Jump to content

The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency


Nanker

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I mean -- I understand misspeaking on air while reading a prompter, but I don't know how you mistakenly say a hard N when you're trying for a soft LA. 

 

 

MSNBC in a nutshell. 

 

It sounds like "Nakers" to me. I would suggest everyone re-watch it with that in mind. You may change your mind...or you may not.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hedge said:

 

It sounds like "Nakers" to me. I would suggest everyone re-watch it with that in mind. You may change your mind...or you may not.

 

I'm wondering if people really hear what they want to hear.  Or if this is one of those things that was like the gold dress vs. whatever color other people saw (I swear it was gold).  I know there was an audio thing just like that, as well.

 

I had a couple at my house tonight.  She's half white/half Hispanic.  He's half Hispanic/half black.  We were actually talking about the n word for some crazy other reason.............And, I said as long as we're on the subject, what do you guys here.  The wife said Nakers.  The husband swore he heard the n word.............A black friend posted on FB totally convinced she said the n word, too. 

 

I've seen black people on twitter saying Naker, though.  So, could it be the craziest audio difference in people's ears ever?   

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bbb said:

 

I'm wondering if people really hear what they want to hear.  Or if this is one of those things that was like the gold dress vs. whatever color other people saw (I swear it was gold).  I know there was an audio thing just like that, as well.

 

I had a couple at my house tonight.  She's half white/half Hispanic.  He's half Hispanic/half black.  We were actually talking about the n word for some crazy other reason.............And, I said as long as we're on the subject, what do you guys here.  The wife said Nakers.  The husband swore he heard the n word.............A black friend posted on FB totally convinced she said the n word, too. 

 

I've seen black people on twitter saying Naker, though.  So, could it be the craziest audio difference in people's ears ever?   

 

yanny

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

How does a guy who was paid MILLION$ by Ukrainian gas companies not pay child support?

 

 

Forget child support.  How does a guy who fathers an illegitimate child while doing blow off the dancer's %&^^ get a multi-million dollar gig in an industry he's never worked in? 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2020 at 2:58 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

I mean -- I understand misspeaking on air while reading a prompter, but I don't know how you mistakenly say a hard N when you're trying for a soft LA. 

 

 

MSNBC in a nutshell. 

Such a soft talker,  I didn't hear Yanni or Laurel.

WTF - that I heard (in my best Seinfeld voice)

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

why does NPR even exist?

 

Why do MY tax dollars go to support an entity that completely disagrees with any fundamental worldview I possess?
 

Cut off its budget.

 

All great money laundering schemes require separate yet interconnected multiple laundromats.  They follow the Amway model..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

why does NPR even exist?

 

Why do MY tax dollars go to support an entity that completely disagrees with any fundamental worldview I possess?
 

Cut off its budget.

 

 

Want some cheese with that wine?

 

You sound like a liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.


Still too much.

 

needs to be 0%

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.

doesn't sound like they would miss a measly 2% then.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Why not both?

Vegas odds are 50/50 that Barack actually has a dick but favor him having a pussey at 10/1. There's no betting line on whether or not Michelle has either or both. Their pet names for each other are "Herm" and "Aphrodite".

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justices-okay-immediate-trump-crackdown-on-immigrants-use-of-public-benefits-011250331.html

 

This is an interesting exercise in media bias and liberal stupidity.

 

First, the headline: "Justices OK immediate Trump crackdown on immigrants' use of public benefits". 'Crackdowns' are scary.

 

First line: "The Supreme Court said Monday it will allow the Trump administration to begin enforcing a controversial new policy making it harder for low-income legal immigrants to obtain green cards or visas." Well, this is not as bad as the violent 'crackdown' the headline promises, but still... It's apparently a "controversial new policy" to actually enforce existing law!!!1

 

The bulk of the rest of the article is liberal whining about the left's 'Lawfare' tactics not working, and how unfair it is for the Courts to be deciding immigration policy. Of course, they forget to mention that the Democrats in Congress refused to agree on anything to do with immigration after the idiotic DACA injunction. You'd think they would actually want the legislature to legislate, rather than be an activist #resistance, but I digress...

 

 

Tangential rant warning:

 

I'm shocked that the author - and I will give full credit to them for doing this - actually addressed the most significant legal issue of the whole 'lawfare' strategy, nation-wide injunctions.

 

Quote

Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the five justices in the majority, wrote in a separate concurrence explaining his vote to allow implementation of the public charge rule that “the real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.”  

 

“By their nature, universal injunctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,” Gorsuch argued, writing that the “increasingly widespread” use of such orders in recent years “is not normal.”

 

Injunctions are supposed to be rare to begin with, especially in issuing nation-wide injunctions. Judges are supposed to look at a number of factors, including the liklehood of success on the merits, if the plaintiff's allegations were true. They have, time and again, been issued by judges as policy preferences, not as grounded on the law.

 

Hopefully the Supreme Court squashes these partisan hack judges and tightens the rules they must follow to issue injunctions. They're clearly being given too much discretion, and abusing it.

Edited by Koko78
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justices-okay-immediate-trump-crackdown-on-immigrants-use-of-public-benefits-011250331.html

 

This is an interesting exercise in media bias and liberal stupidity.

 

First, the headline: "Justices OK immediate Trump crackdown on immigrants' use of public benefits". 'Crackdowns' are scary.

 

First line: "The Supreme Court said Monday it will allow the Trump administration to begin enforcing a controversial new policy making it harder for low-income legal immigrants to obtain green cards or visas." Well, this is not as bad as the violent 'crackdown' the headline promises, but still... It's apparently a "controversial new policy" to actually enforce existing law!!!1

 

The bulk of the rest of the article is liberal whining about the left's 'Lawfare' tactics not working, and how unfair it is for the Courts to be deciding immigration policy. Of course, they forget to mention that the Democrats in Congress refused to agree on anything to do with immigration after the idiotic DACA injunction. You'd think they would actually want the legislature to legislate, rather than be an activist #resistance, but I digress...

 

 

Tangential rant warning:

 

I'm shocked that the author - and I will give full credit to them for doing this - actually addressed the most significant legal issue of the whole 'lawfare' strategy, nation-wide injunctions.

 

 

Injunctions are supposed to be rare to begin with, especially in issuing nation-wide injunctions. Judges are supposed to look at a number of factors, including the liklehood of success on the merits, if the plaintiff's allegations were true. They have, time and again, been issued by judges as policy preferences, not as grounded on the law.

 

Hopefully the Supreme Court squashes these partisan hack judges and tightens the rules they must follow to issue injunctions. They're clearly being given too much discretion, and abusing it.

 

 

...could you seriously see SCOTUS addressing such a case?.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...could you seriously see SCOTUS addressing such a case?.......

 

Yes. Thomas has previously indicated his hostility to blanket injunctions by district courts, and now Gorsuch is criticizing them. They only need 4 votes to decide to hear a case.

 

Of course, coming up with an alternative is something different. Sometimes a judge does need to put a stop to something immediately. The issue lies in how to curb this current trend of wanton abuse by district courts, without removing the ability to utilize injunctions in proper circumstances to prevent actual harm to a party.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...