Social Candace Owens has been dropped from The Daily Wire.

[koquerelle]

lmao this thread has gone way off the deep end.

Do like me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Maher is a classic liberal and has been since forever. You are among the select few who imagines Maher right-winger. What exactly is the right to you?

Well, I didn't say he's a right-winger so the premise is all off. I said he was more right-leaning in the '90s, and that he moved left during the W years, and he's now a mainstream Democrat. That was in response to inaccurate claims that he was far left in the '90s and on the right now.

The left/right spectrum refers to your position on hierarchy and equality.

 

[helltoupee]

Corporations don't give money to political campaigns. When you see listings of donations from corporations, that's usually aggregations from employees. So the reason they give to both parties is that different employees have different preferences.

While your statement above seems to make sense, I can't see how this is realistically true. Given my mother was in the tax business, I have handled literally thousands upon thousands of W-2s in my life and have never even once seen someone making a political donation via their employer, as you say. United Way and a few others? Yes.

However, when an individual makes a donation to a political entity, they don't somehow identify, or go through their employer. So I just don't see how corporations hedging their bets by giving to both parties is a result of their employees making individual contributions to varied parties. Maybe it's just not a thing on the West Coast, as I've never ever heard of someone donating to Trump or Biden, etc., through their employer. What kind of mechanism is in place in corporate America that allows for political donations from individual employees to pass through the employer to the respective parties and thus appearing as donations from the corporation itself?

I may be completely missing something, but that doesn't make sense.

 

[Daverisimo]

I did Nazi that one coming.

In all seriousness, this doesn't really surprise me much. Benny Shaps doesn't really have a problem with antisemitism unless it leads someone to being critical of Israel. While most anti zionists aren't anti Semitic, antisemites who use anti zionism as a cover for their antisemitism absolutely exist, and of course Shapiro would take issue with anti zionism even if he doesn't really care about anti semitism.

 

[Spam On Rye]

Well, I didn't say he's a right-winger so the premise is all off. I said he was more right-leaning in the '90s, and that he moved left during the W years, and he's now a mainstream Democrat. That was in response to inaccurate claims that he was far left in the '90s and on the right now.

The left/right spectrum refers to your position on hierarchy and equality.

Semantics. You sound like you're in a cult dude.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Let me guess. Witch hunt? I’ve seen this before somewhere

 

[Jack V Savage]

While your statement above seems to make sense, I can't see how this is realistically true. Given my mother was in the tax business, I have handled literally thousands upon thousands of W-2s in my life and have never even once seen someone making a political donation via their employer, as you say. United Way and a few others? Yes.

However, when an individual makes a donation to a political entity, they don't somehow identify, or go through their employer. So I just don't see how corporations hedging their bets by giving to both parties is a result of their employees making individual contributions to varied parties. Maybe it's just not a thing on the West Coast, as I've never ever heard of someone donating to Trump or Biden, etc., through their employer. What kind of mechanism is in place in corporate America that allows for political donations from individual employees to pass through the employer to the respective parties and thus appearing as donations from the corporation itself?

I may be completely missing something, but that doesn't make sense.

It doesn't have to go through the companies. When you see charts of donations from companies, it's usually aggregated individual donations from employees. So all XYZ employee contributions are combined in the chart and it will say "XYZ donated $X to the candidate." It’s illegal for corporations to donate to federal campaigns, and there are restrictions on state campaigns (depends on the state). There are some workarounds, but the info you usually see is aggregated employee donations, and the reason companies go both ways is that different employees donate in different ways.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Semantics. You sound like you're in a cult dude.

Because I speak English?

 

[nostradumbass]

Fox News was, maybe still is, the largest cable news outlet, which gives it substantial influence compared to smaller ones. You're also not listing conservative newspapers like The Washington Times. The claim that the majority of the media is liberal but only a small portion of the population is should be further inspected, because it's unsustainable on its face.

What is unsustainable? Of the 3 main cable news networks, Fox is the biggest, slightly higher than CNN and MSNB combined, which is what you'd expect in a country that is mostly moderate or conservative.

BTW, that is just cable news, and not where the majority of people get information. Google and facebook are obviously more influential than any of them, since they are the ones who can push what people see. CNN and NYtimes are the top 2 news websites, which reach a hell of a lot more people than cable television.

You can also look at pollling on trust in the media to see who's being influenced. Republicans and Independents both answered "not very much" or "none of all" on how much they trust the media, while democrats answered "very much" or "a great deal". Do you think democrats have so much more trust in the media than both republicans and independents because most of the media is conservative?

If you think the media is right leaning or conservative, it's likely because you are so far left that even on overwhelmingly liberal media is still to the right of you.

 

[Andy Capp]

You'd have to ignore the entire history of Rupert Murdoch, tabloid news and talk radio to think there was actually any equivalency in terms of the "quality" or quantity of "grifting" across the political spectrum.
At least in the anglosphere, I couldn't speak to other languages.
Different mediums focus on different demographics obviously, but that doesn't mean equivalency.

LMAO @ "couldn't speak to other languages"

 

[Sinister]

Media is a for profit business - their primary concern is the bottom line, regardless of political 'leanings'. There's a reason why the media and large corporations often give to both parties, it's called hedging your bets.

For your chart to suggest that "Forbes" and "Stars and Stripes" (who caters to the military community) are leftists is absolutely ridiculous.

Furthermore, when people say that Conservative media dominates the American public, they are referring to viewership, and not long ago Fox and only Fox had more viewers than all the other outlets combined. Not to mention talk radio, which gave us Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and dregs like Ann Coulter. Nobody on the left enjoys that much cultish dedication as people like the aforementioned do/did. Very few people drive around with 6ft tall Biden flags hanging out their F150, if at all.

So your point that the media is dominated by the left is a little nonsensical. There are more left leaning people in the country than right leaning, yet right wing shock jockeys, media personalities, and pundits absolutely dominate view totals. How on earth is influence effected by a media organization? By the number of eyeballs that are tuning in, and the right takes the cake with that. Leftists don't seem to be starstruck by politicians/pundits/personalities nearly as much as the right.

So if your question is which political ideology has the most influence over the public, there is no question that belongs to the right. Even if we take your chart at face value, so what, the Left has a higher number of tiny, little outlets with no ability to influence large swaths of people? What kind of argument is that?

This is the result of people not knowing why gutting the Fairness Doctrine was a huge priority for Reagan. Rush Limbaugh dropped almost immediately.

I mean, imagine the Government making a distinct push nowadays to suggest media SHOULD be partisan in nature. Well, that literally happened.

 

[ShadowRun]

The issue was you not understanding tariffs and them hurting Americans. You went ahead and proved that all by yourself, what do I need sources to prove? Use your words.

FYI, and you should listen carefully here, tariffs create a cost that can be worth it if they achieve a long term goal with a worth that exceeds that cost. Trump, the excellent businessman who managed to bankrupt casinos despite his advisors warning exactly how it was going to happen, didn't understand that. Neither do you.

Amazing how the closer to the election we get, the less you pretend to hate Trump.

Cool sources with the "facts" bullshit you spat out in the other thread. I knew you would dodge and dodge again. All good bro no hate, I'll leave this alone and move on. Have you lived in your area of CA all your life? I only been to Montebello small town near Ottawa . It was a awesome time although I had some trouble with some of the people that only spoke French and no English.

 

[ShadowRun]

Sources for what? I watched his '90s show, and I watch his show now. I pointed out that it was even called "Politically Incorrect." He called himself a (right-wing) libertarian then. This isn't even a controversial point. I thought you said you watched his old show.

Also, you're not quite right on my position about CNN in 2016, but I think it’s kind of trolly to even try to switch to another topic like that.

The dude was definitely a liberal hippy and still is. Also atheist then and now.

What I'm not going to play semantics with you what did you say about the CNN coverage of Trump vs Hillary in 2016 election. It was something to that effect that "They have Trump more favorable coverage' Which I thought it was really outrageous to say. I think I even put it in my sig around that time .

 

[brothir]

What is unsustainable? Of the 3 main cable news networks, Fox is the biggest, slightly higher than CNN and MSNB combined, which is what you'd expect in a country that is mostly moderate or conservative.

BTW, that is just cable news, and not where the majority of people get information. Google and facebook are obviously more influential than any of them, since they are the ones who can push what people see. CNN and NYtimes are the top 2 news websites, which reach a hell of a lot more people than cable television.

You can also look at pollling on trust in the media to see who's being influenced. Republicans and Independents both answered "not very much" or "none of all" on how much they trust the media, while democrats answered "very much" or "a great deal". Do you think democrats have so much more trust in the media than both republicans and independents because most of the media is conservative?

If you think the media is right leaning or conservative, it's likely because you are so far left that even on overwhelmingly liberal media is still to the right of you.

The disparity between the alleged small proportion of liberals versus the alleged high proportion of liberal media is unsustainable. You're adding more caveats to your original post, which helps in eroding the validity of it.

 

[Andy Capp]

You didn't source your claims which were obviously a copy/paste that didn't actually prove anything and concluded in assumptions. You spent a lot of words to say nothing and ignored the fact they forced Trump to give agriculture bail outs, increased prices across the board for Americans and had the steel industry begging him to stop.

As for media, you're insane. Even if the numbers are competitive (they aren't) the polarization is overwhelmingly conservative. Fox had anchors campaigning on the trail with Trump, something that would have immediately disqualifying just a few years before.

That's not even taking into account conservative talk radio, which really has no equivalent on the other end of the political spectrum.

 

[Loiosh]

That's not even taking into account conservative talk radio, which really has no equivalent on the other end of the political spectrum.

I asked Mick if his graphic indicated reach and viewership or if it was just number of outlets, which is pretty meaningless, and he ignored me.

Plenty of pretty pictures playing politics for punters.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Why anyone would listen to someone like Candace Owens is beyond me.

 

[Loiosh]

Why anyone would listen to someone like Candace Owens is beyond me.

C'mon now, take a guess. It's pretty obvious why.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The dude was definitely a liberal hippy and still is. Also atheist then and now.

He definitely was not. I don't really see how you're maintaining that. You didn't see the show, OK, but what about what I said? The name of the show was a reference to right-wing attacks on socially liberal positions, and he called himself a libertarian (and not a Kropotkinite--we're talking right-wing libertarianism).

What I'm not going to play semantics with you what did you say about the CNN coverage of Trump vs Hillary in 2016 election. It was something to that effect that "They have Trump more favorable coverage' Which I thought it was really outrageous to say. I think I even put it in my sig around that time .

I know you're not going to try to be accurate because your intention is to troll. But if you did, you'd see I was clearly correct.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Do these type of people exist on the left, or is grifting an easier past time on the right? Maybe I don't pay attention enough but it seems like I only ever see these type of people on the right side of the political spectrum.

Lol that's because your purposely not looking for these people on the left