Reply With QuoteFlorida vote skulduggery got Bush electedOriginally Posted by Wales-Bales
Florida is huge, just like the man said
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Florida is huge, just like the man saidWho won?!
Hey we are all winner winner chicken dinner in this one
Florida vote skulduggery got Bush electedFlorida is huge, just like the man said
Did some of them vote twice?Pretty pathetic way to discredit when you read back isn't it really?
Turn out by hispanics is over 100% in florida. Some suggest a "landslide".
It certainly looks that way.
Clinton's odds are generally 1-5, Trump is 4-1.
I think we can all agree that this has been a bizarre election. It seems an awful lot of people will vote according to who they hate the least.
I imagine there will be no scenes like with Obama.
Hundreds of thousands cheering on his inauguration.
Optimism everywhere.
Usually it is an exciting time, after the USA election. This'll just be depressing.
Last time I stayed up all night. I doubt I will today.
Last time there was a early turn out of around 300k. Now it is 800k.
Before the main day of voting.
The various psyops have been fun to watch though, some real mind twisters going on.
Perhaps it's the type of sites I visit, but the comments at my regular haunts are 95% pro Trump. I ended up at the Huffington Post to read an article the other day. I'm used to reading slanted MSM stuff but that one was so absurdly biased that not even the BBC would publish it. There was, I think, 1,200 reader comments on it, and I spent 10 minutes scrolling through them before giving up on finding anyone who wasn't going to vote for Clinton.
Just like many constituencies in this country, a lot of states in the USA always vote the same way for ideological reasons regardless of the candidates' merits. I say ideological when it's really 'who'll give me the most free dosh.'
I'd say there's a 1% chance that Trump's a real alternative, so contrary to popular opinion it will make no difference who wins.
I expect it's because the websites you go on are full of conspiracy kooks on them. Trump seems to be the king of the conspiracy at the moment so hence 95% of them voting for him.
What conspiracies are these?
Bloody hell, has it taken this long for the penny to drop?
This is why it's always been so ridiculous to hear you talk about the Alternative News. Just as the Guardian and the Mail have very different views in mainstream, you can find Alternative News sites from across the spectrum too. People think that their view is more widespread than it really is because their social media is full of what they want to hear. What you're experiencing is no different, as you found when you went to Huffington.
No, that Huffington Post piece was pure propaganda. The comments must have been filtered for there not to have any dissenting voices. I'd link it here but I cleared months of internet history yesterday. Something else it had was incredible editor's notes at the end of the article just to hammer home how supposedly dangerous Trump was.
Here's an article they published yesterday which has the same editor's note at its end. Take a look then try and contend that it's anything other than ridiculous tosh. I've seen Huffington Post journalists interviewed on the BBC for their insights. Even TruBlue wouldn't describe this as objective. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0aac624863e02
Yes, you have to choose your media carefully
But your sites are 95% pro Trump?
Yes, the sites I visit the comments are 95% pro Trump.
Anyway, are you not going to dispute that that corporate media article I linked is hysterically one-sided and has next to no credibility?
I haven't read the article and I haven't read your 95% Trump articles, but I would suggest that whatever you think applies to one side applies to both.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the propaganda element that either group is being exposed to, and whether their beliefs are obtained through manipulation or freewill, truth or lies etc.
Last edited by Wales-Bales; 08-11-16 at 13:29.
Terrible acting and the script is a complete giveaway
Last edited by Wales-Bales; 08-11-16 at 13:44.
I think at times you forget websites live off clicks. Media get funding through its audience figures. Money off ads.
Huff post does exactly that. It will report on what gets the biggest reaction. 5.1k shares on that crappy article for example. People are like goldfish, they will forget. You just clicked on that article, shared it, gaining how many views?. Yet you will forget about it in a few days. You have done exactly what they wanted you to do.
The majority of populations do not want incisive news reporting. They want wish washy headlines that are easily absorbed after a long days work, while struggling to look after their kids.
The BBC may have a stance on something and it reports along that line. But to say it is biased in totality is wrong. Its subject base is so wide, the vast majority of its reporting is accurate and better than anything else available.
I don't think a lot of people value it at times. That is why the world service is biggest broadcaster on the planet - People in foreign countries think it is credible.
Lumped a tenner on at 9/2. Money to be made, folks...
Do you know how bodies such as the BBC World Service and The British Council came about?
Not really.
But I imagine you are about to tell me it was formed to fuel propaganda.
I don't know why anyone bothers reading any sites anyway when it's more interesting the stuff that doesn't get said......
Posting Permissions