posted by BoatShoes

Unless you and Gut are referring to some other study on Trump other than this one linked below your statement is incorrect. 

From the Abstract 

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office.

The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).

Further down it clarifies that "Main Newscasts" = the nightly news cast programs: 

This paper examines Trump’s first 100 days in office, not through the lens of what he said about the news media, but what they reported about him. The research is based on news coverage in the print editions of three U.S. daily papers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post), the main newscasts of four U.S. television networks (CBS Evening News, CNN’s The Situation Room, Fox’s Special Report, and NBC Nightly News), and three European news outlets (Financial Times, based in London; BBC, Britain’s public service broadcaster; and ARD, Germany’s oldest public service broadcaster). The president’s role as a global leader, and Trump’s pledge to redefine that role, prompted the inclusion of European news in the study.

So to reiterate - just the nightly news programs and not all main news blocks. In other words, like I said earlier in these posts - a single program on Fox News was analyzed under this study.

Here is the link: 

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

And again, this is obviously the first of their studies that you’ve seen. They’ve consistently measured news blocks over the years, and referred to them as “main news programs” and “news blocks” interchangably. 

Even if we assume that they’ve chosen to deviate from 15 years of consistent methodology for this one study, the numbers stand on their own either way. They’re still comparing apples/apples. 

posted by Spock

So Oprah is now a 2020 candidate?  Unreal how dumb people are to think that jst because you spoke at the golden globes you are qualified to be PUSA

She’d turn out the black vote at levels likely higher than Obama did...and white housewives love her. 

She’d be a formidable candidate. 

https://www.bet.com/music/2018/01/08/ginuwine-big-brother-celebrity-trans-woman-twitter-debate.html?linkId=46725892

No means no. Unless the person is trans. Then you're transphobic.

Trying to make Trans a thing is almost enough to make me never think about voting Democrat. Not transphobic for not wanting to kiss a dude you morons.

posted by fish82

And again, this is obviously the first of their studies that you’ve seen. They’ve consistently measured news blocks over the years, and referred to them as “main news programs” and “news blocks” interchangably. 

Even if we assume that they’ve chosen to deviate from 15 years of consistent methodology for this one study, the numbers stand on their own either way. They’re still comparing apples/apples. 

Since you're so familiar with this institution perhaps you can point me to such obvious interchangeability. Because of yours and Gut's claims I've went ahead and familiarized myself and it is clear as day you are not correct, sir. The explicitly state their methodology and there is a clear difference in the way they describe generalized news reports versus "main news programs." 

From there study on news coverage in the 2016 general election: 

The research is confined to the election coverage in the print editions of five daily papers (the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and USA Today) and the main newscasts of five television networks (ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN’s The Situation Room, Fox’s Special Report, and NBC Nightly News). In the case of the newspapers, the analysis covers all sections except sports, obituaries, and letters to the editor. Op-eds and editorials are included, but letters from the public are not. For television, the analysis covers the full daily content of each network’s major newscast. Network talk shows are not included.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/

Compare that to their study on pre-primary election coverage where they analyzed news statements as provided by a third party service

The Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of thousands of news statements by CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study’s data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage.

https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

The point of course is that they make clear what their methodology was in the study on Trump's first 100 days. The evaluated Special Report with Bret Baier - that's it - per their own quote from their methodology. It is very clear. 

posted by justincredible

LOL at this $380 sweater:

http://www.eonline.com/news/904521/connie-britton-wears-poverty-is-sexist-shirt-to-2018-golden-globes-what-it-means

Poverty isn't sexist. It's the natural state of mankind.

 

 

"Nature is sexist."

Who the hell makes that shit up?  Mind numbing.

Lol newest outrage is a girl blew Aziz Ansari but she didn’t want to, but still did. Literally agreed to go back to his house after a date and did shit with him multiple times, but now says she didn’t want to. Get the fuck out of here

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

posted by iclfan2

Lol newest outrage is a girl blew Aziz Ansari but she didn’t want to, but still did. Literally agreed to go back to his house after a date and did shit with him multiple times, but now says she didn’t want to. Get the fuck out of here

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

I know I'm not supposed to...but that article made me LOL

posted by BoatShoes

Unsurprisingly I will have to completely disagree. Indeed, it is funny you would even pick "The Five" as your example

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I rarely respond to you because you LITERALLY are always wrong.  Your posts on economics are simply comical.

But, technically, The Five always had 2 conservatives, 1 libertarian, 1 liberal plus comedic relief.   Some people are too stupid and partisan to know otherwise.  Granted, replacing Bolling with Waters was a HUGE downgrade.  Gutfeld is a libertarian....Waters is supposed to be a libertarian but he'll believe whatever is on the cue card.  But it's still the best show on cable news.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-statue-20180115-story.html

The comments after the article indicate some people still know what the hell is going on ...

posted by QuakerOats

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-statue-20180115-story.html

 

The comments after the article indicate some people still know what the hell is going on ...

Are you talking about the comment referring to black people as feral guttersnipes?  When a white racist spray paints a swastika on a synagogue, should we generalize that all whites share his beliefs too?

* Has the #MeToo movement reached its apex? Is this the beginning of the predictable backlash? I think it just might be.

I have to say that I have said that due process shouldn't be forgotten in this age of exposition. This reporter's "open letter" demands some forethought for the era of accusations.

*I put this here because there isn't a thread dedicated to the movement and I don't know if it was worthy of it's own thread.

Instead of starting a new thread I will just drop this here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/17/new-california-movement-seeks-to-divide-golden-state-in-half.html

This latest movement has more traction it appears than the prior idea of dividing California into 6 states, most being conservative.  A "New California" state would be wonderful; I would like to see the breakout of electoral votes that would move into the conservative column when/if this occurs.  Certainly a cause worth donating to.

posted by QuakerOats

Instead of starting a new thread I will just drop this here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/17/new-california-movement-seeks-to-divide-golden-state-in-half.html

This latest movement has more traction it appears than the prior idea of dividing California into 6 states, most being conservative.  A "New California" state would be wonderful; I would like to see the breakout of electoral votes that would move into the conservative column when/if this occurs.  Certainly a cause worth donating to.

 

I already did the math on this one for another site. Here was my post...

Just out of curiosity I ran the numbers.

Currently California has 57 Electoral Votes (55 from HoR, 2 from Senate).

If this did happen...

The "New California" which would presumably be a "red state" would have 18 Electoral Votes (16 for HoR and 2 for Senate).

The "Old California" which would stay a "blue state" would have 39 Electoral Votes (37 for HoR and 2 for Senate).

This would essentially take about 16 EC votes out of the D nominee for POTUS every 4 years and add 18 for the R nominee.

The race to "270" would become the race to "271".

It would also change the super majority in the Senate to break a filibuster from 60 to 61/62 (61.2 but I am not sure they require rounding up).


I am not sure how/what needs to happen federally (HoR, Senate, etc) if anything at all for this to happen, but if it has to look for the Democrats to rail against it heavily, blaming racism, or anything the can because they would be losing EVs every POTUS election.

I just saw this, I started a new thread in Serious Business on New California.

posted by CenterBHSFan

* Has the #MeToo movement reached its apex? Is this the beginning of the predictable backlash? I think it just might be.

 

I have to say that I have said that due process shouldn't be forgotten in this age of exposition. This reporter's "open letter" demands some forethought for the era of accusations.

*I put this here because there isn't a thread dedicated to the movement and I don't know if it was worthy of it's own thread.

I 100% agree with her in every way to be honest, regardless of the man's political background.

posted by jmog

I already did the math on this one for another site. Here was my post...

 

Just out of curiosity I ran the numbers.

Currently California has 57 Electoral Votes (55 from HoR, 2 from Senate).

If this did happen...

The "New California" which would presumably be a "red state" would have 18 Electoral Votes (16 for HoR and 2 for Senate).

The "Old California" which would stay a "blue state" would have 39 Electoral Votes (37 for HoR and 2 for Senate).

This would essentially take about 16 EC votes out of the D nominee for POTUS every 4 years and add 18 for the R nominee.

The race to "270" would become the race to "271".

It would also change the super majority in the Senate to break a filibuster from 60 to 61/62 (61.2 but I am not sure they require rounding up).


I am not sure how/what needs to happen federally (HoR, Senate, etc) if anything at all for this to happen, but if it has to look for the Democrats to rail against it heavily, blaming racism, or anything the can because they would be losing EVs every POTUS election.

I think a lot of things would change if Ca. broke in two. Wonder how many companys  and people might move a few miles to get out of Liberal states with high taxes.  

In other news, anyone see Corey Booker screaming at a woman like a mad man? I'm old enough to remember when Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren were being fucks and rightfully got interrupted that the left lost it on men interfering with women. Funny, crickets from the left on this one. 

Saw this on teh Twittah

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/953448571868762114

posted by iclfan2

In other news, anyone see Corey Booker screaming at a woman like a mad man? I'm old enough to remember when Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren were being fucks and rightfully got interrupted that the left lost it on men interfering with women. Funny, crickets from the left on this one. 

Yes, I saw him acting like a grandstanding, egotistical, political maniac.  Par for the course.

I suggest he watch the clip of Dr. King's niece putting to rest the notion of Trump being a racist.  Obviously, no major media outlets other than Fox showed it. 

https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-study-doc-wx0de1

For lack of a better thread .......

California is now going to prosecute employers trying to help federal immigration authorities enforce immigration laws. Seems reasonable. Only on the left...

posted by iclfan2

California is now going to prosecute employers trying to help federal immigration authorities enforce immigration laws. Seems reasonable. Only on the left...

That's pretty unbelievable.  I think it can only be explained as pure pandering to the hispanic vote.   And it's always good to throw some fresh meat to the SJW population out there.

posted by gut

That's pretty unbelievable.  I think it can only be explained as pure pandering to the hispanic vote.   And it's always good to throw some fresh meat to the SJW population out there.

I am not sure if they have the balls to follow through with this and gut is likely right its just fresh meat.  But in all reality it's open rebellion against a federal law.  You have state officials threatening employers with criminal prosecution for complying with federal law.  The threat itself scares employers and more dollars to their legal team.  I am a libertarian at the federal level of governance.  Many other states swallow federal laws they do not like.  This would go beyond nullification of federal law and criminalize compliance with it.

Just a proposal but it seeks to use a tax "loophole" which the left supposedly hates.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-salt-tax-gimmick-20180106-story.html

A case in point is the proposal Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) unveiled Jan. 3 in California. De León would enable residents to contribute money to a new “California Excellence Fund” in exchange for an equal amount of tax credits — for example, a family that owed $4,000 in state taxes could contribute $4,000 to the fund and wipe out its state tax bill. They could then deduct their contribution to the fund from their federal taxable income, just as they used to do with their state tax payments. That’s because the new federal tax law leaves the deduction for charitable contributions intact, unlike the one for state and local taxes.