J.C.MacSwell

Wow! Finally something good to say about Trump...encouraging civic duty!

Surely you mean early votes outnumber previous early votes, not total votes???

Thanks. Also for the Data/graphs. First bold: nor disproven... Second: If one started from a point of total ignorance, one could argue it would...starting out...but a willingness to look at everything "equally" is not usually necessary to have a reasonably objective view. I think it helps to look at the other side. Even if it does not change your opinion. (obviously this particular extreme example is...particularly extreme) Even asking "would this argument make sense if the shoe was on the other foot?"or"if the skin was a different colour", etc I think goes a long way...but you are right that none of us are the best judge of our own objectivity.(yes...even might apply to me )

Ten oz. To your credit, you bring up facts and back them up. That's fine. What facts might I bring up regarding the (moral, as opposed to ratings/business related) decline of CNN without citing examples? I think I am more objective than most. My willingness to look at both sides of an argument should demonstrate that, as well as my willingness to recognize and even concede points at times. But I understand if you don't see that.

So. We disagree. So be it.

Why do you take it to this extreme? Why do you feel the need to exaggerate what I said at all, never mind to that degree? Lemon did not say "white male extremists", or "white nationalists", he said "white men". It was an intentionally racist statement. What if someone stated "black men" were a problem? Would that be OK? Clearly not. (I'm going to assume no one here is racist and doesn't believe criminality of any group is inherent in there DNA or anything to do with skin colour...if a mod feels that is inappropriate for this thread please delete it) If you look at the statistics without the broader social and socio-economic context you can cite statistics to back up a (very incorrect) racist view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States Would that make it right to say "black men" are a problem? Absolutely not. So why is it OK for Lemon to make the statement he did? And why would you defend him? I get that "white men" are overrepresented in both privileged positions and (separately I think) on the "far right". This does not justify a racist view any more than "black men" being overrepresented in prisons. I believe Lemon was asking us to stop and think. I would like think he is not racist. But unfortunately he chose to speak and act like a racist. He's not the first nor only one. You can find many examples coming from the left right now...which is a shame considering the civil rights advances of the past mostly came from the left. There is no justification for racist statements...not even "but Trump". Many times in this thread I have been attacked for a "false equivalency" in stating CNN has become as bad as Fox. If you ask me to defend this position I have to use examples of CNN's decline. I have already admitted Fox News might be worse due to "ratings". That might make CNN less dangerous but does not excuse how bad they have become.

...and the part you are missing is that what I consider "equally bad" does not pertain exclusively to "Democrats vs Republicans". Working for or working with at some levels may very well be accurate. That doesn't make "rooting for" inaccurate. Don Lemon has taken up talking as a racist. I hold out hope he isn't racist, and will stop doing it. While I agree with much of what you are saying, I think the bolded is not generally considered true. I do agree that capitalism should be managed as a tool for the people, and not just as a tool for the rich. Overall in Canada I think we get the balance right to some degree, but never of course as efficiently or effectively as it could be. Private enterprise often helps in that regard. Government controlled enterprises are often inefficient.

You are for health care, as am I. You are for gun control, as am I. We are still both capable of assessing both sides of the argument without calling the side we don't agree with absurd...even when pumped up by all our friends with similar views, or watching News with similar views that for some reason feel the need to distort what the other side is saying. CNN has Don Lemon calling "white men" the biggest terror threat in America. No one from CNN called him out. This is what they have become. There is no equivalent from Fox News disparaging any race that I am aware of. Fox News is openly rooting for Trump and the GOP. CNN is not quite doing the equivalent for the Democrats, but it is pretty clear they have a Democrat agenda. Overall, not equally bad in all respects, but pretty much equally bad overall... currently. If you want to say Fox is worse because they have a bigger audience...fair enough...but that is well outside of the definition of the false equivalence fallacy. But it is getting to the point where many cannot recognize even a very poor or one sided argument coming from the "side" they feel they are on...somehow everything from that side is justifiable.

I will take it back. If you read what I wrote, I was attacking your manner of delivery, not your intelligence. But I will apologize as it was directed at you, not just at what you wrote. I am not as familiar with MSNBC, so i can't agree or disagree. All I can say is that your thought that I had substituted CNN for MSNBC is not an example of the false equivalence fallacy. Nor, IMO, is it a false equivalence to say that CNN has become as bad as Fox News. This is in regard to Trump, the GOP and Democrats, so called Left and Right Wing agendas, racism, and sexism. I do not believe that was the case 2 years ago.

OK rx I'll ignore the first line, CNN being "infinitely more objective" (let me know if you want that taken seriously) and the "endless nitpicking" Fox has more effect on voters than CNN is probably correct. No, your claim that I "substituted" CNN with MSNBC (no matter how good or bad an idea that might be) is not an example of the false equivalence fallacy.

You would prefer an incoherent rant? If that was your best effort I apologize, but right now I think you are capable of better. Bring up a point properly and I will clarify or discuss it, but I'm not replying to something you make no effort at, except to disparage.

Nice word salad...

1. I am not claiming equivalency. I am clearly claiming the opposite. CNN has much more effect on voters than I have on CNN. 2. I realize it is indirect...it is still, clearly again, many, many times my "direct" effect on CNN. 3. I am in favour of ending disenfranchisement of eligible voters. Regardless of the crime they've committed, and regardless of whether they are incarcerated or not. Also regardless of how I think they might vote. I did not underestimate the effect this would have, or had. (when you did with your .02%, I did not buy it, and I knew you knew better...you were busy failing to make a point with it) 4. I did not claim CNN had more impact than voter disenfranchisement. I claimed they had more than .02%, the number you came up with as enough to make the difference in the last election (depending on where counted, I would agree it's enough) Why are you struggling with this?

Right. So my not watching them would have some impact on them, but they have none whatsoever on voters. Fair enough. We can disagree.

Right. My point being that both have significance well above .02% So I could say it is you who underestimate both, not me, but I know from previous threads that's not true. You have a good grasp of voter suppression. I read what you say, You just underestimate the power of the press and make false claims and try to distort what I say.

Can you not see how ridiculous that second bolded statement is? Even if it was just .02% (what was the voter suppression in Florida on criminal ineligibility alone?) and that was enough to make the difference, why could it not have been from other factors as well? Are you thinking the popular press, or even CNN alone, has less than a .02% effect? You underestimate the power of the press. (Not trying to discourage the first bolded, which is commendable)

I am to some degree, including in other threads you have participated in. You just don't pick up on it. No one questioned my criticism of Fox News. It seems to be well accepted even by them themselves that they serve a Republican agenda. With nothing for me to reply to or clarify...why would I elaborate? String Junky has commented on my concerns with the press in general, and has similar concerns. Stop telling me what not to watch. CNN doesn't change if I stop watching. If at some point I wish to look at gun control in depth, I would absolutely look into more of what the NRA is saying. I understand some of their point of view...I just don't agree with it. If you only watch what you wish to hear...you end up with Trump as your President...I'm sure you would have scoffed at that suggestion 3 years ago...as would have I. You underestimate the power of the press and media.

OK. I guess I won't suggest that then...whatever it means...and just stick with what I wrote...which is most obviously true. The press has a significant and important influence over our lives, and when they choose to distort the truth they do all of us a disservice.

I don't believe that's true. I have a lot of respect for the power of the free (and otherwise) press and have concerns about where they are heading. In some respects they have more power and influence than some levels of government, and have influence over all levels. From Wiki on CNN: As of August 2010, CNN is available in over 100 million U.S. households.[6] Broadcast coverage of the U.S. channel extends to over 890,000 American hotel rooms,[6] as well as carriage on subscription providers throughout Canada. As of July 2015, CNN is available to about 96,374,000 pay-television households (82.8% of households with at least one television set) in the United States.[7] Globally, CNN programming airs through CNN International, which can be seen by viewers in over 212 countries and territories.[8]

We have all wandered a bit, but just to tie it back in, control of the press is typical of most totalitarian regimes. Hitler did that and it would be hard to believe Trump would not do it if given the opportunity.

It seems to be the way the press is heading at the moment.

Very much. I am new to the idea that credible news sources in constitutional democracies did the same. CY and SJ. I believe you would have come to that same conclusion without the "extra help" of CNN interpreting it for you, and telling you what you should think.

Let's say CY wants more taxing and you don't. I might announce more taxes realizing that might get CY out to vote for me realizing I might not get your vote. I don't throw in that I think you wear ugly shirts, because that would just add assurance that you might not vote for me and CY might not like that I am insulting you. In this case I announce more taxes, and CNN tells you that I think your shirts are ugly, and you all believe it because you think I have made disparaging clothing remarks in the past. It doesn't help that you add your confirmation bias, and hear any of my mention of clothing in the worse possible way...and you always answer "how could you not recognize it, it would be disingenuous not to". Now, maybe I do hate your clothes, but in this case all I did was announce a tax increase.

Who is claiming reporting what someone says or does is equivalent to speculating what someone is thinking based on no evidence? Yes that would be a false equivalence...if anyone had said or implied it. No one did. Cuomo was, absolutely, participating in false news when he did that, and should be ashamed of himself. There is no justification for it, and he hurts CNN's credibility along with his own. And no, "but it's Trump" does not justify it.

So. You believe this has no negative effect, for Trump/Republicans, for any part of the remaining 92% if racism is directed at Hispanics? That's a pretty sad thought...