The media and it's discrepancies

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 9:51 am

Maybe wrote:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/pew-center-1-8-million-dead-people-voter-rolls-2-75-million-registered-two-states/

** Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
** More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
** Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfgEvgVC6Qs

Obumer illegals can vote without fear

Including Tiffany Trump and Stephen Bannon.

But you haven't cited anything about voter fraud. People move, and voter records aren't purged. People die, and voter rolls aren't purged. That doesnt mean anyone voted illegally, much less people who are not entitled to vote.

Of course, it is, by definition, impossible to have an intelligent conversation with anyone who refers to President Obama as "Obumer."

amother

Blush

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 10:05 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Um. Haven't you just made the argument in favor of voter ID laws?

At a minimum, can you accept that the argument in favor of voter ID laws has a reasonable basis?

Or, at an even more basic minimum, that the issue should be investigated so as to determine WHETHER these unpurged registrations are being used to propagate fraud? Which was exactly....Trump's point. As I said.

Jeanette

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 10:45 am

Look, that wasn't Trump's argument. He claimed that if not for 3 million illegal aliens voting, he would have won the popular vote too. Then to make him sound semi- reasonable people bring up dead people and people registered in two states and voter id laws.

As to showing id, I'd support the law if it weren't so blatantly politicized and designed to suppress turnout in minority areas that tend to vote democratic. If it were coupled with strong measures to boost turnout like enabling early voting, streamlined voter registration, making sure there are enough polling sites and polling workers so people aren't deterred by long lines. With sessions in the DOJ I'm not holding my breath.

Fox

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 10:50 am

Jeanette wrote:

Quote:

And please don't brag about never having heard of her except on Imamother. That's just embarrassing.

I say it again without the slightest trace of embarrassment.

Outside the fevered swamps of the right wing blogosphere, who exactly is paying attention or cares what Linda Sarsour has to say?

Linda Sarsour's name has been popping up in NY media for a few years now, including positive coverage by the NYT, well-known as a denizen of the fevered, right-wing swamp. Oh, wait . . .

At the national level, she's been covered by Rolling Stone, Glamour, Elle. She's appeared on MSNBC, CBS, and CNN as well as on local NY stations.

Conservatives of all stripes are still howling with laughter about her 2015 interview on MSNBC, during which she complained to Rachel Maddow about states attempting to legislate anti-Sharia statutes. Rachel certainly wouldn't have to worry about being "sent to a camp" under Sharia; she'd simply be killed by her male relatives for dishonoring the family.

Sarsour has been identified positively in numerous "people to watch" lists and has been repeatedly praised for standing up to Islamophobia.

Who is paying attention to her? Anybody who reads NY papers; watches establishment media; or leafs through women's magazines in search of perfume samples.

Jeanette wrote:

Funny how the right wing media is still harping on the women's march which was nearly 3 weeks ago. The Trump Train has already left that station long ago...

Well, this will free up a lot of everyone's time! What's the cut-off? Do things that happened 1 week qualify for analysis? What about 10 days ago? What if something happened 14 days ago but there was a legal holiday in there? Enquiring minds want to know!

Jeanette wrote:

And by the way, which conservative media is up in arms about Warren being silenced? I popped over to two right wing sites (FR and Breitbart) and predictably found only self-congratulatory back-slapping on Warren being "spanked" by the senate.

I didn't have time to respond last night, but I checked Breitbart as soon as I read this. I saw absolutely no backslapping.

Now, I grant that reading Breitbart is a bit like being a Kremlin-watcher in the era of the Cold War. You have to know the players, where they rank in the hierarchy, and follow them on Twitter. The op eds to pay attention to are almost always written by Joel Pollak, "Virgil," or Alex Marlow. They were officially silent about the Warren fiasco. There was a single piece of reporting by Neil McCabe and a piece on the history of shutting up recalcitrant Senators.

So then you move over to Twitter to see who's re-tweeting whom. People like Pollak and Marlow tend to remain above the fray, but writers like Allum Bokhari, Tom Cicotta, Aaron Klein, Charlie Nash, and Ben Kew re-tweet the usual suspects like Shapiro and Rubin, along with more unpredictable voices like Cathy Young and various hard libertarians.

By the time I went to bed, the growing consensus was that any sane person would support Elizabeth Warren's right to say whatever she wanted for as long as she wanted -- in exchange for Ben Shapiro shutting up for a few hours.

Amother wrote:

The people who caused all of the violence were not part of the protest. They are not considered "liberals" by any of the Berkeley liberals. They are anarchists who are out to cause trouble and destruction. People here are very upset that they showed up and derailed an otherwise good protest of Milo's appearance on campus. Much better for him to have spoken, the protesters do their little protest, and then everyone goes home. But then this group dressed all in black comes and causes havoc, behaves violently and grabs news headlines.

Most everyone know here hates what Milo has to say. BUT, by and large, they defend his right to say it. (Some Jews here think that his speech is not necessarily protected speech, especially since he has singled out individual students at his campus appearances in the past).

Free speech is very important to us here and we are outraged that this little group of anarchists or agitators showed up and became violent.

am just here to say that liberal old Berkeley is committed to free speech and the free exchange of ideas and abhors the violent acts of that mob last week.

This explanation was well on its way to mollifying everyone until a few says ago. First, various establishment media promoted Robert Reich's ridiculous allegations that Breitbart had engaged the anarchists. Then, Mayor Jesse Arreguin attempted to shift the blame. And now, the UC Berkeley student papers are full of indignant defenses of the violence.

As for the hate speech versus protected speech problem with Milo, this is also a messy and complex mix of people and ideas. I sort of opted out of joining the hardcore Milosphere about a year and a half ago. First of all, I'm not enough of an intellectual heavy-lifter. Second of all, women of a certain age and set of experiences tend to find themselves rotating a slightly creepy role of de facto mom. I'm terribly sorry that Ms. Hanrahan or whatever her name is made a mash of things back in Kent, but I've got my own kids to scold. Third, there are more appropriate hobbies for frum women to have.

Anyway, the role is currently held by FencingBearAtPrayer, and my understanding is that metaphorical spankings were administered after the student in Milwaukee was singled out. Of course, the fact that the student had filed a lawsuit and granted interviews to several journalists made her argument a bit less compelling.

Perhaps the best course of action for everyone is to follow the example of Ariana Rowlands (@IAmQueenAri), whose recent focus has been on a pair of new shoes.

amother

Blush

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 11:03 am

Jeanette wrote:

I think this is a valid point.

I also think that when he makes these types of comments, Trump knows it's outlandish but he's baiting people into the argument; a [successful] means to get publicity for his positions.

Of course anyone is free to disagree and insist he's really just clueless. The problem with that view is that we end up NOT discussing the actual issues.

As to your second paragraph, I happen to agree with most of it--but that discussion will never happen so long as we're all stuck analyzing how uninformed Trump really is or isn't.

Jeanette

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 11:09 am

It's a bait and switch. If trump says something crazy, don't blame the rest of us for responding to what he says rather than to what you insist he meant. If he wants serious discussion, let him make serious arguments.

amother

Blush

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 11:23 am

Jeanette wrote:

And this brings us back full circle to the problem of media bias.

These discussions never happen!! Trump is now forcing them to happen.

Although not really; the msm could choose to just ignore his tweets and focus on what he's actually getting done...

Fox

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 11:26 am

Here's the problem I've always had with the whole voter ID controversy:

It seems to me that the problem is not disenfranchisement, it's lack of ID.

It makes no sense to me that we care about a person's ability to vote but have virtually no interest in ensuring that he/she can partake of the most rudimentary benefits of society.

Without an ID, you can't get a public library card. You can't apply for any type of public benefit. You can't rent a car. You can't get on an airplane. You can't rent an apartment on your own. You can't secure employment beyond the most casual kinds of labor.

Your lack of ID, especially if you have a language barrier, can place you in an especially vulnerable position where you can be kept as a virtual prisoner. One of the first steps in human trafficking and contemporary slavery is to confiscate a person's ID.

Yes, it's a little scary . . . none of us likes the idea of the government controlling our identities, though I would argue that ship sailed a long time ago and we happily walked up the gangway and settled in.

The problem isn't that people with ID can't vote; the problem is that people without ID are vulnerable to a lot worse things.

Last edited by Fox on Thu, Feb 09 2017, 11:33 am; edited 1 time in total

Jeanette

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 11:28 am

I think he tweets because he really is that insecure and can't accept that he lost the popular vote. You think he tweets as some sort of uber-clever media strategy. Either way, the media is not at fault for choosing to report and analyze his tweets. He is the president after all. One of the drawbacks (if you want to look at it that way) is that your pronouncements have power and will be taken at face value. He can't tweet one thing and then blame the media for not immediately realizing that he really meant something else.

amother

Blush

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 11:52 am

Jeanette wrote:

Like him or hate him, his strategy seems to be working. Recent polls show 49% of people see Trump as truthful, but only 39% see the media as truthful.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb.....6.pdf

youngishbear

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 12:05 pm

amother wrote:

Like him or hate him, his strategy seems to be working. Recent polls show 49% of people see Trump as truthful, but only 39% see the media as truthful.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb.....6.pdf

My guess is that the numbers for both have been falling.

amother

Blush

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 12:05 pm

Miri7 wrote:

I read a lot of news and often see that they are careful to state when something is alleged, unsubstantiated, etc. And when they make an error, they issue a retraction.

Then you might find this interesting:
Fake News Rap Sheet: Last Week the MSM Was Caught Telling FORTY Lies
http://www.dailywire.com/news/.....nolte

The problem is not just inaccurate reporting. It's that the misleading statements are intended to further a specific agenda. The msm holds itself out as neutral but it isn't.

And it's not just 40 particular lies, or 400 or even 4,000 that are the real problem.

The problem is the slanting; the decision about WHICH pieces of news should be made into headlines and which should be ignored.

The tiniest details that are intended to add sympathy to a particular cause.

The way you see an article headlined, "Palestinian youth shot in back of head by Israeli Soldier", and you only find buried in the middle of paragraph 7, a passing reference to the fact that the "youth" was in the midst of knifing an Israeli baby when he was shot.

Jeanette

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 12:05 pm

amother wrote:

Like him or hate him, his strategy seems to be working. Recent polls show 49% of people see Trump as truthful, but only 39% see the media as truthful.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb.....6.pdf

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion of whether or not there was voter fraud in the last election and what to do about it.

amother

Blush

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 12:07 pm

youngishbear wrote:

My guess is that the numbers for both have been falling.

Trump's numbers have been trending upward actually

amother

Blush

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 12:12 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion of whether or not there was voter fraud in the last election and what to do about it.

No, the second poster on this thread, whom I was responding to, said that Trump makes stuff up and lies. Trump saying that voter fraud occurs was used as an example of Trump's various lies.

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 12:20 pm

Fox wrote:

Well, I'd say that its both.

I'd say that absent evidence of significant voter fraud resulting from lack of ID (and by that, I don't mean 4 cases on Wyoming) -- and as far as I know, that doesn't exist -- there should not be voter ID laws, given the current situation and difficulty for certain people to obtain IDs. Too much of the push to require IDs smacks of the racist literaracy and other voter qualification tests that were in place before the Civil Rights Movement.

But I also think that it would be a good idea to address the difficulty in obtaining identification, for a lot of the reasons that you mention that have nothing to do with voting.

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 12:25 pm

While Slate can hardly be described as a neutral source, they did an interesting article on this.

http://www.slate.com/articles/......html

gold21

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 12:39 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I think it's racist to assume that literacy is race-related Wink

MagentaYenta

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 1:49 pm

Fox wrote:

Here's the problem I've always had with the whole voter ID controversy:

It seems to me that the problem is not disenfranchisement, it's lack of ID.
...

Voter ID requirements are established by the state. If you don't like them call your electeds. For first time voters in my state acceptable ID includes the following:

Valid photo identification, including driver's license.
or Paycheck stub with name and address.
or Utility bill with name and address.
or Bank statement with name and address.
or government document with name and address.

I live in a motor voter state and a vote by mail state. (FWIW to get a DL one needs to provide a birth certificate, same with non DL ID). Verification takes a bit of time if one does not have a DL or ID. The individual may be asked to provide additional documentation. That means if the SS number on a bank account or tied to a pay stub (or utility bill) doesn't match the registration won't be approved.

With regards to voter fraud, it's been determined that states with absentee ballots may have a higher rate of voter fraud since one can vote absentee and vote again at the polls.(League of Woman Voters) Texas is a good example of this. Vote by mail is certainly the best option to eliminate duplicate voting and other types of voter fraud since there is a paper trail with each ballot.

(And no not all libraries require ID to get a card. That is a totally misinformed statement.)

Sadie

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 2:30 pm

gold21 wrote:

I think it's racist to assume that literacy is race-related Wink

To be serious, learn about the literacy tests that were required for black voters. They were unpassable and designed to keep blacks from voting. They did not measure actual literacy.