Party "icon," John Conyers, will not seek re-election in the wake of multiple disclosures of his decades-long mistreatment of women
But he will not resign

 

Hahahahahahahaha, scoping out? Really? Come on SH. You can do better. My daddy 'scoped out' my momma long before they married when she was 17, back in 1922. Hahaha, and oh yeah, they did not partake until marriage, just an FYI. Guess scoping out means different things to different people maybe?

 

You can't consensually touch a 14 year old girl in a sexual manner if you're an adult. What Moore did was worse than what Franken did, and Republicans sound idiotic arguing otherwise.

However, like I said, they're all hypocrites. If the party affiliations were switched, both sides would be saying the exact same points in reverse. What Franken did wasn't as bad as bad as what Moore did, but was it as bad as what Bob Packwood did? It was certainly in that ballpark, and he faced expulsion.

 

Another one (#5)
Enough to call it a pattern?

 

John Conyers has been hospitalized

 

Cyanide poisoning?

 

I want to post a gif of Fred Sampson grabbing his heart, but I dont want to get reported. You have to be of a certain vintage to get that

 

"My heart! My heart!"

Nancy Pelosi: John Conyers should resign

Kind of mean to do while he is dying in the hospital. Arguably sociopathic.
She must have received permission/blessing from the Congressional Black Caucus. She would not do this without it. They lives in fear of the CBC

 

This update did not take long

 

Has Elizabeth Warren lost the Daily Show?

 

Joe Barton's nude selfie has ended his political career
Will not seek re-erection