By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - CNN Producer: Russia Narrative "mostly bulls--t right now", is manufactured for ratings

sethnintendo said:
TH3-D0S3R said:
No, I'm not asking for election results, I'm asking why the heck would you trust CNN after they openly lied to you for their own benefit. CNN said Hillary would win Florida by 2 points, she lost by 1.5. They said Clinton would win Pennsylvania by 4 points, she lost by 1.2. I could go on about states like Wisconsin and Michigan, but their polling has already been proven as phony at best. Why should I trust their approval polls when they are happy to lie to their base to get their cash? Why?!

 

You do realize that polls can be wrong and there are always a +/- %. So if they had Hillary up by 2 points but with a margin of error of +/- 3 then they are pretty much saying that it is so close to call that she could even be behind by a point. I just want to know why the hell do you care about polls so much? Most people don't answer random numbers calling them except old people. So how accurate can phone polls really be?

Favorability polls have been brought up, specifically CNN's 39% number. People have used this as a diservice to Trump, I just want to know why the heck I should trust them? That's the only reason why I even care about polls right now, not because I believe it, but rather why it's even brought up to attempt a roast of Trump when it comes from the mouth of a liar.



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
irstupid said:

What does that prove.

All it shows to me is that approval ratings are taken the same way the pre-vote polling was done. They sat in their New York, LA and so on districts and polled peopel there. Compeltely leaving out majority of the country. 

And quit saying Majority dont' like trump and majority like Hilary or some shit. DIdn't less than half elegibel voters vote. Don't matter who won, I woudl take it that most people hate the winner when we are talking what 24-25% of people voted for that canidate. 

 

Are you drunk or did you start taking spelling lessons from Trump's tweets?

The point is all these polls are takign polls from just one place and not a good representation of the overal feel of america.

Be like if your doing a survey in school and you hand out all of your survey questions to one class and then use that to prove how the rest of the school feels. And not just one class, but a biased class. Like going into Band class and asking the class what they think about the arts versus sports. Essentially a worthless poll.

When doign their political polls, they sit in big cities to get large samples, cause everyoen knows larger samples are always better right? Well, not if all those large samples are from teh same "class" They just poll tons of people in big cities and then just use historical data to guess how the rest would go. Watching the election night youc oudl see the many many times they were surprised on these counties outside the city that voted Obama the last two elections yet went to Trump. That was because they never polled in those places. THey only care about the big cities. They predict Michigan by Detroit polling, ect. 



the-pi-guy said:


https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/11/28/oilprice-hydroelectric-power-dams-carbon-emissions/76450296/

In particular, there are a significant number of existing dams at rivers across the U.S. where hydroelectric power is not being used. The U.S. Department of Energy did a study suggesting that up to 12 gigawatts of additional power could be generated simply by taking advantage of these existing plants. 

12GW ? You're fighting peanuts man ... 

the-pi-guy said:


 

Solar is developing on a lot of fronts.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a24357/solar-power-cheapest-energy/

Over the past six years, the cost of solar energy has dropped dramatically, to the point where it is now even cheaper than wind power in emerging markets like China and India. This may be largely due to rising investments in solar over the last few years. Now, there is electricity being produced in Chile for $29.10 per megawatt hour–half the price of power produced by coal.

 

And Tesla is pushing Solar Roof.   

 

Solar would be great ... (if it didn't have high startup costs) 

I'm not into the idea of paying tens of thousands of dollars that will only get a ROI after 3 decades and the batteries are expensive as hell but I bet others are not alone in thinking this ... 

The Powerwall 2 is over $5000 and that's not what you really want since it only stores enough energy for maybe 1 day ? What you'd want is the Powerpack 2 which stores enough energy capacity for about 5 day to a week for a house in case of a streak of cloudy days or winter and that thing is probably unbelivably expensive ... 

Hawaii and the sun belt region are probably the only good enough places to really start investing in solar energy which is pretty ironic considering republicans control the majority of that territory but I guess they'll soon realize that it's a good idea to play into the environmentalists ego since it benefits their geopolitical cause of making their enemies like Saudi Arabia poor just like how we used shale to give OPEC hell and we get some more energy independence in the end ...

The sooner we don't have to buy Saudi Arabia's oil the better but I'm not sure if we want to make Bolivia the next Saudi Arabia of the Latin America's since they hold the most lithium reserves in the world ...

the-pi-guy said:


Fossil fuels aren't going to last forever either.  

Oil is expected to be gone by the end of the century, with some estimating much sooner.  Coal might last a little longer at our current pace.

 

I'd rather not use that land that we use to make our food or livestock on to make fuel ... 



irstupid said:
sethnintendo said:

 

Are you drunk or did you start taking spelling lessons from Trump's tweets?

The point is all these polls are takign polls from just one place and not a good representation of the overal feel of america.

Be like if your doing a survey in school and you hand out all of your survey questions to one class and then use that to prove how the rest of the school feels. And not just one class, but a biased class. Like going into Band class and asking the class what they think about the arts versus sports. Essentially a worthless poll.

When doign their political polls, they sit in big cities to get large samples, cause everyoen knows larger samples are always better right? Well, not if all those large samples are from teh same "class" They just poll tons of people in big cities and then just use historical data to guess how the rest would go. Watching the election night youc oudl see the many many times they were surprised on these counties outside the city that voted Obama the last two elections yet went to Trump. That was because they never polled in those places. THey only care about the big cities. They predict Michigan by Detroit polling, ect. 

 

I get what you are saying but I don't think they used that flawed of reasoning. It would be like taking polls in Austin, TX area which is more liberal than any other part of Texas and applying it across Texas. They should know through historical data what areas lean a certain way politically. Trump didn't even carry Texas with a wide margin which most republican candidates in past won Texas by way larger margins. As for your point of them being surprised in Trump winning in areas Obama won in.... I think it had more to do with Democrats not showing up to vote especially the youth due to the lack of enthusiasm for such a toxic candidate as Hillary and them feeling burned over Bernie (there was the Bernie or bust movement). If Bernie or anyone else with less toxicity ran against Trump then the democrats would have won the electoral college. However what we got to vote for was shit or shit. The republican base which is made up of a larger percentage of older people (who are more likely to vote) won the election because Hillary couldn't drive up any support from the youth, independents, and even her own party. Even though it looked like the republicans were more fractured before the election it was actually the democrats and their inability to garner a greater percentage of independent voters, youth and their base. Hillary was so flawed that an even more flawed candidate was able to win because of mainly the disdain for career politicians and the hope that he would "drain the swamp". It was all just smoke and mirrors and it came down to people believing his bullshit more than Hillary's bullshit.

TH3-D0S3R said:
sethnintendo said:

 

You do realize that polls can be wrong and there are always a +/- %. So if they had Hillary up by 2 points but with a margin of error of +/- 3 then they are pretty much saying that it is so close to call that she could even be behind by a point. I just want to know why the hell do you care about polls so much? Most people don't answer random numbers calling them except old people. So how accurate can phone polls really be?

Favorability polls have been brought up, specifically CNN's 39% number. People have used this as a diservice to Trump, I just want to know why the heck I should trust them? That's the only reason why I even care about polls right now, not because I believe it, but rather why it's even brought up to attempt a roast of Trump when it comes from the mouth of a liar.

 

Well everytime Trump tweets something stupid I'm sure his numbers drop a little. So I can't imagine him having higher than 45% favorable rating. He hasn't really accomplished anything yet besides a few executive orders which some keep getting challenged in court. What do you expect his numbers to be at? I don't think there is any possibility they can be over 50%.

Around the Network
Aeolus451 said:
Nem said:

It's freedom of speach. You can't just forcibly shut them up. That's fascism. 

Quite honestly what is going on in the US atm and the attack that is beeing made to the media is a fascist attack. I would worry about that.

The difference here is that what people on TV say isn't the truth. Want to force them to tell the truth? Don't give them credit, don't watch them, make fun of them for beeing ridiculous. Like, this kind of thing only happen in the US. In the coutries i've lived in, any ridiculous claims are treated as ridiculous ones. They are pointed and left at and they lose all credibility. Be it polititians or anyone else.

You're using the word fascist a little to loosely there. I think it's completely fine that Trump calls a lot of them fake news and that he defends his character from their attacks by counter attacking them. It's no different than when two people argue and start mud slinging. 

I agree with both sides of the freedom of speech stuff.  You can say what you want including offending people just as long as you don't incite violence or get to the point that you're defaming/slandering someone (has to be provable). I also believe that freedom of speech doesn't protect a person from any the consequences from what they say.  Like losing a job or losing costumers. It's the price of saying something on a platform that's very public or that whatever said managed to become viral.

What most of the US media is doing is not journalism. They are not simply reporting the news. They are acting like youtubers doing reaction vids to someone they don't like. Most of them are acting as a propaganda outlet of a political party or as activists pushing an agenda without any care for accuracy of what they report. I'm fine with any journalist being somewhat biased just as long as they are honest about it and I think that no person can be truly objective with the new but there's a fine line between news and propaganda. 

 

I agree with you except in one point. News outlets are still businesses. The president of the USA is an elected official of the american people, he isn't just a regular citizen. His actions and his reactions incite reactions that can be violent and irrational. That is not the way a responsible and serious person acts.

Compare with the Hillary e-mail scandals where Hillary acted completely neutral to it while beeing investigated. Trump isn't the same. He incites, he inflames. That is a way more serious concern than news outlets beeing biased. 

Though i will say i don't think CNN is biased. I doubt they ever said that president Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia cause theres no deciding evidence. But contacts of his staff warrant questioning and investigating. Trump and his supporters make outright false statements, and that is really the worst.

I'm in the outside and i see both sides. One throws suspicion (cnn/democrats) and the other one outright lies (trump/republicans). I can with full certainty say that Trump's side is in the wrong.

 



Ok, so, I'd appreciate if you didn't spread bullshit to try and make that absolute fuckwad you made President look better.
I probably don't need to tell you, but a supervising producer for the CNN medical unit isn't a crazy mastermind behind the entire Russia enquiry.

In fact, a quick Google search showed me this: "CNN stands by our medical producer John Bonifield. Diversity of personal opinion is what makes CNN strong, we welcome it and embrace it".
He can hold whatever opinion he damn pleases, and CNN thinks so too.

I understand that being a Trump supporter you'd have a strong dislike for concepts such as: reading, facts and basic understanding of words and grammar. Journalism must be really confusing for you.
However, I'd invite you to refrain from wasting my time to try and make someone look less incompetent.

You elected an idiot. The whole world knows you've elected an idiot. Now you have to deal with it.
CNN health producers are the least of your worries.



the-pi-guy said:
TH3-D0S3R said:
Does anyone even trust the approval ratings at this point? These are the same polls that said Trump would be luck to get within 50 EV of Clinton. I don't trust approval ratings (or any ratings in general) until the media proves their numbers to be legitimate, and ever since this report came out, I most certainly don't trust it.
Popular vote 62,984,825 65,853,516
Percentage 46.1% 48.2%

Trump lost by nearly 3 million votes.  

Which all came from California, which Clinton did win. Sadly, the electoral college makes sure single states cannot decide who wins or not... 

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/



Tulipanzo said:
Ok, so, I'd appreciate if you didn't spread bullshit to try and make that absolute fuckwad you made President look better.
I probably don't need to tell you, but a supervising producer for the CNN medical unit isn't a crazy mastermind behind the entire Russia enquiry.

In fact, a quick Google search showed me this: "CNN stands by our medical producer John Bonifield. Diversity of personal opinion is what makes CNN strong, we welcome it and embrace it".
He can hold whatever opinion he damn pleases, and CNN thinks so too.

I understand that being a Trump supporter you'd have a strong dislike for concepts such as: reading, facts and basic understanding of words and grammar. Journalism must be really confusing for you.
However, I'd invite you to refrain from wasting my time to try and make someone look less incompetent.

You elected an idiot. The whole world knows you've elected an idiot. Now you have to deal with it.
CNN health producers are the least of your worries.

If you read more post, you would know that someone else also said basically the same thing as this health guy. Someone who is a normal big time speaker on CNN.

Also they just fired 3 people for writing an article about one of Trumps guys and Russia, and at least 2 of them were pulitzer prize winners.

This all in the last week.

So say what you will about Trump, but CNN is definately not a network you should be defending right now.



I like how people are defending CNN like not doing so means you're defending Trump.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames