APP - All's quiet on the Stormy front

[canceled.2021.1]

I seem to remember folks saying that Stormy was going to take Trump down. You couldn't turn on the news without her lawyer Avenatti giving some sort of interview divulging sensitive information.

Now all of a sudden it has dried up. Haven't heard a peep out of him in weeks.


Odd

 

[Legion]

I seem to remember folks saying that Stormy was going to take Trump down. You couldn't turn on the news without her lawyer Avenatti giving some sort of interview divulging sensitive information.

Now all of a sudden it has dried up. Haven't heard a peep out of him in weeks.


Odd

He's had some issues lately.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

He's had some issues lately.

Did you hear what Giuliani said about Stormy in Israel? They were pretty harsh.

I watched Mika Underwood freak out about it this morning. Apparently Giuliani called Stormy out for her career choice and Mika wasn't a fan.

If I am keeping proper score, so far we have the democrat party defending


Porn stars
Hamas
MS13 gang members

Should make for some great ads come November

 

[Legion]

DEMOCRATS have always championed criminals, perverts, fringe behavior, and America's enemies, haven't they?

I know there are some very effective ads already out, but when I searched for some examples to show you, I was reminded of something I want to talk about.

You've probably noticed that it's increasingly difficult to find neutral or positive content regarding conservatism online.

Leftist control over legacy media has been nearly total for decades, and they've waged a ceaseless war of marginalization against Fox and other nonconformist sources, as we know.

Liberal domination of print and broadcast media is even more pronounced online.

Google, YouTube and other platforms like Twitter constantly adopt new logarithms and policies that screen out content that isn't consistent with liberal "values" and promote negative commentary on conservatives and related subject matter.

By controlling what people have access to online, these virtual monopolies exercise a decisive influence over political thought and events.

If you want to conduct an experiment to see for yourself how liberal gatekeepers tilt the playing field and suppress results unfavorable to liberal orthodoxy, run an identical search using Google and DuckDuckGo and compare the results.

This is, in my view, the most crucial aspect of modern political life in the information age.

Obama's extra-judicial "net neutrality" decree was an attempt to legitimize an unprecedented assault on diversity of thought. It was the 21st century equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws, which explains why so much leftist propaganda is being disseminated in a attempt to "save" it.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

DEMOCRATS have always championed criminals, perverts, fringe behavior, and America's enemies, haven't they?

I know there are some very effective ads already out, but when I searched for some examples to show you, I was reminded of something I want to talk about.

You've probably noticed that it's increasingly difficult to find neutral or positive content regarding conservatism online.

Leftist control over legacy media has been nearly total for decades, and they've waged a ceaseless war of marginalization against Fox and other nonconformist sources, as we know.

Liberal domination of print and broadcast media is even more pronounced online.

Google, YouTube and other platforms like Twitter constantly adopt new logarithms and policies that screen out content that isn't consistent with liberal "values" and promote negative commentary on conservatives and related subject matter.

By controlling what people have access to online, these virtual monopolies exercise a decisive influence over political thought and events.

If you want to conduct an experiment to see for yourself how liberal gatekeepers tilt the playing field and suppress results unfavorable to liberal orthodoxy, run an identical search using Google and DuckDuckGo and compare the results.

This is, in my view, the most crucial aspect of modern political life in the information age.

Obama's extra-judicial "net neutrality" decree was an attempt to legitimize an unprecedented assault on diversity of thought. It was the 21st century equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws, which explains why so much leftist propaganda is being disseminated in a attempt to "save" it.

I try not to spend a lot of time discussing media bias. I think it is less of an issue than liberal dominance in entertainment and education. We see it with the snowflakes that are currently populating our college campuses

The media was no less biased in the 80s when they had a near monopoly on information flow and Reagan was still able to break through.

To be honest, I think the liberal media dominance is more of a threat to liberalism than it is to conservatism and here is why. It is the lies they tell themselves that causes them to believe false narratives. Look at the 2016 election. There wasn't a mainstream media source that gave Trump a chance. People say the polls were wrong. The polls weren't wrong, the way people were interpreting them was wrong.

To a person there wasn't a liberal who thought Hillary could lose. Oh, they paid lip service to it, but none of them really thought it remotely possible. That explains their subsequent reactions. In their mind Trump had ZERO chance. The media and their preconceived biases told them so. So since in their minds he had no chance, the only way Trump could have won in their minds is through shenanigans and Russian collusion.

 

[Legion]

I try not to spend a lot of time discussing media bias. I think it is less of an issue than liberal dominance in entertainment and education. We see it with the snowflakes that are currently populating our college campuses

The media was no less biased in the 80s when they had a near monopoly on information flow and Reagan was still able to break through.

To be honest, I think the liberal media dominance is more of a threat to liberalism than it is to conservatism and here is why. It is the lies they tell themselves that causes them to believe false narratives. Look at the 2016 election. There wasn't a mainstream media source that gave Trump a chance. People say the polls were wrong. The polls weren't wrong, the way people were interpreting them was wrong.

To a person there wasn't a liberal who thought Hillary could lose. Oh, they paid lip service to it, but none of them really thought it remotely possible. That explains their subsequent reactions. In their mind Trump had ZERO chance. The media and their preconceived biases told them so. So since in their minds he had no chance, the only way Trump could have won in their minds is through shenanigans and Russian collusion.

I hope you're right, but things have changed sine Reagan's time.

One thing stood out. You said, "People say the polls were wrong. The polls weren't wrong, the way people were interpreting them was wrong".

As automated data manipulation techniques become more sophisticated and responsive, people are going to be interpreting a lot of things incorrectly, by design. The interpretation of the polls that showed Hillary winning was just one example.

Let's say you wanted to find some information that would bolster an argument on JPP.

How would you do it?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I hope you're right, but things have changed sine Reagan's time.

One thing stood out. You said, "People say the polls were wrong. The polls weren't wrong, the way people were interpreting them was wrong".

As automated data manipulation techniques become more sophisticated and responsive, people are going to be interpreting a lot of things incorrectly, by design. The interpretation of the polls that showed Hillary winning was just one example.

Let's say you wanted to find some information that would bolster an argument on JPP.

How would you do it?

That is a great question.

Since these are political discussions, my responses usually start and stop with the US Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers. So I will refer to the Federalist Papers and any early writings/historical context that is available.

For many stats, I try to find government data. I will will do searches on Duckduckgo and then look at the references (if provided) from the articles

And of course like Desh, I love me some Wikipedia

 

[Legion]

That is a great question.

Since these are political discussions, my responses usually start and stop with the US Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers. So I will refer to the Federalist Papers and any early writings/historical context that is available.

For many stats, I try to find government data. I will will do searches on Duckduckgo and then look at the references (if provided) from the articles

And of course like Desh, I love me some Wikipedia

I look forward to seeing the results.