There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble

[Flatspriest]

Those actions didn't cost her the election. She focused on the wrong areas to campaign in. She should have been more focused elsewhere.

They were part of why she lost the election. I was on the fence as to who to vote for and that was the main sticking points I had against her. She lied and tried to get rid of the evidence.

[Darththeo]

They were part of why she lost the election. I was on the fence as to who to vote for and that was the main sticking points I had against her. She lied and tried to get rid of the evidence.

Evidence of what? She stated she did not know or that there was not classified information on those emails and they were private in nature. She was wrong, but being wrong doesn't mean she lied. I don't say Trump lied when he says something that was wrong, unless he repeats the error after being corrected (that is then evidence of a lie). You need evidence she knew what every one of those email stated in order to be able to claim she lied. And evidence of what? You can't just say she got rid of evidence, you need to state what that evidence was for.

[Flatspriest]

Evidence of what? She stated she did not know or that there was not classified information on those emails and they were private in nature. She was wrong, but being wrong doesn't mean she lied. I don't say Trump lied when he says something that was wrong, unless he repeats the error after being corrected (that is then evidence of a lie). You need evidence she knew what every one of those email stated in order to be able to claim she lied. And evidence of what? You can't just say she got rid of evidence, you need to state what that evidence was for.

She said she turned over all government related emails. She didn't. LIE. She tried cleaning the hard drives which shows guilt since she did this AFTER she was asked to produce them.

[Felya]

I don't really know what to say other than, "but come on" in reply. I can barely fathom the depths of deliberately missing the point of such a statement to reply "ha, he doesn't even know anything about pH!". Here's good ol' FactCheck being equally oblivious:

I can't believe you people aren't shitting me, but you're apparently not shitting me.

The difference is or should be obvious in the effort it took, thus the expensive part. It being very expensive, was highlight of that tweet. Which of these statements are true:

1) Hillary deleted 33k of email.
2) Hillary deleted 33k of email, through a segnificant effort.

Remember, the whole point of deleting the emails, according to Hillary, was no different than what you do to delete spam or advertising. Trump's quote wasn't wrong to say that she deleted the emails, but according to everything that was reported, there was no extreme effort to do so. Trump is trying to imply guilt in the emails, by pointing at the extreme effort it took to delete them. Something, that simply wasn't true... it's the differance between expansive effort (Trump) and just deleting junk mail (Hillary).

Me saying, Trump is a philanderer who went through a very expansive effort to hide his affairs, wouldn't be true. Did Trump have affairs? Sure... Did Trump try to hide them? Of course... Did Trump use a lot of effort to hide it? No, that wouldn't be true, simply due to how public his cheating has been. The reason it's a lie, is because there is a difference between the word brash and concealed.

[Darththeo]

She said she turned over all government related emails. She didn't. LIE. She tried cleaning the hard drives which shows guilt since she did this AFTER she was asked to produce them.

No, that is evidence she was wrong. Do you know what lied means? See my prior post.

You have to show she knew that she hadn't turned over those emails to claim she lied.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Of course. Just like there is a conservative one. It is the failing of media these days. News outlets are pretty much about making money and much less about delivering an honest opinion.

[Alydael]

That isn't just one poll you are looking at. That's my point. You aren't looking a poll, you are looking a projection made of several regional polls. When someone says a national poll, it does not break down to electoral districts.

I am not saying "Regional polls don't exist" ... they do. I am saying National Presidential polls do not factor in electoral collage as the sample size would need to be huge. I found with a quick Google search a CNN poll that asked 1001 people national wide ... 1001 in the entire nation. How would that factor in the Electoral College?

Yeah, my whole original point was that they are taken into consideration and that the national poll considers the electoral college.

As for polls.... you illustrated the whole problem- often they consider far too few people to be considered accurate. The best one is the "jobs numbers." That whole unemployment percentage is a joke. I think they basically call up 20,000 people or so and ask them "are you still looking for work?" Ha ha. It is a phone survey basically and we base so much on it.

[Darththeo]

Yeah, my whole original point was that they are taken into consideration and that the national poll considers the electoral college.

As for polls.... you illustrated the whole problem- often they consider far too few people to be considered accurate. The best one is the "jobs numbers." That whole unemployment percentage is a joke. I think they basically call up 20,000 people or so and ask them "are you still looking for work?" Ha ha. It is a phone survey basically and we base so much on it.

And you are wrong. National polls do not factor in the electoral college. Projections do. Conglomerate polls do (which is what you are referring to). National polls do not.

Also, you are wrong about unemployment. They actually take 110,000 total about. But they adjust on other factors too.

[BrerBear]

I can't believe anyone would defend the idea that "acid washed" was intended to refer to literal acid. But hey, I guess this is what people are referring to when it comes to bubbles.

It was pretty obvious. That's why the image I posted is so comical. Taking that statement as a claim that servers were literally dunked in acid in order to "fact check" him is pants on head retarded and anyone claiming this was what was meant is likely disingenuous.

Oh FFS, who don't you just watch the clip of Trump's own words that people keep sharing. Trump's actual quote:
"She bleached, which somebody even said they'd never heard of. In a very expensive fashion. Used chemical, so that nobody will ever be able to see them. Who does this?"

Trump thought they used literal chemicals, and said so.

[Tijuana]

Yeah, my whole original point was that they are taken into consideration and that the national poll considers the electoral college.

As for polls.... you illustrated the whole problem- often they consider far too few people to be considered accurate. The best one is the "jobs numbers." That whole unemployment percentage is a joke. I think they basically call up 20,000 people or so and ask them "are you still looking for work?" Ha ha. It is a phone survey basically and we base so much on it.

Uh, no, that is not how they figure out unemployment. The figure is based on people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits. That's it. The reason some say those who stopped looking are not in the figure, is that the benefits run out after 6 months, unless there is a crisis and federal money is added to extend the benefits for longer.

[Endus]

She said she turned over all government related emails. She didn't. LIE.

That's an unjustifiable claim. It just proves she wasn't correct. If she thought she had, it wasn't a lie. If you want to claim a lie, you need evidence that she knew otherwise, and there's absolutely nothing to back that claim.

She tried cleaning the hard drives which shows guilt since she did this AFTER she was asked to produce them.

That is straight-up incorrect. She told her staff to destroy the drives months before any request was made for them. One staffer didn't do his job, and panicked after those orders came down. That one staffer did a bad thing, but there is zero evidence that Clinton had any part of it, particularly when we do have her orders to him from months before any subpoena, that he just never got around to acting on.

[socanyou]

you could call it a bubble on either side but consider:

1. polls prior to the election are completely useless information. there is no control over what kind of people respond. there are multiple layers of bias from how people are contacted to what language is used to the conclusions you have to make so that people keep paying you to do that nonsense.

2. clinton would have won by a lot if "liberal" media didn't self destruct. in a mission to be humorous, edgy, and controversial, a lot of outlets started going into territory far beyond the scope of their expertise, looked like fools to one audience and confused the other. clinton herself did a poor job of campaigning in many states, but almost all coverage, liberal or not, was about Trump - who, like it or not, relates to the normal american a lot better.

[Glorious Leader]

If there was truly a liberal media bubble and Clinton was protected, they wouldn't have printed anything regarding wikileaks, and yet they did, they actually did more coverage that breibart on a lot of those e-mails. The media goes for who is better, Trump threatened and discredited the media every chance he had, and you are surprised they went for Clinton all the time?

The media goes for whatever will make it money. Accurate reporting of reality is neither here nor there. What puts butts in seats? Scandals!! Pussies and emails. Trump was merely the better carnival barker.

[Darththeo]

Uh, no, that is not how they figure out unemployment. The figure is based on people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits. That's it. The reason some say those who stopped looking are not in the figure, is that the benefits run out after 6 months, unless there is a crisis and federal money is added to extend the benefits for longer.

That's not at all how it is determined.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."

I just sourced the people who come up with the number, btw.

[Tijuana]

That's not at all how it is determined.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."

I just sourced the people who come up with the number, btw.

That's quite interesting. I stand corrected. As it turns out, common knowledge is quite often wrong.

[Darththeo]

That's quite interesting. I stand corrected. As it turns out, common knowledge is quite often wrong.

I don't blame you. I get told I am wrong on a daily basis ... even though I am an employee of my state's labor department.

[Jonuts]

There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble

Progressive, not liberal. World of difference there, despite people brutally mis-using the word Liberal to describe the mainstream US Left.

That said, why even make this topic? Are people still not aware that only watching/reading things they agree with puts them in an information bubble? The simple fact is that virtually all main stream media sources that aren't Fox News has a pretty huge progressive bias. This isn't really helped at all by Fox earning it's reputation as a fact-free network, even if all the other networks put up a good fight in this race to the bottom.

[Tijuana]

I don't blame you. I get told I am wrong on a daily basis ... even though I am an employee of my state's labor department.

Well, my condolences for that.

[McFuu]

I recently reread James Surowiecki’s book “The Wisdom of Crowds” which, despite its name, spends as much time contemplating the shortcomings of such wisdom as it does celebrating its successes. Surowiecki argues that crowds usually make good predictions when they satisfy these four conditions:

I'd just like to throw in there is an exceptional book on the effects of news/media/politics on the public, including the odd changes that news might bring about in the public, not to mention many other excellent chapters on similar subjects; Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by McKay I believe the author's name was. I came by the book because of a couple of really good chapters based in economics, but all in all it's an excellent read and being from 1860's you can see some effects that even local stories have on the public.

It's an extremely fitting book, that people should read, might help them pull their head's out of their own asses.

[Coffeexbean]

I'll agree with you to a point -- there was an anti-Trump bubble, because it even included Fox News. That said, liberal viewpoints in the majority of major media are those that are predominately presented, leaving those who have different views with few options. Tired of the slander on X issue? Read infowars! It's like the right-wing version of Jezebel or HuffPo, with decidedly less hate speech.

hahahahahahahahahaha