Fox is gone...

[pmclaine]

Im sure many have noted the slide away from reporting "balanced" news.

They went full retard in my mind tonight.

Doing a piece on the Electoral College they had a commentator on promoting the state initiatives to pledge their states electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote regardless of how their state voted.

So a signed on state votes for candidate B awarding all their electoral votes to candidate B but upon tabulation of the popular vote finds out candidate A has the higher popular vote they than award the electoral votes to candidate A.

I know some states have already signed on to this scheme.

When the required number of states sign on to allow an electoral majority I understand it has a binding effect and basically negates the electoral college.

So Arthel the news reader hears this and states " The Electroal College could use some changes to bring it into the modern age" or something stupid to that effect.

Do these idiots not see that they disenfranchise a states voters and surrender to the cities the election of the executive?

Thats a rhetorical question.

I know they see it and they lust for it. They hope we dont see it.

Fox of not too long ago would have asked that follow up question just to see the "expert" stammer and give the deer in the headlights look.

 

[Spblademaker]

Looks like the-deep-state-swamp fix is in.

 

[Darkside-Six]

You do realize that it’s ok for a news organization to have some opposing views right. All she did was state HER opinion, but if they were all the same then FOX would be nothing more than a right wing media outlet. That’s why they went out and hired Donna Brazil

 

[Maser]

I can't believe people still call it a news channel.

 

[Spblademaker]

You’re still here?

 

[pmclaine]

You do realize that it’s ok for a news organization to have some opposing views right. All she did was state HER opinion, but if they were all the same then FOX would be nothing more than a right wing media outlet. That’s why they went out and hired Donna Brazil

The "journalist" is not supposed to be about opinion.

The expert can give an opinion and you would expect the "journalist" to ask a question to try and find truth.

A journalist never knows they always seek more in order to find the know.

Not asking the simple question "How can it be Constitutional to disenfranchise the voters of Wyoming in surrender to the city of New York?" shows a bias toward a scheme.

 

[DFC]

Fox is the closest thing to real balanced news available to the US population. The others are more of a brainwashing or indoctrination, disguised as a news outlet. Don't get me wrong I despise chris wallace.

 

[eca7891]

You do realize they have both.
Usually all the opinion guys run at night and mostly news during the day.

?‍

 

[SD Carpenter]

One America news still seems legit, and there from San Diego to boot

 

[Arc Light]

Agree that Fox is not what it once was and is only marginally better than the rest of the MSM.

The two brothers that run it now are reputed to be "moderates," in other words liberals "light".

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

It's a "for profit" business. Just like all the others.

 

[eca7891]

Agree that Fox is not what it once was and is only marginally better than the rest of the MSM.

The two brothers that run it now are reputed to be "moderates," in other words liberals "light".

totally agree!

 

[pmclaine]

You do realize they have both.
Usually all the opinion guy run at night and mostly news during the day.

?‍

Yes the Hannitys of the world have the freedom to espouse their opinions.

They are entertainment.

Reading the news (sadly thats all they do is read the pablum they are given) and asking questions to find truth by reporting facts is the job of the journalist.

During the news portion dont have some idiotic hack on that cant understand the fair and balanced aspect of the Electoral college, than agree with his cockamamie bullshit ignoring everything the lightening strike of genius was included in our Constitution for.

The harm of negating the voting power of those that cover the vast amount of landmass of the country is obvious......

Hey wait a minute.

Lets abolish the electoral college. Have fly over country take all their balls and go home isolating the blue lagoons to their own devices and within 3 days the problem will be solved.

 

[E. Bryant]

From a legal, Constitutional, and philosophical standpoint, states get to choose how they allocate their Electors. It's really hard for a principled conservative to argue against this point.

From a practical standpoint, proportional allocation of the Electors would be hugely beneficial to Republicans if enacted in certain states such as Illinois and California. Let's not pretend that this is something that only helps the left, even though they are trying to own the concept.

Also, I'd rather have a media that presents multiple ideas instead of something that serves only to reinforce my existing bias. "Balance" doesn't mean "flip back and forth between Fox and MSNBC, try to find the median, and then pound my head against the wall in anger". I want enlightenment, not confirmation bias - which is why I spend several hours a week listening to various podcasts, and exactly zero seconds watching broadcast or cable news.

 

[Maggot]

The "journalist" is not supposed to be about opinion.

 

[12Bravo]

One America news still seems legit, and there from San Diego to boot

I recently switched from Fox News to One America News Network for my national and world news information. Fox is definitely drifting left, but are not as far gone as the letter networks.

 

[little_scrapper]

Did you guys miss when FOX was purchased by Disney? Who owns Disney and which way does he swing? Go look it up and you will know that Fox IS moving left.

Look at when it was purchased and when you started seeing the leftward turn. It was last year for me when I noticed it.

 

[niteshooter]

Meh,
Just grab a beer and watch Trish Regan, never mind the other yayhoos.

 

[pmclaine]

From a legal, Constitutional, and philosophical standpoint, states get to choose how they allocate their Electors. It's really hard for a principled conservative to argue against this point.

From a practical standpoint, proportional allocation of the Electors would be hugely beneficial to Republicans if enacted in certain states such as Illinois and California. Let's not pretend that this is something that only helps the left, even though they are trying to own the concept.

Also, I'd rather have a media that presents multiple ideas instead of something that serves only to reinforce my existing bias. "Balance" doesn't mean "flip back and forth between Fox and MSNBC, try to find the median, and then pound my head against the wall in anger". I want enlightenment, not confirmation bias - which is why I spend several hours a week listening to various podcasts, and exactly zero seconds watching broadcast or cable news.

Proportional representation is not what they seek.

They want LA, Houston, NYC and Chitcago to choose the executive.

States will be subject to cities. Cities will be the Democrat super delegates.

This shit and ranked choice voting sucks.

 

[Nik H]

Fuck FOX and their brethren (CNN, MSN, etc)

This election will show everyone what the Deep State can do....there is almost zero chance of Trump winning due to the fraud that will exist and be implemented and no one will be able to refute it.

The left has done everything possible to increase the votes possible by allowing non citizens the ability to vote....licenses to illegals, prisoners voting, etc...

It is going to be an interesting few years....I will certainly be looking forward to becoming a full minority with no rights

 

[eightyeight mag]

Did you guys miss when FOX was purchased by Disney? Who owns Disney and which way does he swing? Go look it up and you will know that Fox IS moving left.

Look at when it was purchased and when you started seeing the leftward turn. It was last year for me when I noticed it.

Fox news is owned by Fox Corp not Disney.
Not to say that Fox News is not moving left, but Disney does not own them.

 

[DOA]

Fuck FOX and their brethren (CNN, MSN, etc)

This election will show everyone what the Deep State can do....there is almost zero chance of Trump winning due to the fraud that will exist and be implemented and no one will be able to refute it.

The left has done everything possible to increase the votes possible by allowing non citizens the ability to vote....licenses to illegals, prisoners voting, etc...

It is going to be an interesting few years....I will certainly be looking forward to becoming a full minority with no rights

I will be in the majority (being "brown") and will STILL feel like I have no rights. Our Country is definitely sliding towards socialism because the sheep want to be taken care of while the "elites" take and take more.

As far as FOX goes, I never saw them as fair or balanced. I just listen to Rush mostly with a sprinkling of other talk radio.

 

[Gee Kay]

Disney Officially Owns 21st Century Fox

The $71 billion deal strengthens Disney's portfolio and gives it even more leverage to compete against other streaming powerhouses.

www.npr.org

 

[pmclaine]

Disney Officially Owns 21st Century Fox

The $71 billion deal strengthens Disney's portfolio and gives it even more leverage to compete against other streaming powerhouses.

www.npr.org

Mentions right in the article Fox remaining news affiates hired Paul Ryan for his political power to avoid/make regulation.

Quid pro quo?

Fucking should be illegal.

so much for public service.

 

[E. Bryant]

Proportional representation is not what they seek.

They want LA, Houston, NYC and Chitcago to choose the executive.

States will be subject to cities. Cities will be the Democrat super delegates.

This shit and ranked choice voting sucks.

If we take your list of cities and change their respective states to proportional allocation of Electors, do you think that Trump will be helped or harmed in 2020 based upon 2016 voting patterns? Here's my back-of-the- envelope calculations:

Shit, we should all be begging Cali, NY, and Illinois to implement proportionally voting (and if start working on Texas now, it'll work to our benefit).

It's important not to let emotions drag one into a "rocks or sucks" false dichotomy. Something appears good on the surface for Republicans during a 90-second clip? It rocks! Something looks bad? It sucks! This is how cable news wants to tune our reactions. The fact remains:

1) States have a right to choose how Electors are chosen. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution properly (or adapt the left's strategy of getting the courts to interpret the Constitution favorably - even if it's an incorrect interpretation).

2) Proportional allocation can swing the Electoral College in both directions, depending upon where it's applied. Implement it in swing states? Really bad. Implement it in Cali, NY, or Illinois? Really good. It'd be bad in Texas right now, but we might be begging for it by the end of this decade.

 

[MarinePMI]

Did you guys miss when FOX was purchased by Disney? Who owns Disney and which way does he swing? Go look it up and you will know that Fox IS moving left.

Look at when it was purchased and when you started seeing the leftward turn. It was last year for me when I noticed it.

Umm...Disney bought all of Fox EXCEPT the news division....

 

[eca7891]

Umm...Disney bought all of Fox EXCEPT the news division....

Those damn facts always get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!

 

[Maser]

In the next decade Disney will probably own everything in the entertainment world.

 

[eca7891]

Disney is on a roll.
If could happen.

 

[pmclaine]

If we take your list of cities and change their respective states to proportional allocation of Electors, do you think that Trump will be helped or harmed in 2020 based upon 2016 voting patterns?

It's important not to let emotions drag one into a "rocks or sucks" false dichotomy. Something appears good on the surface for Republicans during a 90-second clip? It rocks! Something looks bad? It sucks! This is how cable news wants to tune our reactions. The fact remains:

1) States have a right to choose how Electors are chosen. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution properly (or adapt the left's strategy of getting the courts to interpret the Constitution favorably - even if it's an incorrect interpretation).

2) Proportional allocation can swing the Electoral College in both directions, depending upon where it's applied. Implement it in swing states? Really bad. Implement it in Cali, NY, or Illinois? Really good. It'd be bad in Texas right now, but we might be begging for it by the end of this decade.

You are correct states have the right to allocate their electoral votes as they choose. Maine and I think Michigan are proportional.

That is their choice.

That outcome in those states is based solely on the voting activity of the citizens of that state.

Those citizens have a voice and their vote matters.

Under the new scheme planned a state can count the votes of its citizens and determine that candidate A won their popular vote.

In all states except those that currently have proportional awarding of EC votes candidate A gets all EC votes in accordance with the will of the majority of its citizens.

The citizens vote mattered.

Under the new proposal that same state can have its citizens vote for candidate A but if the National popular vote is for candidate B the state will change its allocation of EC votes from candidate A (as the will of that states citizens majority desired) to candidate B in accordance with the will of basically a very few high populated cities.

Proportional allocation is not being discussed.

They are saying all EC votes go to the candidate that has the higher popular vote.

Understanding why the EC was part of our process and what the founders intent was in protecting rural from urban, smaller populated states from the abuse of bigger states Its obvious this is not in accordance with the intent of the founders.

Every vote matters with the EC.

Only the votes of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston and maybe one other city will matter under the proposed plan.

I don't care if those cities become raging conservatives in the next 24 hours.

Its still a bad plan, against the intent of the founders and it disenfranchises 99.9 percent of the landmass of the country.

Your defense of it exposes your sympathies.

 

[E. Bryant]

Your defense of it exposes your sympathies.

100% correct - my "sympathy" ("loyalty" might be better grammar) is to the Constitution. I also like comprehensive, thoughtful, unbiased media coverage of complex issues. If these things are problematic, so be it.

 

[eca7891]

. I also like comprehensive, thoughtful, unbiased media coverage of complex issues.

That my friend, is becoming a unicorn.
True journalism is extremely rare and can not be found on major networks save very rare occurrences.
?

 

[lash]

100% correct - my "sympathy" ("loyalty" might be better grammar) is to the Constitution. I also like comprehensive, thoughtful, unbiased media coverage of complex issues. If these things are problematic, so be it.

That’s admirable, but it looks like you've missed the actual point of his post. What has been happening in states like California and Colorado is the opposite of proportional allocation and is counter to the constitutional intent of the drafters. Try reading his post again, but just ignore the last sentence for a minute so that you can get what is being said.

That’s the real problem with the current state's changes in electoral college vote assignment.

You are correct states have the right to allocate their electoral votes as they choose. Maine and I think Michigan are proportional.

That is their choice.

That outcome in those states is based solely on the voting activity of the citizens of that state.

Those citizens have a voice and their vote matters.

Under the new scheme planned a state can count the votes of its citizens and determine that candidate A won their popular vote.

In all states except those that currently have proportional awarding of EC votes candidate A gets all EC votes in accordance with the will of the majority of its citizens.

The citizens vote mattered.

Under the new proposal that same state can have its citizens vote for candidate A but if the National popular vote is for candidate B the state will change its allocation of EC votes from candidate A (as the will of that states citizens majority desired) to candidate B in accordance with the will of basically a very few high populated cities.

Proportional allocation is not being discussed.

They are saying all EC votes go to the candidate that has the higher popular vote.

Understanding why the EC was part of our process and what the founders intent was in protecting rural from urban, smaller populated states from the abuse of bigger states Its obvious this is not in accordance with the intent of the founders.

Every vote matters with the EC.

Only the votes of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston and maybe one other city will matter under the proposed plan.

I don't care if those cities become raging conservatives in the next 24 hours.

Its still a bad plan, against the intent of the founders and it disenfranchises 99.9 percent of the landmass of the country.

Your defense of it exposes your sympathies.

 

[little_scrapper]

I stand corrected. However, "controlling shareholders founder Rupert Murdoch and CEO and chairman Lachlan Murdoch. "

The kids lefties and the old man wont be around much longer. Fox IS going left already.

As for the electorial college. Get rid of it and go to a county level vote. One county, one vote. Who ever gets the mosts counties wins.

 

[pmclaine]

As for the electorial college. Get rid of it and go to a county level vote. One county, one vote. Who ever gets the mosts counties wins.

The would make us the United Counties of America.

 

[little_scrapper]

The would make us the United Counties of America.

"That" would... And what does haveing NYC and LA pick presidents make us? Because that is what they would have for us if they could.

We dont have to change anything else and nothing else would change. Still having states. What could be more fair than having whomever won the majority of counties/boroughs/parishs be the president?

 

[pmclaine]

"That" would... And what does haveing NYC and LA pick presidents make us? Because that is what they would have for us if they could.

We dont have to change anything else and nothing else would change. Still having states. What could be more fair than having whomever won the majority of counties/boroughs/parishs be the president?

Everything we have done to the Constitution has cost us freedom.

Its so bastardized its at the breaking point.

The only helpful change was to recognize all humans as equal yet they politicized that by making the 14th Amendment so difficult when the could have said if you are a human this applies.

Our Founding Fathers were lightning in a bottle, hasn't been equal since and the clumsy changes to their work shows it is so.

 

[FS1]

I don't blame all you guys for being Debbie Downers, you have good cause. But I still think Trump wins and that means we win. Disney's days are numbered too. If Trump were losing they would not be freaking out like they are. JMHO

 

[little_scrapper]

Everything we have done to the Constitution has cost us freedom.

Its so bastardized its at the breaking point.

The only helpful change was to recognize all humans as equal yet they politicized that by making the 14th Amendment so difficult when the could have said if you are a human this applies.

Our Founding Fathers were lightning in a bottle, hasn't been equal since and the clumsy changes to their work shows it is so.

Exactly. I agree that what has worked for a couple hundred years should not be so easily tossed aside. There are some 3100ish counties/boroughs/parishes in this country. Hilary won about 56 in 2016. LOL but but but she won the popular vote...

 

[E. Bryant]

That’s admirable, but it looks like you've missed the actual point of his post. What has been happening in states like California and Colorado is the opposite of proportional allocation and is counter to the constitutional intent of the drafters. Try reading his post again, but just ignore the last sentence for a minute so that you can get what is being said.

That’s the real problem with the current state's changes in electoral college vote assignment.

So what happens when states adapt this "popular vote winner takes all" method of allocating Electors? Are Republicans forever doomed to lose the popular vote? Because that seems to be the assumption of both sides.

If Republicans reassign themselves to losing the popular vote because of big cities or demographics or whatever, then they deserve to lose. The challenge should not be trying to figure out how to forever game the Electoral College while winning <50% of the popular vote; the challenge is to successfully sell conservative ideas to a broader part of the population in a manner that makes the party sustainable well into the future.

If Republicans are not up to this challenge, then it's time for conservatives to find a new outlet for our ideas and values.

The fact that the right has turned into a mirror image of delicate leftist snowflakes - we seem to collectively melt down in the face of contrary opinions and concepts - will leave us increasingly susceptible to whatever legislative and legal shenanigans that the left will deploy in an attempt to dominate national elections.

A bit of contrary thought now and then might be just what the doctor ordered as an inoculation against groupthink and excessively rigid thinking.

 

[pmclaine]

So what happens when states adapt this "popular vote winner takes all" method of allocating Electors? Are Republicans forever doomed to lose the popular vote? Because that seems to be the assumption of both sides.

If Republicans reassign themselves to losing the popular vote because of big cities or demographics or whatever, then they deserve to lose. The challenge should not be trying to figure out how to forever game the Electoral College while winning <50% of the popular vote; the challenge is to successfully sell conservative ideas to a broader part of the population in a manner that makes the party sustainable well into the future.

If Republicans are not up to this challenge, then it's time for conservatives to find a new outlet for our ideas and values.

The fact that the right has turned into a mirror image of delicate leftist snowflakes - we seem to collectively melt down in the face of contrary opinions and concepts - will leave us increasingly susceptible to whatever legislative and legal shenanigans that the left will deploy in an attempt to dominate national elections.

A bit of contrary thought now and then might be just what the doctor ordered as an inoculation against groupthink and excessively rigid thinking.

The Conservatives would attract the American vote and win in a landslide.

The problem is the voter fraud, illegal vote, voting dead, and votes bought by looting the treasury that the Conservatives can't compete with.

The reason the Communists are coming up with these schemes is that they can't win otherwise.

In a ranked choice vote in Maine the Republican had his win stolen by this cockamamie idea.

Popular vote is good unless you can't win in that district so you suck people into ranked choice voting.

If that doesn't work let's vote harvest or increase voting periods to 365 days a year.

 

[lash]

Okay. That’s a whole bunch of theory that you threw out there. Exactly how do you propose to change the groupthink that thrives in the biggest cities? The concept of the electoral college being a proportional allocation was in direct recognition of the voting volume of big cities and the groupthink that occurs there. The founding fathers were not unaware of this, since they saw it happen in England and also in the colonies.

So, I ask again, what is your solution? The conservatives are not looking to game the electoral college. They are wishing for it to remain as the constitution was written, as you yourself have proclaimed to want to support.

Do you have a plan of action? Or are you just saying that we should man up and change to become something otherwise?

 

[candyx]

News is gone as its be shown to be FAKE and or bias pushing agendas and talking points. You going to have to really on live social media from the people actually there to get a clue what happen. If you don't have first hand knowledge then your in that section of you don't know what the hell happen.

 

[Bender]

Boo

ga

Loo

 

[pmclaine]

Okay. That’s a whole bunch of theory that you threw out there. Exactly how do you propose to change the groupthink that thrives in the biggest cities? The concept of the electoral college being a proportional allocation was in direct recognition of the voting volume of big cities and the groupthink that occurs there. The founding fathers were not unaware of this, since they saw it happen in England and also in the colonies.

So, I ask again, what is your solution? The conservatives are not looking to game the electoral college. They are wishing for it to remain as the constitution was written, as you yourself have proclaimed to want to support.

Do you have a plan of action? Or are you just saying that we should man up and change to become something otherwise?

No Im saying keep it as written and try to ensure the integrity of the election with common sense shit like voter ID to ensure - one citizen one vote.

If Conservatives cant win a fair election they deserve to become extinct.

Every scheme that has departed from the true path has been proposed and pushed by liberal/communists.

Its because they know they cant win on ideas.

 

[lash]

No Im saying keep it as written and try to ensure the integrity of the election with common sense shit like voter ID to ensure - one citizen one vote.

If Conservatives cant win a fair election they deserve to become extinct.

Every scheme that has departed from the true path has been proposed and pushed by liberal/communists.

Its because they know they cant win on ideas.

Sorry, those questions were directed at @E. Bryant and his post just before yours.

I agree with you completely.

 

[pmclaine]

Sorry, those questions were directed at @E. Bryant and his post just before yours.

I agree with you completely.

Don't agree "completely". I often argue for .308 over 6.5.......

 

[atepointer]

Unfortunately I pulled that plug last year they have gone the way of the dodo as well. On the flip side there can be rays of hope. I specifically volunteered to drive with a progressive for a 2ish hour trip recently so I could control the radio and made her listen to Rush Limbaugh. It's an ongoing conversation but I see huge changes in her thinking b/c for the first time in her life she is going home to research not only what she hears on Maddow(her self-professed hero) every night, but on Rush's show as she listens a lot now! She also admitted that what she once believed as the gospel of Maddow is highly questionable at best and blatant lying at it's worst after giving both sides a research check.