Cuckolding News Network aka CNN

[CTJacket]

Well, if we're going to start making up non-relevant metrics, then I'll say that 19% of the country voted for him. 62 million out of 320 million.

OK, that's funny, but why is it non-relevant? It's not 50% of the country, it's 46% of 60% of voters. And look at it, DT barely beats W from the 2004 election (if that were a real election, I doubt he does beat W).

Before anyone paints me in a corner, I thought that last election was a choice between two negatives. I just wanted to point out that DT's support is much less than the gross numbers would suggest.

 

[CTJacket]

That's a meaningless stat, and only someone who either doesn't understand that fact or just wants to obfuscate would raise it.

Political conversations are made worse because of this kind of "contribution."

OK, guess I'm an idiot. Whatevs.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

OK, that's funny, but why is it non-relevant? It's not 50% of the country, it's 46% of 60% of voters. And look at it, DT barely beats W from the 2004 election (if that were a real election, I doubt he does beat W).

Before anyone paints me in a corner, I thought that last election was a choice between two negatives. I just wanted to point out that DT's support is much less than the gross numbers would suggest.

Why is my 19% not wrong? 81% of people living in the United States did NOT vote for Donald Trump (including me).

The reason I used the term 'non-relevant' is because the President is determined by who gets more votes than anybody else in the majority of the states. So people who don't vote don't count.

Another data point that doesn't matter: Donald Trump got 3% more of the popular vote in 2016 than Bill Clinton did in 1992 (46% to 43%). So what though?

 

[CTJacket]

Why is my 19% not wrong? 81% of people living in the United States did NOT vote for Donald Trump (including me).

The reason I used the term 'non-relevant' is because the President is determined by who gets more votes than anybody else in the majority of the states. So people who don't vote don't count.

Another data point that doesn't matter: Donald Trump got 3% more of the popular vote in 2016 than Bill Clinton did in 1992 (46% to 43%). So what though?

Fair enough, I get your point.

I don't think he's been the disaster that the Schumers (gag) of the world painted him out to be, but he isn't nearly as great as he thinks he is. TBH, I really hate both parties at this point.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Fair enough, I get your point.

I don't think he's been the disaster that the Schumers (gag) of the world painted him out to be, but he isn't nearly as great as he thinks he is. TBH, I really hate both parties at this point.

The truth to me always seems to end up somewhere in the middle. So if he's a racist homophobic bigot on one side and the single greatest human that ever lived 'believe me', that tells me the true answer is that he's probably a great business man and negotiator who has a vile horrid mouth and small hands and a big muffin top.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I'm curious as to why you say that. I read the WSJ nearly every day and it doesn't shade that way to me. It's the same owner as Fox News.

It’s just my take. I don’t read it daily though. So take it for what it’s worth. Ownership matters less than who heads the editorial department though. Same owner can own publications with opposing biases.

Murdoch’s boys aren’t their daddy. But I see Murdoch as more of a businessman than a conservative. I think he built FoxNews because he knew it would be diversified from the mainstream and a better money maker. That’s again just another opinion and admittedly just a hunch. I haven’t read up on him extensively.

 

[MWBATL]

It’s just my take. I think he built FoxNews because he knew it would be diversified from the mainstream and a better money maker. That’s again just another opinion and admittedly just a hunch. I haven’t read up on him extensively.

Makes sense and I concur. I think CNN and MSNBC used the Fox News model to rebuild themselves, focusing on soley opinion reporting (aka propoganda) rather than journalism. Now virtually all sites follow that pattern. I guess it makes money.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I'm curious as to why you say that. I read the WSJ nearly every day and it doesn't shade that way to me. It's the same owner as Fox News.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...stars-silence-1515787678?mg=prod/accounts-wsj

“People familiar with the matter say.” Wtf didn’t the WSJ at least attempt to get a statement from the actual adult film star in question?????

Above is another example. Adult star for years has denied this affair and continues to do so.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...stars-silence-1515787678?mg=prod/accounts-wsj

 

[CTJacket]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...stars-silence-1515787678?mg=prod/accounts-wsj

“People familiar with the matter say.” Wtf didn’t the WSJ at least attempt to get a statement from the actual adult film star in question?????

Above is another example. Adult star for years has denied this affair and continues to do so.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...stars-silence-1515787678?mg=prod/accounts-wsj

I wouldn't conflate shoddy journalism (in this case) or anti-Trump with left leaning. One can certainly disagree with our president but espouse conservative values. Karl Rove is not the biggest Trump fan, and I don't think anyone would classify him as liberal, and he's on the staff (writes a weekly column). Peggy Noonan, also definitely not a liberal but dislikes Trump, writes a weekly column. There is one guy on the editorial staff that I would say is left-leaning but in general they're not. There's one guy in particular that defends Trump no matter what he does (and later probably regrets it when Trump reverses course).

Perusing today's editorial page, I don't see anything that stands out as such either. The closest would be this I suppose https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-offer-to-democrats-1517375033 but then again for me personally I find it hard to disagree with this part:
"His unpopularity beyond his base is due in large part to his divisive persona and 90-proof narcissism. Even admirers who like his bluntness want him to behave more like a normal President. The economy is gaining speed as he promised, and as wages rise the public mood has a chance to improve and he’ll get some credit."

However, there are opinions on that same page supporting the GOP position on the FBI fiasco, supporting Scott Pruitt, and pointing out that the Dems are not likely to want to make a deal.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

"His unpopularity beyond his base is due in large part to his divisive persona and 90-proof narcissism. Even admirers who like his bluntness want him to behave more like a normal President. The economy is gaining speed as he promised, and as wages rise the public mood has a chance to improve and he’ll get some credit."

This point describes me. I am a conservative minded person, and I agree with far more of Trump's positions than I disagree with. But I would never vote for him because of his personality. Negative articles don't necessarily equate to bias. Its the volume of them, and whether or not they ignore context or just flat out lie. And funny, just this morning, on another thread I'm getting verbally assaulted for being a Liberal, LOL. You can't win for losing.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I wouldn't conflate shoddy journalism (in this case) or anti-Trump with left leaning. One can certainly disagree with our president but espouse conservative values. Karl Rove is not the biggest Trump fan, and I don't think anyone would classify him as liberal, and he's on the staff (writes a weekly column). Peggy Noonan, also definitely not a liberal but dislikes Trump, writes a weekly column. There is one guy on the editorial staff that I would say is left-leaning but in general they're not. There's one guy in particular that defends Trump no matter what he does (and later probably regrets it when Trump reverses course).

Perusing today's editorial page, I don't see anything that stands out as such either. The closest would be this I suppose https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-offer-to-democrats-1517375033 but then again for me personally I find it hard to disagree with this part:
"His unpopularity beyond his base is due in large part to his divisive persona and 90-proof narcissism. Even admirers who like his bluntness want him to behave more like a normal President. The economy is gaining speed as he promised, and as wages rise the public mood has a chance to improve and he’ll get some credit."

However, there are opinions on that same page supporting the GOP position on the FBI fiasco, supporting Scott Pruitt, and pointing out that the Dems are not likely to want to make a deal.

Shoddy journalism or biased...WSJ is not the reputable paper it used to be. This was just the latest I came across and you had asked so I provided a recent example. I’m not gonna go dig through their archives for more.

I once considered the WSJ the best newspaper in America. No more. But there aren’t really any great ones honestly. You better be willing to scan several if you want a wide variety of info on more than just the “hot topic” of the day.

 

[MWBATL]

All America has anymore are propaganda websites and channels. On both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[4shotB]

This point describes me. I am a conservative minded person, and I agree with far more of Trump's positions than I disagree with. But I would never vote for him because of his personality.

I admit I would like to see more polish and savoir faire. But think about your professional life...would you pick performance or "pleasant personality" in a coworker or subordinate? For me, I learned long ago that "nice", while certainly a desirable trait, is down the list on things that I want in a situation where results matter. It became especially easy for me to ignore his personality when considering who the other option was (I didn't regard the 3rd party people as viable options). We could have had unpleasant, unethical AND incompetent instead of just unpleasant and unethical. I voted for door #2.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I admit I would like to see more polish and savoir faire. But think about your professional life...would you pick performance or "pleasant personality" in a coworker or subordinate? For me, I learned long ago that "nice", while certainly a desirable trait, is down the list on things that I want in a situation where results matter. It became especially easy for me to ignore his personality when considering who the other option was (I didn't regard the 3rd party people as viable options). We could have had unpleasant, unethical AND incompetent instead of just unpleasant and unethical. I voted for door #2.

And I don’t blame you one single bit. If I only had 2 choices under threat of death by Bunga Bunga, I would have voted for him too.

 

[CTJacket]

WSJ is not the reputable paper it used to be.

On this we definitely agree my friend. It's not my favorite paper; I think it's just habit that we still get it in our office. I read the Financial Times closer, but that also has to do with my line of work.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The next story in this CNN series “How it can be healthy to let your children develop relationships with adults who are attracted to them”

Hope we don’t have to wait terribly long...

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The next story in this CNN series “How it can be healthy to let your children develop relationships with adults who are attracted to them”

Hope we don’t have to wait terribly long...

CNN has already covered incest in a positive light. (They prefer to call it Genetic Sexual Attraction.) Even more stupid, one of the ladies was married and an adult when she started having sex with her own father. One of the favorite methods of these people is to insert words like Genetic, to help explain why its not people's fault - its how they were born. Its in their genes. They therefore cannot be judged or condemned.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

CNN has already covered incest in a positive light. (They prefer to call it Genetic Sexual Attraction.) Even more stupid, one of the ladies was married and an adult when she started having sex with her own father. One of the favorite methods of these people is to insert words like Genetic, to help explain why its not people's fault - its how they were born. Its in their genes. They therefore cannot be judged or condemned.

I just vomited in my mouth a little. Smdh

 

[kg01]

CNN has already covered incest in a positive light. (They prefer to call it Genetic Sexual Attraction.) Even more stupid, one of the ladies was married and an adult when she started having sex with her own father. One of the favorite methods of these people is to insert words like Genetic, to help explain why its not people's fault - its how they were born. Its in their genes. They therefore cannot be judged or condemned.

None of this is real, right? Tell me none of this is real, bw.

Cuckholding is good for your relationship? I mean ... who thinks that?

"Uhm honey .... honey, tickle his ... yeah, there ya go ... wha? Ok, I'll just sit here quietly now, hon. Hon?"

Genetic ... what? What is wrong with these people? Does it make me a republican if I think all these people are idiots?

No, they'r not idiots. They're dangerous. My kids have to grow up in this world, man. smdh

 

[MWBATL]

Genetic ... what? What is wrong with these people? Does it make me a republican if I think all these people are idiots?

No, they'r not idiots. They're dangerous. My kids have to grow up in this world, man. smdh

Nope, just, ys know...normal.

it's ashamed that it hard to find moderate, normal views on TV. In real life, very few of the people I know are extreme on either side of the spectrum.

Of course, I don't live in CA or NYC. Maybe I am out of touch with the progressive hubs.