Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
-
🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
- Status
Bindo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2024
Nothing aside from Clinton losing an election she was the favorite to win, yeah.
Results are what matter. Idgaf about who got fired or caught charges that will never stick, I care that this would be another tool to properly discredit a candidate who has yet to receive a single primary vote in 2 cycles.
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2023
Sekirodiealot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
Wait until you find out why there's a rule on minimum barrel lengths in the first place
When the bill that ultimately became the NFA was being drafted one of the provisions was a blanket ban on handguns. To prevent rifles and shotguns from being modified to the point of being concealable they added the 18" barrel (16" for .22 caliber rimfires) and minimum overall length requirements
Before the bill was passed the handgun ban was stricken but the barrel requirements were left in place. The barrel length rules are to prevent a loophole to a provision that was never even signed into law. Then they just tacked on suppressors for reasons that no notes were ever taken on
Potatoherder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2020
Do i believe they gave harris the questions? Yes. Do i believe leading report? no. When they rarely mention a source i have never been able to actually find what they claim.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
Bears and wolves are good and wholesome. Have the Haitians fuck with moose instead. Moose are the last true megafauna left after humans ate everything else, and for good goddamn reason.
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
A republic is a form of democracy.
Gondolindrim
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2020
Half her campaign is assuring Israel that we'll do whatever they say so I'm expecting it.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2022
I'll share this with you, since I ran across it while reading. You don't hate them enough. From 2020:
'Without evidence' Is A New Catchphrase At NPR
NPR (archive.ph)
By Kelly McBride
2020-09-03 09:00:55GMT
'Without evidence' Is A New Catchphrase At NPR
NPR (archive.ph)
By Kelly McBride
2020-09-03 09:00:55GMT
It prompts a deeper question about whose statements are fact-checked.
When a reporter asked President Donald Trump for his thoughts on the teenager who killed two protesters and injured a third person in Kenosha, Wisc., Trump said, it looked like "self-defense."
The lead of the NPR story later that day reads that Trump claimed "without evidence, that it appeared the gunman was acting in self-defense."
Among the most tricky decisions that NPR journalists must make are when and how to challenge a statement made by a speaker in a story. The choice to add a note of doubt, an outright dismissal or to let slide a dubious claim is made story by story, even sentence by sentence.
Over the last week, NPR listeners and readers noted the shorthand use of "without evidence," a number of times, as well as several other stories where a fact check lacked force or was altogether missing.
"Without evidence" shows up a lot in conjunction with things Trump says. I've previously pointed out that it's insufficient when reporting on the administration's claims that mail-in ballots are vulnerable to counterfeiting. NPR reported in July, "the president took a softer stance on [masks], saying without evidence: 'In theory, you don't need the mask,' but acknowledging that he was growing more comfortable with wearing them."
In mid-August, during a rundown of the week in politics with host Scott Simon, Senior Correspondent and Editor Ron Elving noted, "But it's not the first time Trump has said, without evidence, that voting by mail is more vulnerable to fraud or that it helps Democrats."
While most of the time, "without evidence" is a quick attempt at flagging a false statement, when it came to the president's assessment of the Kenosha shooting, it was at best too vague and at worst actually unsupported. That phrase was repeated during Morning Edition coverage Sept. 1, and by NPR's Twitter account. NPR listener Sam Houff put it well: "The situation is certainly divisive, as referenced in the article. But while the evidence is likely to be interpreted differently by blue and red, it is certainly there! Take this wonderful timeline created by the New York Times."
Houff is right. The evidence may be confusing or inconclusive, but it exists, and it's inaccurate to say that Trump had none.
"The phrase was added to the story by editors in an effort to add some context to President Trump's assertion. In hindsight, we should have been more precise in our language," Chief Washington Editor Shirley Henry said in an email.
This week, news consumers questioned several other stories where the journalists creating them had to decide if and when to challenge a source.
Host David Greene traveled across the Southwest interviewing voters. He explained his goal for the series: "Elections are about people. I mean, they're about voters, they're about people's choices and going around the country and listening to people talk about what they believe, and why they believe it, and how their experiences shape their votes, it's just absolutely critical and a central part of what we do."
In that capacity, Greene and his team arranged to meet with five different families, talking to them in their homes and asking what keeps them up at night. In the course of those conversations, Tucson, Ariz., resident Lena Crandell told the story of her high-school-age daughter being pressured to support Black Lives Matter, which Crandell described as a movement "based on lies." Scottsdale, Ariz., resident Mary Jean (her last name was withheld) described her sadness at the increasing violence brought to great cities across America by protesters.
Listen to the interviews and you'll hear Greene respectfully ask both women why they believe what they believe. Both women justify their answers with information that is awkwardly false. When Greene asks Crandell what she would say to a Black neighbor who fears for the life of her child, Crandell blames her neighbor's perception on media coverage. When Greene challenges her, Mary Jean admits that she doesn't really know for sure if New York and other cities are more violent, because she's not there.
Greene is in a difficult position. He's invited himself into these homes and vowed to listen. He's asked them what they believe. And their beliefs are based on perceptions that he could prove wrong, simply by digging up statistics about how police disproportionately stop Black drivers or how sentencing for the same crimes varies between white and Black criminals. Greene could have played for Mary Jean videos that complicate her narrative of who is responsible for violence during recent demonstrations.
Instead, Greene kept asking why. His approach and style were appropriate because the journalistic purpose of this series of interviews is to open a window into how various voters are justifying their pending choice, not to demonstrate that some voters are misinformed. These aren't candidates running for election, or officials who must be held accountable for their policy views. As news consumers, we are listening to their thoughts because we want to better understand our neighbors and our country.
There's a different standard when interviewing someone who is trying to influence public opinion. Last week NPR's Code Switch team published an interview with Vicky Osterweil, author of a new book, "In Defense of Looting."
Osterweil's central thesis: "[Looting] gets people what they need for free immediately, which means that they are capable of living and reproducing their lives without having to rely on jobs or a wage — which, during COVID times, is widely unreliable or, particularly in these communities, is often not available, or it comes at great risk. That's looting's most basic tactical power as a political mode of action."
Code Switch brings the NPR audience provocative research all the time. It's part of their mission to advance the conversation on race. Osterweil went on to say that looting is insured, that looters target businesses that aren't rooted in the local community and that the civil rights movement only adopted non-violence to appeal to white northerners. All of those statements deserved pushback.
Code Switch editor Steven Drummond said that the article was fact-checked, but not enough.
"We have updated the intro to this interview to give readers more context," he wrote in an email. "This notion of looting and the role it plays in the public discourse is a fair target, and we often interview authors who have controversial opinions and viewpoints. We should have challenged them more."
These three instances reflect how NPR audience members needed more context to reconcile the speech of a news source with the broader truth.
If you look at NPR's flawed insertion of "without evidence" to Trump's assessment of the Kenosha shooting and then look at the lack of fact-checking on the interview with the author of the book on looting, a casual observer might see a bias. But add in the David Greene interviews and you see that as a critic, some calibration is required.
It would take more than three examples to declare any trends in who gets fact-checked and who doesn't. But these examples are a reminder that the audience is noticing. By all means, lean into the politicians and the pundits, and be gentle with the everyday citizens brave enough to open up to the world.
Most of all, NPR listeners need the newsroom to be evenhanded in its vigilance.
Research by Amaris Castillo and Meredith Roaten
When a reporter asked President Donald Trump for his thoughts on the teenager who killed two protesters and injured a third person in Kenosha, Wisc., Trump said, it looked like "self-defense."
The lead of the NPR story later that day reads that Trump claimed "without evidence, that it appeared the gunman was acting in self-defense."
Among the most tricky decisions that NPR journalists must make are when and how to challenge a statement made by a speaker in a story. The choice to add a note of doubt, an outright dismissal or to let slide a dubious claim is made story by story, even sentence by sentence.
Over the last week, NPR listeners and readers noted the shorthand use of "without evidence," a number of times, as well as several other stories where a fact check lacked force or was altogether missing.
"Without evidence" shows up a lot in conjunction with things Trump says. I've previously pointed out that it's insufficient when reporting on the administration's claims that mail-in ballots are vulnerable to counterfeiting. NPR reported in July, "the president took a softer stance on [masks], saying without evidence: 'In theory, you don't need the mask,' but acknowledging that he was growing more comfortable with wearing them."
In mid-August, during a rundown of the week in politics with host Scott Simon, Senior Correspondent and Editor Ron Elving noted, "But it's not the first time Trump has said, without evidence, that voting by mail is more vulnerable to fraud or that it helps Democrats."
While most of the time, "without evidence" is a quick attempt at flagging a false statement, when it came to the president's assessment of the Kenosha shooting, it was at best too vague and at worst actually unsupported. That phrase was repeated during Morning Edition coverage Sept. 1, and by NPR's Twitter account. NPR listener Sam Houff put it well: "The situation is certainly divisive, as referenced in the article. But while the evidence is likely to be interpreted differently by blue and red, it is certainly there! Take this wonderful timeline created by the New York Times."
Houff is right. The evidence may be confusing or inconclusive, but it exists, and it's inaccurate to say that Trump had none.
"The phrase was added to the story by editors in an effort to add some context to President Trump's assertion. In hindsight, we should have been more precise in our language," Chief Washington Editor Shirley Henry said in an email.
This week, news consumers questioned several other stories where the journalists creating them had to decide if and when to challenge a source.
Host David Greene traveled across the Southwest interviewing voters. He explained his goal for the series: "Elections are about people. I mean, they're about voters, they're about people's choices and going around the country and listening to people talk about what they believe, and why they believe it, and how their experiences shape their votes, it's just absolutely critical and a central part of what we do."
In that capacity, Greene and his team arranged to meet with five different families, talking to them in their homes and asking what keeps them up at night. In the course of those conversations, Tucson, Ariz., resident Lena Crandell told the story of her high-school-age daughter being pressured to support Black Lives Matter, which Crandell described as a movement "based on lies." Scottsdale, Ariz., resident Mary Jean (her last name was withheld) described her sadness at the increasing violence brought to great cities across America by protesters.
Listen to the interviews and you'll hear Greene respectfully ask both women why they believe what they believe. Both women justify their answers with information that is awkwardly false. When Greene asks Crandell what she would say to a Black neighbor who fears for the life of her child, Crandell blames her neighbor's perception on media coverage. When Greene challenges her, Mary Jean admits that she doesn't really know for sure if New York and other cities are more violent, because she's not there.
Greene is in a difficult position. He's invited himself into these homes and vowed to listen. He's asked them what they believe. And their beliefs are based on perceptions that he could prove wrong, simply by digging up statistics about how police disproportionately stop Black drivers or how sentencing for the same crimes varies between white and Black criminals. Greene could have played for Mary Jean videos that complicate her narrative of who is responsible for violence during recent demonstrations.
Instead, Greene kept asking why. His approach and style were appropriate because the journalistic purpose of this series of interviews is to open a window into how various voters are justifying their pending choice, not to demonstrate that some voters are misinformed. These aren't candidates running for election, or officials who must be held accountable for their policy views. As news consumers, we are listening to their thoughts because we want to better understand our neighbors and our country.
There's a different standard when interviewing someone who is trying to influence public opinion. Last week NPR's Code Switch team published an interview with Vicky Osterweil, author of a new book, "In Defense of Looting."
Osterweil's central thesis: "[Looting] gets people what they need for free immediately, which means that they are capable of living and reproducing their lives without having to rely on jobs or a wage — which, during COVID times, is widely unreliable or, particularly in these communities, is often not available, or it comes at great risk. That's looting's most basic tactical power as a political mode of action."
Code Switch brings the NPR audience provocative research all the time. It's part of their mission to advance the conversation on race. Osterweil went on to say that looting is insured, that looters target businesses that aren't rooted in the local community and that the civil rights movement only adopted non-violence to appeal to white northerners. All of those statements deserved pushback.
Code Switch editor Steven Drummond said that the article was fact-checked, but not enough.
"We have updated the intro to this interview to give readers more context," he wrote in an email. "This notion of looting and the role it plays in the public discourse is a fair target, and we often interview authors who have controversial opinions and viewpoints. We should have challenged them more."
These three instances reflect how NPR audience members needed more context to reconcile the speech of a news source with the broader truth.
If you look at NPR's flawed insertion of "without evidence" to Trump's assessment of the Kenosha shooting and then look at the lack of fact-checking on the interview with the author of the book on looting, a casual observer might see a bias. But add in the David Greene interviews and you see that as a critic, some calibration is required.
It would take more than three examples to declare any trends in who gets fact-checked and who doesn't. But these examples are a reminder that the audience is noticing. By all means, lean into the politicians and the pundits, and be gentle with the everyday citizens brave enough to open up to the world.
Most of all, NPR listeners need the newsroom to be evenhanded in its vigilance.
Research by Amaris Castillo and Meredith Roaten
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2019
Reported Dreamcast addict Tim Walz is now an unofficial Crazy Taxi character
New "Tim Walz Edition" mod lets the VP hopeful earn some ca-razy (campaign) money.
NU JAK
Current owner Bryn Tanner poses with THE
ACTUAL DREAMCAST ONCE OWNED BY TIM WALZ.
New "Tim Walz Edition" mod lets the VP hopeful earn some ca-razy (campaign) money.
NU JAK
Current owner Bryn Tanner poses with THE
ACTUAL DREAMCAST ONCE OWNED BY TIM WALZ.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2023
People, even smart people tend to be blind to their own retardation. It can be difficult to spot that something commonplace in your life is retarded. You're smart. Why would one of your regular, everyday things be retarded? Then when you add the fact the retarded thing is someone you consider a friend, spotting the retardation is even harder. They're your friend. You have good taste in friends. Why would your friend be retarded?
LOL found an article from The Guardian of all places to back up your suspicions. This feels like something Jared Taylor would publish.
Interestingly, that's kind of true in a retarded, stopped clock is right twice a day, kind of way. Western countries did used to be a lot more spiritual and religious. Now that has declined and faggotry is rampant. But Hatian Voodoo is certainly not the answer.The Guardian said:
From your lips to God's ears. Sadly, I think the more likely outcome is that a few predators eat some Haitians, and we end up with a bear/wolf/mountain lion AIDS crisis wrecking the ecosystem.
Actually, I've changed my mind. This is a better idea. A pissed off moose will challenge a Fully Automatic Assault Pickup, and win.
Even if you don't like Trump, even if think he's an egotistical faggot who's just going continue to self-aggrandize himself from the Oval Office while the US continues to burn, Vance is a breath of fresh air. No empty platitudes, no promises to try to force the same bad solution that didn't work last time, none of the usual falseness that you can expect from DC's lizard people. You can tell he's actually looking at the issues and considering the tradeoffs of possible solutions.
If you don't like reality, and want to change it, you still have to start with an honest assessment of reality so you can formulate an achievable plan to get from where you are presently, to where you want to be. Rate me rainbows, but I believe Vance's willingness and ability to look at how things actually are will enable him to tard-wrangle Trump to a degree, and we might actually get some practical policy this time.
Sometimes, with concerts and shows, even if you don't like the headline act, the opening act is worth the price of the ticket. This is the case with the Trump/Vance ticket.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2021
Sega does what Nintendon't!Reported Dreamcast addict Tim Walz is now an unofficial Crazy Taxi character
New "Tim Walz Edition" mod lets the VP hopeful earn some ca-razy (campaign) money.
View attachment 6408874
NU JAK
View attachment 6408878
Current owner Bryn Tanner poses with THE
I Hate The Disabled
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2024
You here that, guys? It was TOTALLY LEGITIMATE!!! SO SHUT UP ABOUT IT!!!!
Liquid Merlon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2024
Blue check mark. Opinion disregarded.
Liquid Merlon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2024
I love how they’re trying to pander for the “gamer” vote. “Gamer” is such a nasty word, eughhhReported Dreamcast addict Tim Walz is now an unofficial Crazy Taxi character
New "Tim Walz Edition" mod lets the VP hopeful earn some ca-razy (campaign) money.
View attachment 6408874
NU JAK
View attachment 6408878
Current owner Bryn Tanner poses with THE
Gamergate 2.0 is on the cusp of emergence, too. It’s only a matter of time.
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
My trump hating friend posted an AI generated photo of trump rescuing puppies and cats from Haitians. When I expressed surprise, he told me it's funny.
They lost the soy demographic
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
Oh no...who is this guy?
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2023
for all his faults at least Biden appreciated some cool cars. Walz' claim to fame is owning a faggy failed console revered by trannies, furries, and other kinds of nerds the alpha nerds bully? patheticReported Dreamcast addict Tim Walz is now an unofficial Crazy Taxi character
New "Tim Walz Edition" mod lets the VP hopeful earn some ca-razy (campaign) money.
View attachment 6408874
NU JAK
View attachment 6408878
Current owner Bryn Tanner poses with THE
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2024
That's a sweet fucking car. Can't deny his tastes there, I guess.
- Status