|
good editorial cartoon
|
good editorial cartoon
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. |
good editorial cartoon
On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. |
good editorial cartoon
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:48:28 -0600, "Ryan P." wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. As I said earlier, I did not watch any of it. I waited for a friend to come over so I would have someone to commiserate with. But, he gave me the good news. Like the rest of America and the world, I was a bit stunned. |
good editorial cartoon
On 11/9/2016 3:56 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:48:28 -0600, "Ryan P." wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. As I said earlier, I did not watch any of it. I waited for a friend to come over so I would have someone to commiserate with. But, he gave me the good news. Like the rest of America and the world, I was a bit stunned. I was stunned, as well. I cast my vote for him at 7:00am... But I honestly expected Hillary to win. Looking back, during the last two weeks he spent so much time in states that "everybody knew he wouldn't win" should have been a canary in the coal mine for Hillary's people. Why didn't Hillary's staff see whatever internal polling trends Trump's staff was seeing in Wisconsin and Michigan, for example? Seriously... if you saw it was a tight race, why would you send Chelsea and instead of Hillary to shore up support? Granted, the public polls were wrong, too, but usually the internal polls spot these things. |
good editorial cartoon
On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump. I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him. Then, she started blaming it all on racism. To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening and why. |
good editorial cartoon
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:08:33 -0600, "Ryan P." wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:56 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:48:28 -0600, "Ryan P." wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. As I said earlier, I did not watch any of it. I waited for a friend to come over so I would have someone to commiserate with. But, he gave me the good news. Like the rest of America and the world, I was a bit stunned. I was stunned, as well. I cast my vote for him at 7:00am... But I honestly expected Hillary to win. Looking back, during the last two weeks he spent so much time in states that "everybody knew he wouldn't win" should have been a canary in the coal mine for Hillary's people. Why didn't Hillary's staff see whatever internal polling trends Trump's staff was seeing in Wisconsin and Michigan, for example? Seriously... if you saw it was a tight race, why would you send Chelsea and instead of Hillary to shore up support? Granted, the public polls were wrong, too, but usually the internal polls spot these things. They probably depended too much on the major media and thought they were in great shape. |
good editorial cartoon
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump. I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him. Then, she started blaming it all on racism. To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening and why. I watched none of it, but what was Matthews take? |
good editorial cartoon
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump. I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him. Then, she started blaming it all on racism. To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening and why. I voted for Gary, absentee voter, as you knew California would go Hillary. And we replaced Sen. Boxer with another dud. Our former AG, who would only defend a state case if it met her personal feelings. Otherwise, toss in the towel. |
good editorial cartoon
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump. I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him. Then, she started blaming it all on racism. To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening and why. Never mind, unless you got something different than I Googled: A stunned Chris Matthews struggled to comprehend Hillary Clinton’s loss and the victory of Donald Trump on election night. On MSNBC, Matthews sputtered, “[Clinton] won every debate by all standards. Every debate.... She had the best ad campaign, the best ground game.” He whined, “This is a shot against meritocracy, I think. Because she merited everything and the normal way you standardize these things, she did what you’re supposed to do to win and Trump came in around the corner.” I certainly disagree with the 'shot against meritocracy' idea. He values debates, ad, and 'ground game' as what counts. He seems to discount integrity, corruption, and that ugly-assed smile! :) |
good editorial cartoon
On 11/9/2016 5:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump. I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him. Then, she started blaming it all on racism. To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening and why. I watched none of it, but what was Matthews take? He realized that Trump had tuned in on what Nixon called the "silent majority" and the forgotten "Reagan Democrats". These are the voters who people like Harry doesn't know exist because they live in "fly-over" states or in areas that are remote from the larger, usually liberal cities. |
good editorial cartoon
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:30:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/9/2016 5:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump. I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him. Then, she started blaming it all on racism. To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening and why. I watched none of it, but what was Matthews take? He realized that Trump had tuned in on what Nixon called the "silent majority" and the forgotten "Reagan Democrats". These are the voters who people like Harry doesn't know exist because they live in "fly-over" states or in areas that are remote from the larger, usually liberal cities. Look at #6 in the attached article sent to me by my daughter. Good read. Guy makes a lot of sense. Supports what you just said: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/ |
good editorial cartoon
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump. I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him. Then, she started blaming it all on racism. To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening and why. Maddow is out of a job. What is she going to **** and moan about for the next four years? |
good editorial cartoon
4:19 PMCalifbill
- show quoted text - I voted for Gary, absentee voter, as you knew California would go Hillary. And we replaced Sen. Boxer with another dud. Our former AG, who would only defend a state case if it met her personal feelings. Otherwise, toss in the towel. ....... You mean Barb got evicted ? |
good editorial cartoon
Tim wrote:
4:19 PMCalifbill - show quoted text - I voted for Gary, absentee voter, as you knew California would go Hillary. And we replaced Sen. Boxer with another dud. Our former AG, who would only defend a state case if it met her personal feelings. Otherwise, toss in the towel. ...... You mean Barb got evicted ? She finally retired. Now the Senate has to find another to be the front for stupidity. |
good editorial cartoon
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:41:12 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:30:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/9/2016 5:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote: On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill wrote: http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries, were with the results of the election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The Washington Post has gotten to be a joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll results that made the news were those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were 'shocked' because they'd been led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance. I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their "keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary. That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did. FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the breakdowns. I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump. I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him. Then, she started blaming it all on racism. To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening and why. I watched none of it, but what was Matthews take? He realized that Trump had tuned in on what Nixon called the "silent majority" and the forgotten "Reagan Democrats". These are the voters who people like Harry doesn't know exist because they live in "fly-over" states or in areas that are remote from the larger, usually liberal cities. Look at #6 in the attached article sent to me by my daughter. Good read. Guy makes a lot of sense. Supports what you just said: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/ === Great article, thanks for posting. I grew up in a small town and can relate to a lot of that even after escaping many years ago. |
good editorial cartoon
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 6:36:21 PM UTC-6, Califbill wrote:
Tim wrote: 4:19 PMCalifbill - show quoted text - I voted for Gary, absentee voter, as you knew California would go Hillary. And we replaced Sen. Boxer with another dud. Our former AG, who would only defend a state case if it met her personal feelings. Otherwise, toss in the towel. ...... You mean Barb got evicted ? She finally retired. Now the Senate has to find another to be the front for stupidity. So now no generals will be forced to call her 'senator' anymore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0CprVYsG0k |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com