21st Century Fox Posted 28 September 2012 Posted 28 September 2012 Whilst I wouldn't endorse an idiot like Romney, the media in America make the BBC look impartial. Even made a quote about backing Obama during the live NFL broadcast last night, couldn't believe it. The majority of them can say what they like, privately owned, no one to answer to.
Captain... Posted 28 September 2012 Author Posted 28 September 2012 Whilst I wouldn't endorse an idiot like Romney, the media in America make the BBC look impartial. Even made a quote about backing Obama during the live NFL broadcast last night, couldn't believe it. Fox are the worst, although you can argue the daily show is just as bad, but it doesn't openly support the Democrats and slags them off just as much but this had me crying with laughter and rage: Just unbelievable, at least pretend, there was another clip a while ago of them apologising to the republicans for showing something that they thought would support them, and it turned into another gaffe.
Guest MattP Posted 28 September 2012 Posted 28 September 2012 Fox are the worst, although you can argue the daily show is just as bad, but it doesn't openly support the Democrats and slags them off just as much but this had me crying with laughter and rage: Just unbelievable, at least pretend, there was another clip a while ago of them apologising to the republicans for showing something that they thought would support them, and it turned into another gaffe. That was good. That's what I don't understand about FOX though, they are accused of being completely pro Republican yet then send out that Homer Simpson clip on this page to millions of their viewers. That doesn't make sense.
21st Century Fox Posted 28 September 2012 Posted 28 September 2012 That was good. That's what I don't understand about FOX though, they are accused of being completely pro Republican yet then send out that Homer Simpson clip on this page to millions of their viewers. That doesn't make sense. $$$
Guest MattP Posted 28 September 2012 Posted 28 September 2012 $$$ And they wouldn't still make that by editing out 45 seconds of a Simpson's episode? Like I said, it makes no sense whatsoever, it would be like the BBC in it's Blair Broadcasting Corp days making sure a huge anti-Labour message went out on Eastenders, it quite simply wouldn't happen. Or Sky News broadcasting a segment on how Rupert Murdoch's bid for Sky would be completely unfair for competitiveness.
21st Century Fox Posted 28 September 2012 Posted 28 September 2012 You'd assume it's because The Simpsons make them a hell of a lot of money and Matt Groening gets creative control so they're willing to sell out their political leaning for the $$$. A cynic would say they aren't even that fussed about politics and they just cater to that particular side because it makes them $$$ and they've built themselves a nice niche in the market. Murdoch's appeared on The Simpsons and he's backed the Left in other countries... $$$.
leicsmac Posted 28 September 2012 Posted 28 September 2012 You'd assume it's because The Simpsons make them a hell of a lot of money and Matt Groening gets creative control so they're willing to sell out their political leaning for the $$$. A cynic would say they aren't even that fussed about politics and they just cater to that particular side because it makes them $$$ and they've built themselves a nice niche in the market. Murdoch's appeared on The Simpsons and he's backed the Left in other countries... $$$. This. I don't think Murdoch and FOX backs the Republican ideology on the social side of things that much (thought most of the talking heads on FOX do), it's just that the Right in the US has more money. And Murdoch worships money. And besides, one Homer Simpson clip doesn't exactly match the landslide of Pro-Repb reporting that FOX fires out regularly.
placidcasual Posted 1 October 2012 Posted 1 October 2012 I am sick to death of this election. Especially the city being shut down as one or other of them decides to visit. Again. I also rather detest Josh Mandel. and the constant ads. Stupid swing state.
Reynard Bleu Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 he received less than 54% of the popular vote. . Which is pretty good when Cameron got in with just 36%! (or similar)
Jon the Hat Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 An interesting thing I read this morning was that in the past three UK general elections the winning party had less than a quarter of the votes of the total electorate. Turn out has been around 60-65% with the winners getting anywhere between 30% and 40%. In what way is that interesting? If people cannot be arsed to vote then theyir views don't count. % of voters is an interesting stat, % of the electorate is irrelevant, becuase you are making some inherent assumption that people who didn't vote would have voted differently and changed the share, when you have no basis on which to assume that. % turnout is also interesting, but multiplying % turnout with % of the vote is meaningless.
Captain... Posted 2 October 2012 Author Posted 2 October 2012 In what way is that interesting? If people cannot be arsed to vote then theyir views don't count. % of voters is an interesting stat, % of the electorate is irrelevant, becuase you are making some inherent assumption that people who didn't vote would have voted differently and changed the share, when you have no basis on which to assume that. % turnout is also interesting, but multiplying % turnout with % of the vote is meaningless. Blimey, that is a very defensive overreaction, to a fairly innocuous comment, it is interesting, to Alexikokopops at least, he didn't say it was relevant or even meaningful, just a comment. The fact that only 60% of people turnout to vote is an interesting indication in how empowered people feel by the first past the post party politics system that we have, but when given the chance to change it people didn't vote. Regardless of whether or not you think that a 100% turnout would change the result or not, it does show that only 25% of the electorate actually cared sufficiently about the policies of the party that is running the country, to get off their arse and vote for them. A clear indication that no one party can satisfy the masses.
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Blimey, that is a very defensive overreaction, to a fairly innocuous comment, it is interesting, to Alexikokopops at least, he didn't say it was relevant or even meaningful, just a comment. The fact that only 60% of people turnout to vote is an interesting indication in how empowered people feel by the first past the post party politics system that we have, but when given the chance to change it people didn't vote. Regardless of whether or not you think that a 100% turnout would change the result or not, it does show that only 25% of the electorate actually cared sufficiently about the policies of the party that is running the country, to get off their arse and vote for them. A clear indication that no one party can satisfy the masses. In 15 years of discussing politics with people and asking virtually every single one who didn't vote why I have never ever had that answer in reply. Usually it revolves around "they're all the same" or "I've got better things to do". People don't vote because they have no interest in it, politics isn't as exciting anymore, everyone fights for the centre and most of them are scared of saying what they really feel for being hounded by the press. I take a massive interest in it and even I'm struggling to think who I will vote for next time as none of them really reflect my opinions.
Captain... Posted 2 October 2012 Author Posted 2 October 2012 In 15 years of discussing politics with people and asking virtually every single one who didn't vote why I have never ever had that answer in reply. Usually it revolves around "they're all the same" or "I've got better things to do". People don't vote because they have no interest in it, politics isn't as exciting anymore, everyone fights for the centre and most of them are scared of saying what they really feel for being hounded by the press. I take a massive interest in it and even I'm struggling to think who I will vote for next time as none of them really reflect my opinions. Well the first past the post, 2/4 horse race system does mean that you are limited in choice so you either have to vote for 1 of the big 2 or 4 now if you include UKIP, out polling the lib dems at the mo, but I think that it is now back to being the big 2. It is all about a lack of empowerment to voters and disillusionment that their vote actually means anything, which is perpetuated by the current system. How many seats are actually contested these days and how many are safe seats for one or the other. The reason for not voting may be that they are all the same, or that they don't represent my views, or it is a wasted vote, which would lead to people having 'better things to do' then casting a vote that won't be counted, but this is largely down to the voting system we have in place at the moment where a party can control the country with a majority based on 25% of the electorate voting for them, representing 30-35% of the actual votes cast. It is nonsense, and just as bad in the states with the video that Jordan, I think, posted about how you can win the presidential race with just 18% of the popular vote.
Alexikokopops Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 In what way is that interesting? If people cannot be arsed to vote then theyir views don't count. % of voters is an interesting stat, % of the electorate is irrelevant, becuase you are making some inherent assumption that people who didn't vote would have voted differently and changed the share, when you have no basis on which to assume that. % turnout is also interesting, but multiplying % turnout with % of the vote is meaningless. In what way is that interesting? If people cannot be arsed to vote then theyir views don't count. % of voters is an interesting stat, % of the electorate is irrelevant, becuase you are making some inherent assumption that people who didn't vote would have voted differently and changed the share, when you have no basis on which to assume that. % turnout is also interesting, but multiplying % turnout with % of the vote is meaningless. What a spectacular over reaction. I didn't say that anything would change if everyone voted, I just found it interesting, that's all. Chill your boots Captain Defensive I thought it was an innocuous comment
Jon the Hat Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 What a spectacular over reaction. I didn't say that anything would change if everyone voted, I just found it interesting, that's all. Chill your boots Captain Defensive I thought it was an innocuous comment Did I come across as upset?? I wasn't, just seems a really pointless stat that people trot out like it tells us something about the popularity or otherwise of the party in power.
davieG Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 US election: Predict the president http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19794259
Darkon84 Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Have any of them spoken in front of the Tri Lateral Commission, CFR, or the BIlderbergs lately? Sure fire way to know whos going to win then
Alexikokopops Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Did I come across as upset?? I wasn't, just seems a really pointless stat that people trot out like it tells us something about the popularity or otherwise of the party in power. Don't worry, as a statistician I don't like people misusing stats! I wasn't trying to use it to prove anything, it was interesting more because it highlights in almost a tabloid headline kind of way that a lot of people don't vote when they can.
Guest MattP Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Watching the debate now. No where near as enthralling as the ones I watched last time, Romney appealing to the middle class no doubt but I don;t think he has that X-Factor that you need in this day and age of politics. The long-legged mack daddy is a brillint orator, absolutely wonderful to listen to.
Guest MattP Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 I'm making the next one more exciting with this.
MPH Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Really looks like Romney is wiping the floor with Obama on taxes and the economy. But it is his strong point.... not so sure on other aspects of his 'game'
Kitchandro Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Barack and Mitt. Who are these people's parents?
Guest MattP Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Really looks like Romney is wiping the floor with Obama on taxes and the economy. But it is his strong point.... not so sure on other aspects of his 'game' He is, I spoke far too soon. Mitt winning by a mile at the minute, still don't see him winning the election unless Obama stops the debate to pray to Mecca but he's been very impressive tonight.
MPH Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 He is, I spoke far too soon. Mitt winning by a mile at the minute, still don't see him winning the election unless Obama stops the debate to pray to Mecca but he's been very impressive tonight. In Obama's defence.... Mitt has alot to attack but hasnt been president in a difficult financial time....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.