The CNN Troll Thread

[Ibanez]

I guess if I were richer then it would be ok. I mean, isn't that what we learned in 2016?

I guess George Soros, Mark Cuban and all the Hollywood left are just paupers. If Obama, Clinton and the rest of the radical left hadn't tried to make a socialist state, Trump would never have happened, actions bring reaction, Trump is a reaction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What do Soros, Cuban and Hollywood left have to do with this? Are they political leaders? No.

As for your "socialist state", Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats are. The Republicans had 1 good candidate (Kasich) in 2016 and they depth charged their own party and country. Fucking babies. And the only Republicans that have the balls to stand up against Trump (McCain, Graham, Sasse, etc..) are vilified for not following in lock n step behind Trump.

[SeattleGriz]

MSM is going absolutely apeshit..

Apoplectic. Trump once again triggers millions with the simple push of a send button.

[Jjoey52]

I guess George Soros, Mark Cuban and all the Hollywood left are just paupers. If Obama, Clinton and the rest of the radical left hadn't tried to make a socialist state, Trump would never have happened, actions bring reaction, Trump is a reaction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What do Soros, Cuban and Hollywood left have to do with this? Are they political leaders? No.

As for your "socialist state", Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats are. The Republicans had 1 good candidate (Kasich) in 2016 and they depth charged their own party and country. **** babies. And the only Republicans that have the balls to stand up against Trump (McCain, Graham, Sasse, etc..) are vilified for not following in lock n step behind Trump.

Did you not see I corrected that, go back a few posts. Kasich was funded by Soros and is a globalist, McCain and Graham are libs, Graham was so beloved by voters, he got 1% of vote in primaries.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

MSM is going absolutely apeshit..

Apoplectic. Trump once again triggers millions with the simple push of a send button.

It was another example of Trump acting like a 10 year old. And he's losing his war with the media.

[BDKJMU]

MSM is going absolutely apeshit..

Apoplectic. Trump once again triggers millions with the simple push of a send button.

[93henfan]

That cover just moves us a step closer. Good game America.

[BDKJMU]

Nails it..

"Byron York: Reflections on the president's tweet

In the run-up to the Iraq War, a Bush White House official explained to me that 9/11 had changed the way we read national security intelligence. There was a relaxed way to read intelligence, he said, and there was an alarmed way to read intelligence. Sept. 11 proved that we had to read intelligence — say, on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — in an alarmed way to avoid another disaster. Therefore, we had to invade Iraq.

I thought of that conversation amid the reaction to President Trump's latest tweet, showing him taking down CNN in a World Wrestling Entertainment video. There is a relaxed way to read the tweet, and there is an alarmed way to read the tweet. The media-politico complex is choosing the alarmed way, with a vengeance......"(continues)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron ... le/2627664

[Grizalltheway]

That cover just moves us a step closer. Good game America.

You're more concerned about the cover than the tweet itself?

[93henfan]

That cover just moves us a step closer. Good game America.

You're more concerned about the cover than the tweet itself?

Shut up, Weetag.

[Grizalltheway]

You're more concerned about the cover than the tweet itself?

Shut up, Weetag.

Okay

[CAA Flagship]

CNN's Acosta slammed for saying Trump held 'fake news conference'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07 ... rence.html

While on CNN’s “New Day” after Trump’s joint press conference, Acosta repeated the “fake news” line – a phrase Trump often uses when he refers to CNN, including on Thursday – to describe an answer Trump gave to a question about Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

“The other thing that was ‘fake news’ coming from President Trump is when he said, ‘Well, I keep hearing it's 17 intelligence agencies that say Russia meddled in the election, I think it's only three or four,’” Acosta said. “Where does that number come from? Where does this ‘three or four’ number come from? My suspicion…is that if we go to the administration and ask them for this question, I'm not so sure we're going to get an answer.”

However, there is an answer.

The New York Times – and other outlets – had reported for months that “17 American intelligence agencies” agreed Russia orchestrated cyber-attacks before the election.

But The Times on June 28 issued a correction, noting “the assessment was made by four intelligence agencies – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency.” The Times bluntly concluded: “The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizers in the American intelligence community.”

[CID1990]

CNN's Acosta slammed for saying Trump held 'fake news conference'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07 ... rence.html

While on CNN’s “New Day” after Trump’s joint press conference, Acosta repeated the “fake news” line – a phrase Trump often uses when he refers to CNN, including on Thursday – to describe an answer Trump gave to a question about Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

“The other thing that was ‘fake news’ coming from President Trump is when he said, ‘Well, I keep hearing it's 17 intelligence agencies that say Russia meddled in the election, I think it's only three or four,’” Acosta said. “Where does that number come from? Where does this ‘three or four’ number come from? My suspicion…is that if we go to the administration and ask them for this question, I'm not so sure we're going to get an answer.”

However, there is an answer.

The New York Times – and other outlets – had reported for months that “17 American intelligence agencies” agreed Russia orchestrated cyber-attacks before the election.

But The Times on June 28 issued a correction, noting “the assessment was made by four intelligence agencies – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency.” The Times bluntly concluded: “The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizers in the American intelligence community.”

The first time I heard "17 intel agencies" I wondered what I was missing because I only know of maybe a third of that number

[Chizzang]

CNN's Acosta slammed for saying Trump held 'fake news conference'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07 ... rence.html

The first time I heard "17 intel agencies" I wondered what I was missing because I only know of maybe a third of that number

Are you sure that's not just the total number of intelligent people staffed in it's entirety..?

[CID1990]

The first time I heard "17 intel agencies" I wondered what I was missing because I only know of maybe a third of that number

Are you sure that's not just the total number of intelligent people staffed in it's entirety..?

Well if they meant to say "17 intelligent people" but garbled it into "17 intelligence agencies" that would be actually believable

From both directions

[Col Hogan]

CNN can't even beat reruns of decades old shows these days...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/06/cnn-s ... ium=Social

[BDKJMU]

phpBB [video]

[JohnStOnge]

Here is a description of what is being referenced when people refer to the 17 intelligence agencies:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-17- ... story.html

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I will say that if you go by the resource at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ we have pretty much reached the point where you have to go back to "broadcast" network news for TV news stuff.

The last time I checked before tonight CNN had a "left center" bias with a "high" factual reporting rating. Now it's "left" bias and "mixed." So now on cable you've got that, you've got Fox News with a "right biased" and "mixed" factual reporting, and you've got MSNBC with a "left biased" and "mixed" factual reporting. You do have CNBC with a "left center" bias and a "high" factual reporting rating; but they're mostly focused on financial stuff.

Now if you want to get to the "high" factual reporting ratings you have to go to ABC, CBS, and NBC news. Also they are all "left center" bias which means "These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias."

There is no Reuters, which is rated "least biased" and with a factual reporting rating of "very high" in the television world.

[CID1990]

Here is a description of what is being referenced when people refer to the 17 intelligence agencies:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-17- ... story.html

Wow

LAT did a whole article to cover for CNN on what is ultimately a minor point

And they were stretching QUITE a bit

INR at State is not an intelligence agency. It is a bureau within DoS that synthesizes intel products from other agencies for consumption within Foggy Bottom. It does not collect. This is a significant error on the part of this newspaper.

And listing each of the service branches' intel wings is like saying the NYPD is a branch of the military

I got a real chuckle out of Coast Guard Intelligence

[JohnStOnge]

Curiosity drove me to look more at the Cable News Network ratings thing. Found this article about how Cable News Networks did during the second quarter:

http://deadline.com/2017/06/fox-news-ch ... 202119959/

The bad news for CNN is that it dropped in the ratings rankings. The good news is that, in absolute terms, their ratings were significantly up during the second quarter. Check out this quote from the article's first paragraph:

CNN clocked its most watched second quarter in its history.

It's just that other Cable News Networks, and especially MSNBC, enjoyed even more improvement than CNN did.

Another point is that it looks like more people watched the two main left leaning Cable News Networks than watched the one main right leaning Cable News network. You can see that by adding the MSNBC + CNN numbers in each category and comparing the sum to the Fox News numbers. More people watched left leaning cable news. It's just that they could choose between two main choices whereas Fox News is pretty much it if you want to see right leaning news.

The big winner appears to be MSNBC. My guess is that people on the far left are really fired up and MSNBC has historically been farther to the left than CNN.

Of course the cable news ratings are still dwarfed by the broadcast network news ratings:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/evening- ... 017/333511

And I guess that's good now that neither Fox, MSNBC, nor CNN have at least a "High" factual reporting rating at the site I like to use while all three of the broadcast network news units do.

[JohnStOnge]

And now there are 18. Was kind of half watching the TV while getting ready to shower yesterday and heard a former US ambassador refer to "18 intelligence agencies" when talking about the consensus that the Russians made efforts to influence the election. Backed the TV up to listen to it again to make sure I heard right. Yep. He said "18." The guy is Thomas Pickering, indicated as "Fmr. U.S. Ambassador to Russia."

Wonder which one the LA Times missed.

[CAA Flagship]

And now there are 18. Was kind of half watching the TV while getting ready to shower yesterday and heard a former US ambassador refer to "18 intelligence agencies" when talking about the consensus that the Russians made efforts to influence the election. Backed the TV up to listen to it again to make sure I heard right. Yep. He said "18." The guy is Thomas Pickering, indicated as "Fmr. U.S. Ambassador to Russia."

Wonder which one the LA Times missed.

I heard the same thing and also .
Just proves that we can put some clueless people in political positions. I'm not saying he is wrong. Just saying that 17 is the number that is most floated out there, and if you say something different, you have to explain yourself. Which he didn't.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, while things could change at any time with events, it looks for now like Trump is losing this battle. One of his big deals is that he's gotten a whole lot accomplished. Been doing a great job. Notoriously claimed he accomplished more than any President since FDR during this first six months:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... six-months

But, so far, the population in general isn't buying it. Here's the current Real Clear Politics (RCP) display on how his job approval ratings have been going since he took office:



Obligatory reminder: The difference between the RCP average estimate for the margin the 2016 Presidential election national vote as of 11/7 deviated from the actual result recorded on 11/8 by 1.2 percentage points (estimated 3.3 percentage poitns vs. actual 2.1 percentage points).

[kalm]

BTW I will say that if you go by the resource at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ we have pretty much reached the point where you have to go back to "broadcast" network news for TV news stuff.

The last time I checked before tonight CNN had a "left center" bias with a "high" factual reporting rating. Now it's "left" bias and "mixed." So now on cable you've got that, you've got Fox News with a "right biased" and "mixed" factual reporting, and you've got MSNBC with a "left biased" and "mixed" factual reporting. You do have CNBC with a "left center" bias and a "high" factual reporting rating; but they're mostly focused on financial stuff.

Now if you want to get to the "high" factual reporting ratings you have to go to ABC, CBS, and NBC news. Also they are all "left center" bias which means "These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias."

There is no Reuters, which is rated "least biased" and with a factual reporting rating of "very high" in the television world.

Well CNBC sure as shit nailed the financial crisis! That Jim Cramer dude is a prophet!

[CAA Flagship]

BTW, while things could change at any time with events, it looks for now like Trump is losing this battle. One of his big deals is that he's gotten a whole lot accomplished. Been doing a great job. Notoriously claimed he accomplished more than any President since FDR during this first six months:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... six-months

But, so far, the population in general isn't buying it. Here's the current Real Clear Politics (RCP) display on how his job approval ratings have been going since he took office:



Obligatory reminder: The difference between the RCP average estimate for the margin the 2016 Presidential election national vote as of 11/7 deviated from the actual result recorded on 11/8 by 1.2 percentage points (estimated 3.3 percentage poitns vs. actual 2.1 percentage points).

What's "real", and what "the population believes" is rarely the same thing anymore.
Do yourself a favor, stop looking at these fucking polls. They are destroying you.