dirtyhairy

Things the media won't tell you.

1,340 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

The war in Iraq was over and a Govt set up. ISIS was formed when the vacuum was created by Team Obama, pulling all the troops out. The main point of my post was to show the rank hypocrisy and political correctness that saw an award given to a man who had done NOTHING to deserve it, then see's war on every day of his presidency. It stands as an example of political correctness and the shangri la attitude of the left, then reality hits them in the face.

The Nobel Prize in question was awarded over 7 years ago!  Are you just now finding out about it?  I know you're slow, I didn't realize you were that slow...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Dip some Stacy's plain pita chips in it, that's some mighty-fine eatin'.

That was the next thing thing I was going to ask you, if you just dig in with a fork, use chips, or spread it on texas toast. It looks like celery and ranch would go well with it too. I'm glad you pointed this out to me because I'm going grocery shopping in the morning for the game and I wanted to try something different. I'm going to get some publix sushi like Worr recommended and see how that goes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kicker said:

The Nobel Prize in question was awarded over 7 years ago!  Are you just now finding out about it?  I know you're slow, I didn't realize you were that slow...  

You've missed the point. The point was after being Given the stupid award, the man did just the opposite and the media says Nothing about any of it because its an embarrassement. The point is the Hypocrisy of the award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

You've missed the point. The point was after being Given the stupid award, the man did just the opposite and the media says Nothing about any of it because its an embarrassement. The point is the Hypocrisy of the award.

Kicker didn't miss the point, he acknowledged the hypocrisy of the award given Obama's actions from then until now.  In no way, shape, or form does he deserve that award based on the drone campaign alone, not to mention any number of other policies.  Unfortunately, I don't think the Nobel committee would take it back after the fact like the Heisman committee did to Reggie Bush. 

kicker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The polls showed Clinton winning the popular vote by, on average, about 3%.  Clinton won the popular vote by 2%.  

 

People that suggest that all the polls were inaccurate simply don't understand polling or how the election went the way it did. 

The specific outcome that actually occurred was discussed on 538 multiple times during the campaign. 

1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

Trump can't win, trump is finished,the blue wall won't fall, trump is going to explode, trump is hitler, but yea, lets keeping listening to the political hacks who got it all wrong, including You.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-could-win-the-white-house-while-losing-the-popular-vote/ September 15, 2016

That said, in the event this race does tighten to a coin flip by Nov. 8, there is an unusually high chance Donald Trump could win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote — basically, Democrats’ version of the apocalypse.

Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/ October 31, 2016.

We’ve written about this before, but I wanted to call your attention to it again because the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split keeps widening in our forecast. While there’s an outside chance that such a split could benefit Clinton if she wins the exact set of states that form her “firewall,” it’s far more likely to benefit Donald Trump, according to our forecast. Thus, as of early Monday evening, our polls-only model gave Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the popular vote but just a 75 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote, in other words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carter said:

Are we still trusting what any of these polls say about Trump?

I wish we had Publix where I live. We have Kroger, Albertsons, Aldi, and of course Walmart and Target. The Kroger near me has a couple of full time Asian guys making sushi, but I haven't brought myself to try it. The best sushi restaurant I've ever been to is in the same shopping center and I'm generally skeptical of non restaurant sushi.

There's also HEB out here but they're in Dallas which is about a 40 minute drive in good traffic for me. There's never good traffic. Dallas desensitized me to Atlanta traffic.

Yeah, there's no reason to distrust gallup favorability polls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

 

People that suggest that all the polls were inaccurate simply don't understand polling or how the election went the way it did. 

The specific outcome that actually occurred was discussed on 538 multiple times during the campaign. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-could-win-the-white-house-while-losing-the-popular-vote/ September 15, 2016

That said, in the event this race does tighten to a coin flip by Nov. 8, there is an unusually high chance Donald Trump could win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote — basically, Democrats’ version of the apocalypse.

Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/ October 31, 2016.

We’ve written about this before, but I wanted to call your attention to it again because the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split keeps widening in our forecast. While there’s an outside chance that such a split could benefit Clinton if she wins the exact set of states that form her “firewall,” it’s far more likely to benefit Donald Trump, according to our forecast. Thus, as of early Monday evening, our polls-only model gave Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the popular vote but just a 75 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote, in other words.

Yep, 538 and Nate Silver have been the most accurate election analysis since 2008.  Here's another one of their articles that explains that Trump was just a single polling error behind Clinton in the polls:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

People need more training in how to examine and analyze polls.  I strongly suggest Herbert Asher's book "Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know".  Past editions are available pretty cheap online and it's written for a broad audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

You've missed the point. The point was after being Given the stupid award, the man did just the opposite and the media says Nothing about any of it because its an embarrassement. The point is the Hypocrisy of the award.

The award was silly when it was given and undermined all the prior winnings of it.  He had never earned it when he received it, so everything over the past 7 years is irrelevant.  You're ridiculously late to that party.  Further, you're arguing a stance that literally no one here objects to.  

 

Lastly, you talking about hypocrisy is nauseating.  

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Yep, 538 and Nate Silver have been the most accurate election analysis since 2008.  Here's another one of their articles that explains that Trump was just a single polling error behind Clinton in the polls:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

People need more training in how to examine and analyze polls.  I strongly suggest Herbert Asher's book "Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know".  Past editions are available pretty cheap online and it's written for a broad audience.

It comes down to being comfortable with notions of uncertainty. 

It isn't much different than the rationale behind people being pissed off at sportswriters who trade in inside info. Too many people take information in, dumb it down to a binary and then freakout when reality ends up being more complex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the media will tell us the exact things you said they won't tell us:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/here-are-the-most-controversial-noble-prize-winners-ever.html?slide=2 (ZOMG CNBC THE LIBRUL LAMESTREAM MEDIA!!)

"The U.S. president received the prize in 2009, just nine months into his first term. Many criticized Obama's nomination for being premature and that he had not been in power long enough to deserve the prize.

"This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award," Brian Becker, national coordinator of Act Now To Stop War and End Racism, said in a Reuters report at the time.

In 2015, the former director of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, seemed to regret the decision, writing in his autobiography that the committee thought the prize would strengthen the president, but that it didn't have this effect.

"Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake," he said, according to the BBC. "In that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for".

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/29/cal-thomas-nobel-committee-should-ask-obama-to-return-his-peace-prize.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nobel-peace-prize-seven-years-later-1475795772

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960

 

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Also, the media will tell us the exact things you said they won't tell us:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/here-are-the-most-controversial-noble-prize-winners-ever.html?slide=2 (ZOMG CNBC THE LIBRUL LAMESTREAM MEDIA!!)

"The U.S. president received the prize in 2009, just nine months into his first term. Many criticized Obama's nomination for being premature and that he had not been in power long enough to deserve the prize.

"This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award," Brian Becker, national coordinator of Act Now To Stop War and End Racism, said in a Reuters report at the time.

In 2015, the former director of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, seemed to regret the decision, writing in his autobiography that the committee thought the prize would strengthen the president, but that it didn't have this effect.

"Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake," he said, according to the BBC. "In that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for".

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/29/cal-thomas-nobel-committee-should-ask-obama-to-return-his-peace-prize.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nobel-peace-prize-seven-years-later-1475795772

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960

 

/Thread 

Leon Troutsky and mdrake34 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Why not?  The national polls were, on average, fairly accurate this election.  Why wouldn't you trust them?

Because we aren't talking about Hillary anymore. :ninja:

You know they don't sell country ham in Texas? I have to smuggle it out of Georgia every time I visit. I'm a pork smuggler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carter said:

Because we aren't talking about Hillary anymore. :ninja:

You know they don't sell country ham in Texas? I have to smuggle it out of Georgia every time I visit. I'm a pork smuggler.

Uh...whut?

We can't trust the polls that were accurate because Hillary?  Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Uh...whut?

We can't trust the polls that were accurate because Hillary?  Makes no sense.

Oh no, because they said Trump had very little chance of winning and he ended up winning states he wasn't even supposed to. I clearly remember the shocked look on my poli sci professors face the next day. I'm just skeptical of the polls when it comes to Trump is all... more than a few people seem to think he can do no wrong and is just a target of the liberal media. Not my particular opinion, just observations.

Zone#7 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carter said:

Oh no, because they said Trump had very little chance of winning and he ended up winning states he wasn't even supposed to. I clearly remember the shocked look on my poli sci professors face the next day. I'm just skeptical of the polls when it comes to Trump is all... more than a few people seem to think he can do no wrong and is just a target of the liberal media. Not my particular opinion, just observations.

What classes were you taking, if you don't mind me asking?  Somebody who understands the basic theories of presidential elections and the methodology behind the polls shouldn't have been shocked the day after the election.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

What classes were you taking, if you don't mind me asking?  Somebody who understands the basic theories of presidential elections and the methodology behind the polls shouldn't have been shocked the day after the election.  

It was a freshman level class on the constitution, elections, federal government. She was a tenured professor though, not some young kid the university plucked out of grad school. Shocked might be a strong word. More like excited disbelief that he actually won the way he did. She never talked about her own desire for the outcome of the election, so I don't want to portray her as being upset about it because the only passion she showed was for the process in general.

A sizable chunk of the class was on polling and I thought it was covered very well. I'm not saying "throw the polls out, they're useless" btw. I don't have anything close to your understanding of them I'm sure, but I understand a bit. I just think Trump has shown he's a bit of an anomaly to this point and positive or negative I'm a little hesitant to accept what the polls say about him right now. It's probably an irrational stance lol

I really want some country ham now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me clarify 1 thing in this thread. When I say, things the media won't talk about, that means to stories the News Media won't lead with, run with, and shout to the rafters. The media, all 500,000 bloggers as well, will certainly hit on all these stories at least once, how else would I have heard of them. The Point, and I know, contrarians will not agree or discuss anything with me but the facts the merit of the thread is THE STORIES THE MSM DON T WANT TOLD. Maybe that will be good enough for kicker, who needs some Rolaids or tumbs.

Latest story the media dribbles out and won't highlight is: Trump winning again - Lockeed CEO now pledges 1800 new jobs, Lower F-35 costs after meeting Trump.

The Progressive left is an all out assault on Christianity and Judism. Look up Nut bag Joyce Carol Oates: Christianity "Virtually Synonymous with White Nationalism". 

The left is in bed with Islam and they are sponsoring bills to allow SHARIA law in our courts and cities. Look up House resolution 569. This resolution does NOT come out and advocate Sharia, it wants to protect hate speech, and what's next is allowing Muslim customs to become law. We have politicians who are going to allow Female mutilation as well. https://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/tag/female-genital-mutilation/

"Medical Doctors in the United States Prepared to ‘Compromise’ Allowing ‘..Just a Little..’ Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

Islam is akin to modern day slavery for women, gays and non believers. Unbelieving we have Progressives, go look at the Columbia student survey, which is All Good on Islamic laws, as perverse as much of it is, to lord over our constitution and laws. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

What classes were you taking, if you don't mind me asking?  Somebody who understands the basic theories of presidential elections and the methodology behind the polls shouldn't have been shocked the day after the election.  

Dude, if you don't see, hear and understand that many in YOUR profession sat shocked, angered and crying after the election, then you certainly aren't paying attention. Poll after poll, after news story after news story, daily for months, PREDICTED tried to suggest Trump could not win. It was all bogus, biased media which led to bogus biased polling and you were apart of it as well. Your contention that you slightly predicted Trump could win a day or 2 out and or 1 time leading up to the election does Not present that fact that you and the Left Media spent 6 months predicting, for telling it would, could Never happen. The montage of political HACKS, Media celebrities scoffing at the oft chance that Trump could win, is out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Dude, if you don't see, hear and understand that many in YOUR profession sat shocked, angered and crying after the election, then you certainly aren't paying attention. Poll after poll, after news story after news story, daily for months, PREDICTED tried to suggest Trump could not win. It was all bogus, biased media which led to bogus biased polling and you were apart of it as well. Your contention that you slightly predicted Trump could win a day or 2 out and or 1 time leading up to the election does Not present that fact that you and the Left Media spent 6 months predicting, for telling it would, could Never happen. The montage of political HACKS, Media celebrities scoffing at the oft chance that Trump could win, is out there.

Yes it was, many in here even scoffed at that notion including the guy you replied to in this post.

dirtyhairy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also Know according to the FBI: Major cities have been hit by a 21.6% spike in Murders in 2016. The FBI stats showed a 10.8% increase in murders from 2014 to 2015. That was the largest increase in a single year since 1971. Did the media talk about this on a weekly, monthly basis? No. This despite our President saying America is safer, there's less crime then 8 years ago. The out right lies told over the years and scantly covered won't be repeated by the media this time around. Why? Abject bias.

Why is crime on the rise Under Obama? FBI director Comey said, the chill wind blowing thru law enforcement....The obama administration criticizes and demonized law enforcement to the point police were afraid to Do Their Jobs. Being prosecuted unfairly by the DOJ, the media and the likes of the BLM movement, many in law enforcement were feeling like the hunted, and in fact, law enforcement deaths prove that to be a fact. When a thug like the gentle giant in Ferguson gets delegates from the WH at his funeral and then police, Vets get nothing but scorn, then you know the mood of the titular head was and is against you. Not for much longer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

We also Know according to the FBI: Major cities have been hit by a 21.6% spike in Murders in 2016. The FBI stats showed a 10.8% increase in murders from 2014 to 2015. That was the largest increase in a single year since 1971. Did the media talk about this on a weekly, monthly basis? No. This despite our President saying America is safer, there's less crime then 8 years ago. The out right lies told over the years and scantly covered won't be repeated by the media this time around. Why? Abject bias.

Why is crime on the rise Under Obama? FBI director Comey said, the chill wind blowing thru law enforcement....The obama administration criticizes and demonized law enforcement to the point police were afraid to Do Their Jobs. Being prosecuted unfairly by the DOJ, the media and the likes of the BLM movement, many in law enforcement were feeling like the hunted, and in fact, law enforcement deaths prove that to be a fact. When a thug like the gentle giant in Ferguson gets delegates from the WH at his funeral and then police, Vets get nothing but scorn, then you know the mood of the titular head was and is against you. Not for much longer.

 

 

To top that off Lynch's DOJ now says all the murders in Chicago are a results of the police officers?  Okay, sure, that makes it easy to obfuscate the real problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WhenFalconsWin said:

To top that off Lynch's DOJ now says all the murders in Chicago are a results of the police officers?  Okay, sure, that makes it easy to obfuscate the real problem.  

Okay, so what IS the real problem, according to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dirtyhairy said:

Let me clarify 1 thing in this thread. When I say, things the media won't talk about, that means to stories the News Media won't lead with, run with, and shout to the rafters. The media, all 500,000 bloggers as well, will certainly hit on all these stories at least once, how else would I have heard of them. The Point, and I know, contrarians will not agree or discuss anything with me but the facts the merit of the thread is THE STORIES THE MSM DON T WANT TOLD. Maybe that will be good enough for kicker, who needs some Rolaids or tumbs.

Spin it all you want, you constantly ***** about how the media doesn't cover stories, and every time I provide you links where the media has covered those stories. Now you're just moving the goal posts about how much the stories are covered vs whether they're reported on. Grow up. 

Leon Troutsky and falconsd56 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

We also Know according to the FBI: Major cities have been hit by a 21.6% spike in Murders in 2016. The FBI stats showed a 10.8% increase in murders from 2014 to 2015. That was the largest increase in a single year since 1971. Did the media talk about this on a weekly, monthly basis? No. This despite our President saying America is safer, there's less crime then 8 years ago. The out right lies told over the years and scantly covered won't be repeated by the media this time around. Why? Abject bias.

Why is crime on the rise Under Obama? FBI director Comey said, the chill wind blowing thru law enforcement....The obama administration criticizes and demonized law enforcement to the point police were afraid to Do Their Jobs. Being prosecuted unfairly by the DOJ, the media and the likes of the BLM movement, many in law enforcement were feeling like the hunted, and in fact, law enforcement deaths prove that to be a fact. When a thug like the gentle giant in Ferguson gets delegates from the WH at his funeral and then police, Vets get nothing but scorn, then you know the mood of the titular head was and is against you. Not for much longer.

 

 

You said that we can't believe the FBI, that they are political and in Obama's pocket, and that their investigations aren't credible and cannot be believed.  Why should we trust the FBI on this?

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now