Presidentvalget i USA 2024

[VifteKopp]

jallajall skrev (2 minutter siden):

De fikk jo en bra anerkjennese i dag da. Og DNC skryter jo også av det Biden har gjort for de. Men hvis det ikke er noe Kamala har tenkt å ta tak i, så er det vel sånn det er da.

Jeg kan betrygge deg med at Chicago ikke kommer til å bli gitt tilbake til Potawatomi-stammen under en eventuell Harris-administrasjon. 

[jallajall]

Michigan disqualifies presidential candidate Cornel West from November ballot

Jonathan Brater, Michigan's elections director, wrote the West campaign a letter dated Friday saying that the affidavits of identity submitted to the Secretary of State's Office in June for West and his vice presidential running mate, Melina Abdullah, were not properly notarized.

Brater's letter, which gave West five days to provide evidence to rebut the disqualification, said the West campaign was informed on July 26 about a challenge to the affidavits brought by former Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer and given until Aug. 2 to respond.

Jeg tror ikke amerikanerne skjønner hvor heldige de er som har demokratene som passer på at færrest mulige slipper til på valglistene slik at borgerne bare har to kandidater å velge mellom og slipper å sette seg inn i alle andre kandidaters agenda.
 

[jallajall]

They Truly See Their Corruption as Heroism

..We are seeing this unfold with terrible consequence as the dominant media betrays the very foundations of journalism – starting with demanding that only certain leaders answer questions – to transforming Kamala Harris into a combination of Rosa Parks, Franklin Roosevelt, and Beyoncé.

Their partisanship is so manifold and manifest that it has created a cottage industry in conservative media, which creates terabytes of content each day exposing the false narratives and double standards advanced by Democrats and their laptop lackeys. Such debunking is necessary and important. But there’s a bit of delusion at work here, too: Despite all evidence to the contrary the critics somehow believe their fact-checking and truth-telling will pressure the propagandists into changing their ways.

The answer is obvious: They sincerely believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy, an American Hitler. If that’s the case, why would you give him a fair shake or hold his opponents’ feet to the fire?

Displaying textbook symptoms of the addled, they insist that falsehoods are truths. Despite unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, they continue to maintain that Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election, that he called all Mexicans rapists, praised neo-Nazi marchers at Charlottesville, advised Americans to inject bleach to combat COVID, and promised a “bloodbath” if he loses in November.

They are not lying when they make these claims – they sincerely believe they are expressing truths the rest of us just can’t see. This makes them immune to reason.

[rabler]

6 minutes ago, jallajall said:

They Truly See Their Corruption as Heroism

..We are seeing this unfold with terrible consequence as the dominant media betrays the very foundations of journalism – starting with demanding that only certain leaders answer questions – to transforming Kamala Harris into a combination of Rosa Parks, Franklin Roosevelt, and Beyoncé.

Their partisanship is so manifold and manifest that it has created a cottage industry in conservative media, which creates terabytes of content each day exposing the false narratives and double standards advanced by Democrats and their laptop lackeys. Such debunking is necessary and important. But there’s a bit of delusion at work here, too: Despite all evidence to the contrary the critics somehow believe their fact-checking and truth-telling will pressure the propagandists into changing their ways.

The answer is obvious: They sincerely believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy, an American Hitler. If that’s the case, why would you give him a fair shake or hold his opponents’ feet to the fire?

Displaying textbook symptoms of the addled, they insist that falsehoods are truths. Despite unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, they continue to maintain that Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election, that he called all Mexicans rapists, praised neo-Nazi marchers at Charlottesville, advised Americans to inject bleach to combat COVID, and promised a “bloodbath” if he loses in November.

They are not lying when they make these claims – they sincerely believe they are expressing truths the rest of us just can’t see. This makes them immune to reason.

Projisering der altså.

[jallajall]

‘Unprecedented’ positive media for Harris, 89% negative for Trump

Not only has Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump, but the spin of Harris’s coverage has been more positive (84%) than any other major party nominee, even as Trump’s coverage has been nearly entirely hostile (89% negative).

a separate count shows those statements have also favored Harris by a whopping margin (94% positive, vs. just 43% positive for Trump). At the same time, the network coverage has virtually eliminated any discussion of the strident left-wing positions Harris took as Senator or during her 2020 presidential campaign. And while Republican Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance and his Democratic counterpart, Tim Walz, have received nearly equal amounts of airtime, the networks have celebrated Walz (62% positive press) and punished Vance (92% negative).

In 2020, we calculated that the networks supplied Joe Biden with 66% positive coverage during the general election, while the Democrats’ 2016 nominee, Hillary Clinton, actually received mostly (79%) negative coverage during that year’s campaign.

Using similar methodology, Stephen Farnsworth and Robert Lichter in 2008 (scroll to page 14) found 68% positive press for Democratic nominee Barack Obama, “the highest...recorded for any nominee over the past six election cycles” by the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. Given the networks’ idolatrous coverage of the past four weeks, it is conceivable Harris’s 2024 coverage could wind up even more positive than Obama’s was sixteen years ago.

 

Endret 19. august av jallajall

[jjkoggan]

jallajall skrev (1 time siden):

‘Unprecedented’ positive media for Harris, 89% negative for Trump

Not only has Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump, but the spin of Harris’s coverage has been more positive (84%) than any other major party nominee, even as Trump’s coverage has been nearly entirely hostile (89% negative).

a separate count shows those statements have also favored Harris by a whopping margin (94% positive, vs. just 43% positive for Trump). At the same time, the network coverage has virtually eliminated any discussion of the strident left-wing positions Harris took as Senator or during her 2020 presidential campaign. And while Republican Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance and his Democratic counterpart, Tim Walz, have received nearly equal amounts of airtime, the networks have celebrated Walz (62% positive press) and punished Vance (92% negative).

In 2020, we calculated that the networks supplied Joe Biden with 66% positive coverage during the general election, while the Democrats’ 2016 nominee, Hillary Clinton, actually received mostly (79%) negative coverage during that year’s campaign.

Using similar methodology, Stephen Farnsworth and Robert Lichter in 2008 (scroll to page 14) found 68% positive press for Democratic nominee Barack Obama, “the highest...recorded for any nominee over the past six election cycles” by the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. Given the networks’ idolatrous coverage of the past four weeks, it is conceivable Harris’s 2024 coverage could wind up even more positive than Obama’s was sixteen years ago.

 

Ah yes- Newsbusters the neutral arbiter of media bias who tried to give away its Buckley award for media excellence to Sean Hannity with its careful and objective  analysis of journalistic integrity.

[shockorshot]

Til og med julenissen er en DNC delegate. Nok en spiker i kisten for gjengen som kommer til å få til kull i jul, pga deres totale mangel på ryggrad og støtte for en som prøvde å sette seg over grunnloven, samt ødelegge demokratiet i USA.

[AlpakkaMafakka]

Markiii skrev (15 timer siden):

Elon påstår at han vil være med på å redde klimaet. Så går han og samarbeider med klimanektere.

Elon påstår han er for absolutt ytringsfrihet. Så setter han i gang med å sensurere voldsomt på Twitter.

Elon påstår at det viktigste for menneskeheten er å komme seg til Mars. Så velger han å bruke penger på å kjøpe Twitter og kjempe kulturkriger på jorden.

Og så videre.

Han fremstår mer og mer som en narr.

Elon har nok hatt gode intensjoner med hva han ville bruke rikdommen sin på opprinnelig. Han har snakket nok om disse temaene til å få meg til å tro at han genuint mente dette, men problemet med Elon, som også kommer tydelig frem i Walter Isaacsons bok Elon Musk er at Elon har null impulskontroll og er veldig reaksjonær, for meg tyder det på et veldig lavt selvbilde, store usikkerheter og narsissisme, altså en Vulnerable Narcissist.

Kombiner det med folk på venstresiden som gjør narr av ham, folk på høyresiden som forguder ham og han vil automatisk trekke til de som forguder ham, og være villig til å forme alle sine meninger deretter.

 

[Casey]

jallajall skrev (13 timer siden):

‘Unprecedented’ positive media for Harris, 89% negative for Trump

Not only has Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump, but the spin of Harris’s coverage has been more positive (84%) than any other major party nominee, even as Trump’s coverage has been nearly entirely hostile (89% negative).

a separate count shows those statements have also favored Harris by a whopping margin (94% positive, vs. just 43% positive for Trump). At the same time, the network coverage has virtually eliminated any discussion of the strident left-wing positions Harris took as Senator or during her 2020 presidential campaign. And while Republican Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance and his Democratic counterpart, Tim Walz, have received nearly equal amounts of airtime, the networks have celebrated Walz (62% positive press) and punished Vance (92% negative).

In 2020, we calculated that the networks supplied Joe Biden with 66% positive coverage during the general election, while the Democrats’ 2016 nominee, Hillary Clinton, actually received mostly (79%) negative coverage during that year’s campaign.

Using similar methodology, Stephen Farnsworth and Robert Lichter in 2008 (scroll to page 14) found 68% positive press for Democratic nominee Barack Obama, “the highest...recorded for any nominee over the past six election cycles” by the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. Given the networks’ idolatrous coverage of the past four weeks, it is conceivable Harris’s 2024 coverage could wind up even more positive than Obama’s was sixteen years ago.

 

Du er helt overbevist om at kildekritikk er en fin bil, ikke sant?

[Delvis]

Som motsvar til at Trump vil ha Musk i regjering, vil jeg anbefale at Harris inviterer Bill Gates til å få plass sin regjering.

[Snikpellik]

jallajall skrev (14 timer siden):

Not only has Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump, but the spin of Harris’s coverage has been more positive

Det er nesten som om Trump-kampanjen bør bli flinkere på mediehåndtering og kommunikasjon! Kanskje de også kunne snakke mer om positive ting og politikk, i stedet for borgerkrig, dommedagsteorier og hvor fæle og slemme alle andre er hele tiden.

Endret 20. august av Snikpellik

[Selfuniverse]

On 8.8.2024 at 3:42 PM, Poor Old Gil said:

Bare synd "humoren" gikk litt over stokk og stein i Sandy Hook-saken.

Huh? Mener du at det er en uting å rapportere på og analysere det man ser?

[AlpakkaMafakka]

Selfuniverse skrev (5 minutter siden):

Huh? Mener du at det er en uting å rapportere på og analysere det man ser?

Ah Rumble, YouTube's kooky konspiratoriske fetter. 

[VifteKopp]

Selfuniverse skrev (37 minutter siden):

Huh? Mener du at det er en uting å rapportere på og analysere det man ser?

Hvordan går det egentlig med jakten på «the second shooter» i Trump-attentatforsøket? Har du funnet han?

[Selfuniverse]

21 minutes ago, VifteKopp said:

Hvordan går det egentlig med jakten på «the second shooter» i Trump-attentatforsøket? Har du funnet han?

Det er ihvertfall en helt åpenbart sterkt mistenkt som forlater posten sin, som er helt uhørt. Og oppfører seg meget rart, uforsiktig og nonchalant. Men tenker det er greit å la ekspertene analysere videre først.

Endret 20. august av Selfuniverse

[jallajall]

2 hours ago, Casey said:

Du er helt overbevist om at kildekritikk er en fin bil, ikke sant?

Fant du noe feil i artikkelen?

[jallajall]

1 hour ago, Snikpellik said:

Det er nesten som om Trump-kampanjen bør bli flinkere på mediehåndtering og kommunikasjon! Kanskje de også kunne snakke mer om positive ting og politikk, i stedet for borgerkrig, dommedagsteorier og hvor fæle og slemme alle andre er hele tiden.

Tror du det hjelper? Det er CBS, ABC og NBC vi snakker om her.

[uname -i]

Dere som heier på ham, er dette noe dere ville ha gjort?

[Dragavon]

Det der er jo akkurat som forventa frå Trump.

[Dragavon]

Sitat

 

- Trumps leveregel er at om alle snakker om deg, så vinner du. For Trump er all PR god PR, alltid. Det styrer alt han gjør og sier.

Det skriver Hilmar Mjelde, USA-ekspert og professor i statsvitenskap ved Høgskulen på Vestlandet, i en e-post til Dagbladet.

- Dette er også en «suksessformel» Trump tyr spesielt mye til når ting butter imot. Han kommer bare til å bli verre fremover.

 

https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/kommer-bare-til-a-bli-verre/81822974