Are the presidential election results real? Or simply a simulation?

@oristarA,

Quote:

So if the spirit of the Constitution is strictly followed by the Electoral College, then they will vote for Hillary Clinton, who will be the next president of the United States. Because Trump extremely lacks the qualities of being a President.

Do you understand the concept of a protest vote?

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Quote:
So if the spirit of the Constitution is strictly followed by the Electoral College, then they will vote for Hillary Clinton, who will be the next president of the United States. Because Trump extremely lacks the qualities of being a President.

Do you understand the concept of a protest vote?

Of course you can vote for other candidates other than Hillary or Trump. Wikipedia explains it quite well.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

The trump vote was the protest vote.

There was this broadly accepted notion (carried and supported by the MSM) that he simply couldn't be viable as a president. The shock factor carried across the globe.

The DNC banked on it. Magazines were printed with Hillary as winning, et al.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

The trump vote was the protest vote.

There was this broadly accepted notion (carried and supported by the MSM) that he simply couldn't be viable as a president. The shock factor carried across the globe.

The DNC banked on it. Magazines were printed with Hillary as winning, et al.

And the electors of the Electoral College should have seen through such chaos - and then use their discretion and set things right.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

Quote:

and then use their discretion and set things right.

Setting things right to you is putting Hillary in power, just like the MSM tried to do. How's it feel to be a puppet of the news media? Trump won and Hillary lost, accept it and prepare for the 2018 elections, you never know, the Dems could win Congress.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

And the electors of the Electoral College should have seen through such chaos...

It's how the system is "weighted". The Sanders supporters were told to suck it up when this same system handed the candidacy to Clinton.

So, why the long faces now?

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
and then use their discretion and set things right.

Trump won

Trump won and America lost.

A President Trump would most likely do more to destroy, deceive and defeat
than to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Farewell, America

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

Trump won and America lost.

That's an opinion piece, much like the Moyers one you linked to. with this tidbit glaringly comical in particular.

Quote:

With the mainstream media so delegitimized — a delegitimization for which they bear a good deal of blame, not having had the courage to take on lies and expose false equivalencies — they have very little role to play going forward in our politics.

In a true democracy, the role of the media should never be political. If it can't be unbiased and impartial politically, then it isn't free speech, and it isn't journalism.

2 Replies

@Builder,

I agree with you first point, Builder. I disagree with your second one.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "Free Speech"? Free speech means that the government and the laws can not restrict what is said. Freedom of the media means that the government can't restrict the media.

What you are suggesting is the opposite of Free Speech.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max, journalism that is openly biased politically isn't journalism. It's propaganda-driven hype.

Is propaganda-driven hype your idea of free speech? Anyone can say what they like about politicians, but to pretend that it is fact-driven journalism is not going to convince anyone of your unbiased opinion.

3 Replies

@Builder,

Ah yeah. Let the government determine what is allowed as fact driven journalism. It can also help us by not allowing what isn't.

A step too far.

1 Reply

@Builder,

There are two ways to show you that you are wrong. I don't know which one to try... so I will start with both and you can pick which direction interests you more.

1. There is no reporting of the news that is unbiased. The term "unbiased" simply means that it matches your bias (everyone considers their own point of view to be the only unbiased logical way to think about news). Any news organization needs to decide which news is important, and any realistic telling of a news story comes from a perspective with implicit understanding between the journalist and the reader. This is the nature of the news.

2. If you wanted to eliminate "bias" from the news (i.e. make sure that all the news comes from a perspective that you consider "unbiased") you need to have a way to detect and distinguish bias. How do you propose we do this? Would government regulate the news? Would the courts?

Do you see the problem here?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Both are interesting analogies, Max.

Journalism is about presenting both sides of any story without bias, so the viewer or reader can reach their own conclusions, based on the evidence.

I'm surprised that I have to tell you this.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

Let the government determine what is allowed as fact driven journalism.

Where did I say this, Roger?

1 Reply

@Builder,

Quote:

Journalism is about presenting both sides of any story without bias, so the viewer or reader can reach their own conclusions, based on the evidence

No it is not. Where did you get this definition of journalism?

When a mainstream journalist writes about a rape, no where does the journalist present the rapists side of the story or perspective. Do you feel the journalist should explain in an unbiased way why the rapist feels his actions were justified?

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

In a true democracy, the role of the media should never be political. If it can't be unbiased and impartial politically, then it isn't free speech, and it isn't journalism.

Well, that's all I can conclude from this extract of what you said. All you left open is the matter of who makes the decisions as to what is free speech and what isn't journalism.

1 Reply

@roger,

That would be the readers, Roger.

If the editorial staff can't be unbiased, then they are part of a propaganda machine, and not part of the free press.

It's been so long since the west has experienced a truly free press, that I'm not surprised at your response.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

No it is not. Where did you get this definition of journalism?

Oxford English dictionary. (no, it's my words. I was a journalist for a small rag for a few years)

Quote:

When a mainstream journalist writes about a rape, no where does the journalist present the rapists side of the story or perspective. Do you feel the journalist should explain in an unbiased way why the rapist feels his actions were justified?

Cherry-picked. Do you think a rapist assumes their actions were justified?

Mysoginists and propaganda spreading. Interesting combination.

0 Replies

@Builder,

The readers decide? Sounds like free speech to me.

I am not surprised at your response, either.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

The readers decide?

Sounds doubtful coming from you. If the source is suspect, the reader/user/ listener has the right to dismiss any and all of the content as either bogus, or biased, based on prior revelations about the source or content.

"news" has always been thus. Has it not?

Quote:

Sounds like free speech to me.

0 Replies

Are the presidential election results real? Or simply a simulation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know