https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-...sm_tw_post

Not surprisingly CNN topped the negativity list among US broadcasters. Fox was slightly negative. On topics, immigration was 96% negative with Health Care and Russia close behind. Economy was only slightly negative. Sounds like the Democratic priorities and why they lost the election.

"...The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 days got a good write-up overall – with 59% of reports positive.
Bill Clinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:..."

http://www.economist.com/news/business/2...ys-tribune

Sinclair Broadcasting is why CNN and NBC are going bat crazy to start a coup to oust Trump and his FCC chief.

From a noted Harvard law professor you may have heard of once or twice:


“Let’s assume that that’s true — show me the criminal statute,” he said. “I still sit here as a civil libertarian. I don’t want us ever to become what Stalinist Russia became when Stalin was told by Lavrentiy Beria, ‘Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.’ What is the crime?”

Cooper said the question wasn’t whether or not it was illegal collusion or just collusion but if it occurred, to which Dershowitz said that wasn’t something over which Mueller would have jurisdiction.

“[T]hat is a political issue, but that doesn’t give Mueller jurisdiction,” he added. “Mueller has no jurisdiction to explore whether he made political mistakes, did terrible things, engaged in wrongdoing. Only criminal acts.”

If we keep Trump as president? We would be come a Stalin like country under his rule. He needs to go. He broke laws and need to go to prison. Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism. I would labeled them and China as State sponsor because of who they support.

(05-20-2017 10:15 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  If we keep Trump as president? We would be come a Stalin like country under his rule. He needs to go. He broke laws and need to go to prison. Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism. I would labeled them and China as State sponsor because of who they support.

This is a perfect example of how dem's are becoming a bunch of moon bats?

Dershowitz always reminds me that Ron Silver died too young. He was just getting going as a political commentator when cancer got him.

My college classmate, we would have been celebrating our 50th graduation anniversary next week.

When Harvard proves how bad the media's liberal bias against Trump is, well.....

Libturds need to listen to the Dershowitz and Turley on this stuff. If those guys are shooting you down, you have no case.

Of course, hiding the actual truth of what the study says, in order to make it appear to support your agenda.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...2e9b87a862

Quote:To be clear, I think the Shorenstein Center study is well worth doing, and I'm glad to have the data, which is much more nuanced than the one statistic above that will get all the play. I also think members of the media need to be constantly aware that they overwhelmingly hail from the coasts, and are more formally educated and tend to lean leftward more than your average American voter. The best journalism is the kind that can empathize with its subjects, and Trump's base is decidedly dissimilar to where most major-media journalists come from; that's just a fact.

...

It's important to note that caption: “Percentages exclude news reports that were neutral in tone, which accounted for about a third of the reports.” So it's not quite true that 80 percent of all Trump coverage is negative — just that 80 percent of coverage that tilts positive or negative is negative.

...

But look a little further down the chart, and you'll see that positive coverage in the first 100 days is not a given, even for a Democrat. Before Obama, there was no real honeymoon for George W. Bush or even the Democrat who preceded him, Bill Clinton. Fully 60 percent of Clinton's early coverage was negative — less than Trump, yes, but still very strongly negative from the “liberal media.”

And there was a reason for that: Clinton was struggling. He hadn't passed any signature legislation and had failed to deliver on the promise of a young, pragmatic Southern Democrat. Seven in 10 voters thought the country was headed in the wrong direction — a number that was on the rise. The economy was stuck in a rut. Just 43 percent of Americans had voted for him in a three-way race, and he hadn't accomplished much of anything to win over the other 57 percent. His party would later go on to get destroyed in the 1994 midterm election.

In short, there just wasn't much positive to focus on.

Such is the case with Trump. There haven't been many big successes to speak of in his first 100 days, and from there, his penchant for controversy and the objective disorder in his administration tend to more than fill the vacuum.

(05-20-2017 12:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds need to listen to the Dershowitz and Turley on this stuff.

Why do you think Libertarians need to listen to them?

(05-20-2017 12:32 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 12:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds need to listen to the Dershowitz and Turley on this stuff.

Why do you think Libertarians need to listen to them?

Link to where I said that.

It's right in the quote -- you said "libturds", which is your low-brow nickname for Libertarians.

I just want to make sure that I point that out, EVERY time I see it, to really drive home that point for the posters and more importantly the lurkers who read these posts daily.

(05-20-2017 12:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's right in the quote -- you said "libturds", which is your low-brow nickname for Libertarians.

Nope.

libturds, libtards, libcucks = leftists.

leftists =/= liberals =/= libertarians

I hope that clears things up.

(05-20-2017 12:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's right in the quote -- you said "libturds", which is your low-brow nickname for Libertarians.

I just want to make sure that I point that out, EVERY time I see it, to really drive home that point for the posters and more importantly the lurkers who read these posts daily.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

(05-20-2017 01:00 PM)Kronke Wrote:  libturds, libtards, libcucks = leftists

No, that doesn't make sense -- all those start with "lib". So they must be referring to Libertarians.


Don't worry, I will continue to point this out EVERY TIME, to make sure that it's clear for everyone.

(05-20-2017 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 01:00 PM)Kronke Wrote:  libturds, libtards, libcucks = leftists

No, that doesn't make sense -- all those start with "lib". So they must be referring to Libertarians.


Don't worry, I will continue to point this out EVERY TIME, to make sure that it's clear for everyone.

Dont worry, we'll enjoy your butthurt everytime you do it.

What does liberal start with? Oh, there you go.

(05-20-2017 12:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 12:32 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 12:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Libturds need to listen to the Dershowitz and Turley on this stuff.

Why do you think Libertarians need to listen to them?

Link to where I said that.

You really need to start using 'regressive'. Bison has no cute comeback for that one, no matter how hard he/she tries.

(05-20-2017 01:49 PM)banker Wrote:  What does liberal start with?

"Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change."


Lot of truth, in one sentence!

(05-21-2017 10:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 01:49 PM)banker Wrote:  What does liberal start with?

"Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change."


Lot of truth, in one sentence!

Liable to change is true about the libturds. In one minute they wanted Comey fired, in the next minute they were back to blowing him.