Media Influence

[merh]

Nov 13, 2022 22:25:41 GMT abbey1227 said:

Nov 13, 2022 20:54:36 GMT merh said:

Republican in Democrat clothing

Shows you how far Left the Democrat party has drifted.      and be honest, she's just a little too good looking

Wow.
Men are aliens

I don't think about politicians as good looking or not.
I am looking for if they feel like they are lying or not.
Are they pandering for votes?

[abbey1227]

Nov 14, 2022 23:23:57 GMT merh said:

Nov 13, 2022 22:25:41 GMT abbey1227 said:

Shows you how far Left the Democrat party has drifted.      and be honest, she's just a little too good looking

Wow.
Men are aliens

I don't think about politicians as good looking or not.
I am looking for if they feel like they are lying or not.
Are they pandering for votes?

Then you are more of an alien yourself. Looks don't matter in any way?

Obama got elected because he was a better looking candidate than Hillary. And this is a cis-guy saying this.   

I still recall the opinions on the Nixon/Kennedy debate.........people who heard it on the radio said Nixon won it hands down, those who saw it on TV said Kennedy was the clear winner. Looks don't matter?

Cult of Personality

[merh]

Nov 15, 2022 3:46:30 GMT abbey1227 said:

Nov 14, 2022 23:23:57 GMT merh said:

Wow.
Men are aliens

I don't think about politicians as good looking or not.
I am looking for if they feel like they are lying or not.
Are they pandering for votes?

Then you are more of an alien yourself. Looks don't matter in any way?

Obama got elected because he was a better looking candidate than Hillary. And this is a cis-guy saying this.   

I still recall the opinions on the Nixon/Kennedy debate.........people who heard it on the radio said Nixon won it hands down, those who saw it on TV said Kennedy was the clear winner. Looks don't matter?

Cult of Personality

Hillary lost because the right has been painting her as the devil incarnate for a decade prior to 2008 & 2 decades before 2016.

And our attitude about women in power.
Have we elected a woman president yet?
Other countries have, but I know a lot of Americans who won't accept it. 
They're bragging we are up to a dozen female governors?

That's another Christian thing.
Women aren't supposed to rule over men.

The Nixon thing also was he refused makeup so he looked pasty & sweaty.

[merh]

This is a rag that worshiped the orange one.



“Florida Man Makes Announcement”: New York Post Buries Donald Trump’s 2024 Announcement As Others In GOP Shun Mar-A-Lago Event

deadline.com/2022/11/donald-trump-2024-new-york-post-ivanka-trump-1235173748/

I hear people tried to leave the event & he had security block them from leaving

[merh]

www.smithsonianmag.com/history/rigged-vote-four-us-presidential-elections-contested-results-180961033/

HISTORY
Four Times the Results of a Presidential Election Were Contested
“Rigged” may not be the way to describe them, but there were definitely some shenanigans happening

Robert Speel, The Conversation

November 8, 2016 | Updated: November 4, 2020
Senator John F. Kennedy speaks to supporters at Chicago Stadium four days before the 1960 election.
Senator John F. Kennedy speaks to supporters at Chicago Stadium four days before the 1960 election. AP Photo
As states continue to count their ballots in the 2020 election, it seems possible that Democrats and Republicans will end up in court over whether President Trump will preside a second term in the White House.

The results currently indicate that former Vice President Joe Biden will win enough electoral votes to take the presidency, but Trump has said he’s going to contest the election results – going so far as to say that he believes the election will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Biden and the Democrats has a team of lawyers lined up for a legal battle.

Unprecedented changes in voting procedures due to the coronavirus pandemic have created openings for candidates to cry foul. Republicans argued earlier this year that extending deadlines to receive and count ballots lead to confusion and fraud, while Democrats believe Republicans are actively working to disenfranchise voters.

Should Trump refuse to concede, it wouldn’t be the first time turmoil and claims of fraud dominated the days and weeks after the elections.

The elections of 1876, 1888, 1960 and 2000 were among the most contentious in American history. In each case, the losing candidate and party dealt with the disputed results differently.

1876: A compromise that came at a price
By 1876 – 11 years after the end of the Civil War – all the Confederate states had been readmitted to the Union, and Reconstruction was in full swing. The Republicans were strongest in the pro-Union areas of the North and African-American regions of the South, while Democratic support coalesced around southern whites and northern areas that had been less supportive of the Civil War. That year, Republicans nominated Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes, and Democrats chose New York Governor Samuel Tilden.

But on Election Day, there was widespread voter intimidation against African-American Republican voters throughout the South. Three of those Southern states – Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina – had Republican-dominated election boards. In those three states, some initial results seemed to indicate Tilden victories. But due to widespread allegations of intimidation and fraud, the election boards invalidated enough votes to give the states – and their electoral votes – to Hayes. With the electoral votes from all three states, Hayes would win a 185-184 majority in the Electoral College.

Competing sets of election returns and electoral votes were sent to Congress to be counted in January 1877, so Congress voted to create a bipartisan commission of 15 members of Congress and Supreme Court justices to determine how to allocate the electors from the three disputed states. Seven commissioners were to be Republican, seven were to be Democrats, and there would be one independent, Justice David Davis of Illinois.

A certificate of Louisiana’s electoral vote for Rutherford B. Hayes
A certificate of Louisiana’s electoral vote for Rutherford B. Hayes Wikimedia Commons
But in a political scheme that backfired, Davis was chosen by Democrats in the Illinois state legislature to serve in the U.S. Senate (senators weren’t chosen by voters until 1913). They’d hoped to win his support on the electoral commission. Instead, Davis resigned from the commission and was replaced by Republican Justice Joseph Bradley, who proceeded to join an 8-7 Republican majority that awarded all the disputed electoral votes to Hayes.

Democrats decided not to argue with that final result due to the “Compromise of 1877,” in which Republicans, in return for getting Hayes in the White House, agreed to an end to Reconstruction and military occupation of the South.

Hayes had an ineffective, one-term presidency, while the compromise ended up destroying any semblance of African-American political clout in the South. For the next century, southern legislatures, free from northern supervision, would implement laws discriminating against blacks and restricting their ability to vote.

1888: Bribing blocks of five
In 1888, Democratic President Grover Cleveland of New York ran for reelection against former Indiana U.S. Senator Benjamin Harrison.

Back then, election ballots in most states were printed, distributed by political parties and cast publicly. Certain voters, known as “floaters,” were known to sell their votes to willing buyers.

Harrison had appointed an Indiana lawyer, William Wade Dudley, as treasurer of the Republican National Committee. Shortly before the election, Dudley sent a letter to Republican local leaders in Indiana with promised funds and instructions for how to divide receptive voters into “blocks of five” to receive bribes in exchange for voting the Republican ticket. The instructions outlined how each Republican activist would be responsible for five of these “floaters.”

Benjamin Harrison
Benjamin Harrison Wikimedia Commons
Democrats got a copy of the letter and publicized it widely in the days leading up to the election. Harrison ended up winning Indiana by only about 2,000 votes but still would have won in the Electoral College without the state.

Cleveland actually won the national popular vote by almost 100,000 votes. But he lost his home state, New York, by about 1 percent of the vote, putting Harrison over the top in the Electoral College. Cleveland’s loss in New York may have also been related to vote-buying schemes.

Cleveland did not contest the Electoral College outcome and won a rematch against Harrison four years later, becoming the only president to serve nonconsecutive terms of office. Meanwhile, the blocks-of-five scandal led to the nationwide adoption of secret ballots for voting.

1960: Did the Daley machine deliver?
The 1960 election pitted Republican Vice President Richard Nixon against Democratic U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy.

The popular vote was the closest of the 20th century, with Kennedy defeating Nixon by only about 100,000 votes – a less than 0.2 percent difference.

Because of that national spread – and because Kennedy officially defeated Nixon by less than 1 percent in five states (Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico) and less than 2 percent in Texas – many Republicans cried foul. They fixated on two places in particular – southern Texas and Chicago, where a political machine led by Mayor Richard Daley allegedly churned out just enough votes to give Kennedy the state of Illinois. If Nixon had won Texas and Illinois, he would have had an Electoral College majority.

While Republican-leaning newspapers proceeded to investigate and conclude that voter fraud had occurred in both states, Nixon did not contest the results. Following the example of Cleveland in 1892, Nixon ran for president again in 1968 and won.

2000: The hanging chads
In 2000, many states were still using the punch card ballot, a voting system created in the 1960s. Even though these ballots had a long history of machine malfunctions and missed votes, no one seemed to know or care – until all Americans suddenly realized that the outdated technology had created a problem in Florida.

Then, on Election Day, the national media discovered that a “butterfly ballot,” a punch card ballot with a design that violated Florida state law, had confused thousands of voters in Palm Beach County.

The Florida butterfly ballot
The Florida butterfly ballot confused a number of voters, who ended up voting for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan thinking they had voted for Democratic candidate Al Gore. Wikimedia Commons
Many who had thought they were voting for Gore unknowingly voted for another candidate or voted for two candidates. (For example, Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan received about 3,000 votes from voters who had probably intended to vote for Gore.) Gore ended up losing the state to Bush by 537 votes – and, in losing Florida, lost the election.

But ultimately, the month-long process to determine the winner of the presidential election came down to an issue of “hanging chads.”

Over 60,000 ballots in Florida, most of them on punch cards, had registered no vote for president on the punch card readers. But on many of the punch cards, the little pieces of paper that get punched out when someone votes – known as chads – were still hanging by one, two or three corners and had gone uncounted. Gore went to court to have those ballots counted by hand to try to determine voter intent, as allowed by state law. Bush fought Gore’s request in court. While Gore won in the Florida State Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled at 10 p.m. on Dec. 12 that Congress had set a deadline of that date for states to choose electors, so there was no more time to count votes.

Gore conceded the next day.

The national drama and trauma that followed Election Day in 2000 (and in 1876) may not repeat this year. Of course, a lot will depend on the margins and how the candidates react.

Most eyes will be on Trump, whose threats over legal action loom over the nation

[abbey1227]

Nov 16, 2022 20:45:59 GMT merh said:

Nov 15, 2022 3:46:30 GMT abbey1227 said:

Then you are more of an alien yourself. Looks don't matter in any way?

Obama got elected because he was a better looking candidate than Hillary. And this is a cis-guy saying this.   

I still recall the opinions on the Nixon/Kennedy debate.........people who heard it on the radio said Nixon won it hands down, those who saw it on TV said Kennedy was the clear winner. Looks don't matter?

Cult of Personality

Hillary lost because the right has been painting her as the devil incarnate for a decade prior to 2008 & 2 decades before 2016.

And our attitude about women in power.
Have we elected a woman president yet?
Other countries have, but I know a lot of Americans who won't accept it. 
They're bragging we are up to a dozen female governors?

That's another Christian thing.
Women aren't supposed to rule over men.

The Nixon thing also was he refused makeup so he looked pasty & sweaty.

Even Key & Peele called her nasty before she ran. Just cuz you can't see it, doesn't mean others do not.

Have we run a strong, independent and fiscally conservative woman for president yet? Cuz she's already got my vote.

You're like the WNBA on this complaint. Ladies control the outcome of many elections. Stop blaming men entirely.

He refused make-up after Kennedy did........macho men. Then Kennedy had it applied out of sight of Nixon, IIRC

[merh]

Nov 17, 2022 2:48:06 GMT abbey1227 said:

Nov 16, 2022 20:45:59 GMT merh said:

Hillary lost because the right has been painting her as the devil incarnate for a decade prior to 2008 & 2 decades before 2016.

And our attitude about women in power.
Have we elected a woman president yet?
Other countries have, but I know a lot of Americans who won't accept it. 
They're bragging we are up to a dozen female governors?

That's another Christian thing.
Women aren't supposed to rule over men.

The Nixon thing also was he refused makeup so he looked pasty & sweaty.

Even Key & Peele called her nasty before she ran. Just cuz you can't see it, doesn't mean others do not.

Have we run a strong, independent and fiscally conservative woman for president yet? Cuz she's already got my vote.

You're like the WNBA on this complaint. Ladies control the outcome of many elections. Stop blaming men entirely.

He refused make-up after Kennedy did........macho men. Then Kennedy had it applied out of sight of Nixon, IIRC

Who, Luther?
But their show came after she was first Lady & thus after the GOP attacked her endlessly. Clinton Kill list, etc.
I remember a skit where Hillary & Obama were there with their separate anger interpreters...which show was that? Was it Key & Peele? Or another?

Yes, women have been taught to not support other women. Didn't you know that? How better to control women?

[merh]

Now warning about Hunter Biden-laptop disinfo: The guy who leaked it


Analysis by Philip Bump
National columnist
April 12, 2022 at 3:24 p.m. EDT

A recreation of folders that appear to have been added to a hard drive purporting to contain the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop. (The Washington Post)

When the New York Post first reported in October 2020 that it had obtained the contents of a laptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter, there was an immediate roadblock faced by any other news outlet that hoped to corroborate the reporting, as many did: The newspaper wasn’t sharing what it obtained.


Wp
Get the full experience.
Choose your plan
ArrowRight

The national story quickly centered on the dubious provenance of the material, particularly given how, four years before, WikiLeaks had begun releasing material stolen by Russian hackers at about the same point in the presidential contest. But for news outlets interested in actually evaluating what the New York Post claimed it had, neither the paper nor its source for the material, President Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, were willing to share. (Giuliani famously told the New York Times that he was hoping to avoid having the material vetted before being published.) It therefore seemed wise to treat the New York Post’s claims with some skepticism.
Now, a new voice has joined those raising questions about the validity of the material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop: the guy who recovered that data in the first place.
Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump
Last month, The Washington Post was able to publish a report based on a copy of material that we obtained from a Republican activist named Jack Maxey who’d gotten it from Giuliani. We had multiple experts examine the contents of a hard drive that purported to contain the laptop’s contents, validating tens of thousands of emails as likely to be legitimate. But an enormous amount of the material on the drive couldn’t be validated as legitimate, in part because of the game of telephone that the material had undergone by the time it reached us. (The report notes that efforts to obtain the material in 2020 were rebuffed.)


“The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years,” our report explained, with those we spoke with being unable to “reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive.”
For example:
“[An expert] also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.”
“Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, ‘Mail,' ‘Salacious Pics Package’ and ‘Big Guy File’ — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.”
One expert likened it to a crime scene that was littered with fast-food wrappers thanks to the first police who’d arrived on the scene. That’s meant as an indictment, but it’s also generous. The first people on the scene weren’t police, in this case; they were (to extend the analogy) people aiming to obtain an indictment against a particular person.

There is still an unlittered crime scene out there. The owner of the store where Hunter Biden allegedly dropped the laptop off for repairs three years ago turned the computer over to the FBI when issued a subpoena to do so. In an interview with the right-wing media outlet “Real America’s Voice,” the owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, explained how relieved he was when the FBI came to get the laptop.

“I thought everything was great when they took it," he said, “because that was what I wanted the whole time was just to get this stuff out of my shop, have the FBI — have a paper trail that afforded me some protection, both physically and legally.”
This was a theme of the interview, as it has been with past interviews with Mac Isaac: his insistences that he thought he was somehow in danger for having the laptop in his possession. If you’re wondering how he then was able to pass the material to Giuliani, the answer is that he nonetheless kept a copy of the material from the laptop “in case he was ever thrown under the bus as a result of what he knew,” his attorney told The Washington Post. In this particular tale, this is low on the scale of things that don’t entirely make sense.

It’s important to explain how Mac Isaac created the backup in the first place. The laptop he obtained repeatedly shut down as he tried to recover its data. So, instead of simply copying the entire hard drive to another device, he did so piecemeal, copying individual files and folders one at a time. In doing so, he claims that he saw material that he found alarming.

“I saw some content that was disturbing and then also raised some red flags,” Mac Isaac explained to “Real America’s Voice.” Later asked to explain what had alarmed him, he said that he saw “criminality … related to foreign business dealings, to potential money laundering and, more importantly, national security issues and concerns.” That, he explained, was “what caused me to do a deep dive into the laptop once it became my property.”
Here, again, the timeline is iffy. Delaware law indicates that he could assume ownership of the laptop after a year. But he obtained the laptop in April 2019 (at the same time that conservative media was beginning to focus on Hunter Biden’s relationship with a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma) and gave it to the FBI that December. He said that he was alarmed by the failure of the laptop to come up during Trump’s first impeachment investigation. That effort ended in February 2020, before a year had passed.

What Mac Isaac said next, though, is what was most noteworthy. When he did his “deep dive,” he said, he “saw a lot of photos” — but “did not see a lot of photos that are being reported to [have been] seen.”

“I do know that there have been multiple attempts over the past year-and-a-half to insert questionable material into the laptop as in, not physically, but passing off this misinformation or disinformation as coming from the laptop,” he said. “And that is a major concern of mine because I have fought tooth and nail to protect the integrity of this drive and to jeopardize that is going to mean that everything that I sacrificed will be for nothing.”
In other words, Mac Isaac says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset. Or, presumably, sees now, as one of the few people that might still have an unlittered copy of its contents.

To what is he referring? It’s hard to say. It may include one of the more popular claims that has circulated on the right, alleging that the machine included evidence of criminal sexual activity by Hunter Biden. (This was alleged on-air by Tucker Carlson last year, without proof.) Or it may involve other claims entirely.

Here’s where The Washington Post’s discovery that folders were added becomes more important. We have evidence that the portable hard drive had something added to it both before and after the New York Post’s original story — and here’s Mac Isaac agreeing that some of what he’s seen presented as coming from the laptop was never on there. This is why provenance matters in journalistic investigations. Just because Rudy Giuliani says that material came from a hard drive is not reason to assume it did — particularly when he’s on-record as disparaging the idea that the material should be vetted before being reported on.
Hunter Biden remains under federal investigation for possible violations of tax law. The material on the laptop (assuming that the laptop itself is Biden’s, which is also not entirely settled) may play a role in establishing his guilt or innocence. But the mythical contents of the laptop that have been so fascinating to the right for the past 18 months are — at least at times — not provably that.
If you don’t want to take the mainstream media’s word for it, take Mac Isaac’s

[abbey1227]

Nov 18, 2022 5:39:55 GMT merh said:

Nov 17, 2022 2:48:06 GMT abbey1227 said:

Even Key & Peele called her nasty before she ran. Just cuz you can't see it, doesn't mean others do not.

Have we run a strong, independent and fiscally conservative woman for president yet? Cuz she's already got my vote.

You're like the WNBA on this complaint. Ladies control the outcome of many elections. Stop blaming men entirely.

He refused make-up after Kennedy did........macho men. Then Kennedy had it applied out of sight of Nixon, IIRC

Who, Luther?
But their show came after she was first Lady & thus after the GOP attacked her endlessly. Clinton Kill list, etc.
I remember a skit where Hillary & Obama were there with their separate anger interpreters...which show was that? Was it Key & Peele? Or another?

Yes, women have been taught to not support other women. Didn't you know that? How better to control women?

Yes, Luther the anger translator. That was during Obama's time and they made no secret of what they saw in her. You think they got it from their favorite Republicans?

That was Key & Peele

Why do you think I keep saying how disappointing feminism has really been? Sometimes, women are much worse than men when it comes to a civil society. And they're certainly a big part of the problem in modern America

[merh]

Nov 18, 2022 14:03:56 GMT abbey1227 said:

Nov 18, 2022 5:39:55 GMT merh said:

Who, Luther?
But their show came after she was first Lady & thus after the GOP attacked her endlessly. Clinton Kill list, etc.
I remember a skit where Hillary & Obama were there with their separate anger interpreters...which show was that? Was it Key & Peele? Or another?

Yes, women have been taught to not support other women. Didn't you know that? How better to control women?

Yes, Luther the anger translator. That was during Obama's time and they made no secret of what they saw in her. You think they got it from their favorite Republicans?

That was Key & Peele

Why do you think I keep saying how disappointing feminism has really been? Sometimes, women are much worse than men when it comes to a civil society. And they're certainly a big part of the problem in modern America

Jesus fucking christ, dude. 

Misogynist much?

Did you know

uproxx.com/tv/a-young-jordan-peele-once-asked-president-bill-clinton-about-deadbeat-dads/

A Young Jordan Peele Once Asked President Bill Clinton A Question During A Televised White House Q&A
Ashley Burns
ASHLEY BURNS TWITTER
SENIOR WRITER
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

Comedian Kevin Pollak has a popular podcast and YouTube series that he has very aptly named Kevin Pollak’s Chat Show, and his list of recent guests is pretty remarkable, as he has shot the sh*t with everyone we love, from Jon Hamm and Bill Hader to Tom Hanks and Larry David. Back in May, he interviewed Key and Peele star Jordan Peele about a wide variety of topics, from the way that Dutch women just lay it all on the table to how Oprah Winfrey basically controls the entire universe.

One little nugget that seemed to have slipped through the cracks – probably because the interview only has 7,831 views on YouTube more than four months later – is that when Peele was a teenager, he got to attend the “President Clinton: Answering Children’s Questions” event at the White House in 1993, and he even asked President Bill Clinton a question about how the government can help a single mom out when the father is unwilling to contribute. Fortunately, as Peele Tweeted this evening, YouTuber Justin Bosch tracked down the footage (the entire event is available on YouTube) and combined Peele’s anecdote with the actual moment that he grilled Clinton.

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/jordan-peele-trump-supporters-get-out-b1783729.html

Jordan Peele reflects on working with Trump supporters on set of Get Out: ‘We’re stuck here and we’re going to be cordial’
Oscar-winning horror film was filmed amid Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016

Annabel Nugent
Thursday 07 January 2021 09:54

Oscar-winner Jordan Peele has reflected on what it was like to work with supporters of Donald Trump on the set of his hit film Get Out.

Since its release in 2017, the critically acclaimed horror movie has been applauded for its satirical commentary on racism in America.

The film, which starred British actor Daniel Kaluuya, was nominated for three Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director.

Get Out was filmed in February 2016, one year after Trump formally announced his presidential candidacy. Peele noted that many members of the movie’s production crew were obvious supporters of Trump.

Peele said: “We shot with people who were of different political persuasions and it was cool. I liked them. I liked the feeling down there.”

The 41-year-old, who identifies as a Democrat, went on to explain that Get Out had been made at a time when such political differences did not automatically lead to tensions boiling over in the way they may have done in the more recent years of Trump’s presidency.

“There was this feeling of America that was still happening where we have different beliefs, and I may even kinda think you’re racist but we’re stuck here and we’re going to be cordial to one another, and hey, maybe we might even connect,” said Peele.

Speaking about Trump’s loss to President-elect Joe Biden in the November US election, the director added: “The vibe shifted… it’s crazy, even as soon as [Trump] was voted out, all of a sudden it felt like I could f*** with them again now that he’s gone.”

You know that skit was humor & not serious.
Both are Democrats 

[abbey1227]

Nov 21, 2022 1:28:49 GMT merh said:

Nov 18, 2022 14:03:56 GMT abbey1227 said:

Why do you think I keep saying how disappointing feminism has really been? Sometimes, women are much worse than men when it comes to a civil society. And they're certainly a big part of the problem in modern America

Jesus fucking christ, dude. 

Misogynist much?

Did you know


You know that skit was humor & not serious.
Both are Democrats 

What's misogynist about believing women are every bit as responsible and capable as men?  Wouldn't it be sexist to give them a pass........as you are doing?

It was humor, it was 2 democrats........but the part that makes it funny is it is based on truth. Go ask some Secret Service agents what they thought of her