Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: California
Home country: USA
Member since: Tue May 20, 2014, 12:09 PM
Number of posts: 16,070

Journal Archives

Here's How Reuters Gamed A Poll To Show Rising Support For Trump Impeachment

After several major polls revealed a sharp decline in support for impeaching President Trump in the wake of unconvincing public testimony by aggrieved bureaucrats (and at least one House Democrat publicly opposing the move), Reuters/Ipsos now claims support for impeachment has increased.

The latest poll, conducted on Monday and Tuesday, found that 47% of adults in the United States felt Trump “should be impeached,” while 40% said he should not.

The result, combined with Reuters/Ipsos polling over the past several weeks, showed that the number of Americans who want to impeach the president increasingly outnumbers those who do not. -Reuters

The problem? Reuters sampled a disproportionate number of Democrats. Buried at the bottom of their report, they disclose:

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online, in English, throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 1,118 adults, including 528 Democrats, 394 Republicans and 111 independents. It has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 3 percentage points.

In other words, Reuters sampled more Democrats than Republicans and independents combined to arrive at their conclusion. They also reveal that " about eight in 10 Democrats supportive of impeaching Trump, and eight in 10 Republicans opposed," and that seven in 10 Republicans felt the House impeachment inquiry had not been conducted fairly.

Moreover, "Only two in 10 said an inquiry would be justified for a president who uses his powers for unfair political advantage over an opponent, as Trump is accused of doing."

Reuters being Reuters...

As we noted during the 2016 US election, Reuters/Ipsos wasoversampling Democrats when they found that Hillary Clinton had a giant lead over Donald Trump - using a poll that sampled 44% Democrats and 33% Republicans.

Russian Trolls Have Virtually No Effect On US Twitter Users: Duke University

A recent study from Duke University appears to support former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's February 2018 announcement that Russian internet trolls did not affect the outcome of the 2016 US election - a campaign which the New York Times described as "the Pearl Harbor of the social media age."

Researchers analyzed the "6 distinctive measures of political attitudes and behaviors" of 1,239 Republican and Democratic Twitter users from late 2017 over a one-month period.

Lead researcher Chris Bail notes that while "many studies have analyzed the content and strategy of these campaigns," hardly anyone has looked at their actual impact.

By combining a massive data set released by Twitter in the wake of the 2016 US election with their own data from a late-2017 study, the team found that Russian efforts had "no significant effects," and that people who interacted with troll accounts were "primarily those who are already highly polarized."

Chris Bail
· Nov 25, 2019
Replying to @chris_bail
6. We studied whether interacting with trolls shaped six political attitudes and behaviors during this period (including both people’s opinions about specific issues as well as Republicans’ and Democrats’ perceptions of each other).

Chris Bail
7. Though our analysis has important limitations (see below), we found no significant effects of interacting with trolls for any of our outcomes. We also found that the people who are mostly likely to interact with trolls are primarily those who are already highly polarized.

12:15 PM - Nov 25, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

34 people are talking about this

Offering suggestions as to why this is the case, Bail says their finding is consistent with the theory of "minimal effects" in political communication research, which is that "people who are most likely to engage with political messaging are the least likely to be influenced by it."

Why cant Western Capitalists be friendly with Socialist countries

And vise versus?

Why is it that they always seem to be at war, near war, coup or proxy?

Why can’t they coexist and it be mutually beneficial?

Why is it automatically bad if a country decides to chose one path over another? California doesn’t want to be run like Arkansas but we are better together regardless of our disagreements.

New OPCW Leak Further Vindicates Skeptics Of Establishment Syria Narrative


Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via,

On the sixth of July last year, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) released its interim report on its findings regarding an alleged poison gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018. The incident, which resulted in dozens of civilian casualties, was blamed on the Syrian government by the US, UK and France, who launched retaliatory airstrikes on multiple targets in that nation.

The interim report claimed that “various chlorinated organic chemicals were found” in different locations on the scene, but strangely said nothing about the levels at which those chemicals were found. The Moon of Alabama blog highlighted this suspicious exclusion on the day the report came out, noting that levels are absolutely essential in determining chemical weapons use when you’re talking about compounds which are found virtually everywhere at some level in any industrialized region.

“The preliminary OPCW report says nothing about the concentrations in which these substances were found,” MoA observed.

“Without knowing the concentrations, which may be extremely low, one can not come to further conclusion.”

“The ‘various chlorinated organic chemicals’ are unsurprising,” MoA wrote.

“Chlorine is widely used for water purification and cleaning and ‘chlorinated organic chemicals’ will be found in any household.”

A new addition to the body of leaks which have been hemorrhaging from the OPCW shows that such skepticism was indeed entirely warranted. A leaked email sent shortly before the interim report was published reveals that the chlorinated organic chemicals which OPCW investigators found on the scene were as low as one or two parts-per-billion, meaning, just as Moon of Alabama speculated last year, that they were found at trace quantities you’d expect to find in any industrialized area.

Bloomberg News Announces It Will Not Investigate Mike Bloomberg, Or Any Of His Democratic Rivals

Democracy and Freedom of Press blah blah blah

So Mike is running.

There is no point in trying to claim that covering this presidential campaign will be easy for a newsroom that has built up its reputation for independence in part by not writing about ourselves (and very rarely about our direct competitors). No previous presidential candidate has owned a journalistic organization of this size. We have electoral laws to follow - to do with both balance and opinion. We will certainly obey them, but I think we need to do more than just that - and I believe we can. So this is how we will proceed.

We are not going to follow an exhaustive rulebook. That is partly because I believe that in journalism you “show” your virtue, you don’t “tell” it. You prove your independence by what you write and broadcast, rather than by proclaiming the details in advance. And I am loath to tie our hands at this stage. We cannot predict every detail of the future: we will have to make some decisions on a case-by-case basis. But we can follow some basic principles, and we will make a few organizational changes.

The place where Mike has had the most contact with Editorial is Bloomberg Opinion: our editorials have reflected his views. David Shipley, Tim O'Brien and some members of the Board responsible for those editorials will take a leave of absence to join Mike's campaign. We will suspend the Board, so there will be no unsigned editorials. Our columnists, who produce the majority of Bloomberg Opinion's content, will continue to speak for themselves, and we will continue to take some op-ed articles from outsiders (although not op-eds on the election). Bloomberg Opinion will be led by Bob Burgess, with Reto being the main overseer on the Editorial Management Committee.

On News, we will write about virtually all aspects of this presidential contest in much the same way as we have done so far. We will describe who is winning and who is losing. We will look at policies and their consequences. We will carry polls, we will interview candidates and we will track their campaigns, including Mike’s. We have already assigned a reporter to follow his campaign (just as we did when Mike was in City Hall). And in the stories we write on the presidential contest, we will make clear that our owner is now a candidate.

That covers the vast majority of what this newsroom does. We will continue our tradition of not investigating Mike (and his family and foundation) and we will extend the same policy to his rivals in the Democratic primaries. We cannot treat Mike's Democratic competitors differently from him. If other credible journalistic institutions publish investigative work on Mike or the other Democratic candidates, we will either publish those articles in full, or summarize them for our readers - and we will not hide them. For the moment, our P&I team will continue to investigate the Trump administration, as the government of the day. If Mike is chosen as the Democratic presidential candidate (and Donald Trump emerges as the Republican one), we will reassess how we do that.

To those who would rather that we did not write about Mike at all, I would reply that Bloomberg News has handled these conflicts before - and proved our independence. We are following the same policy that we have applied to Bloomberg LP and our direct rivals in the financial markets and media: we report on but do not investigate Reuters and CNBC. When Mike ran for mayor, we reported on the facts of his campaign and summarized other articles.

So those are the principles that we will follow. They are broad - and so there will be decisions to be made at the margin. That is what editors are for. And that leads to an organizational change, designed to add even more managerial clout.

Our news coverage of the 2020 race will be run on a day-to-day basis by Wes Kosova, Craig Gordon and our team in Washington, DC. If questions arise, we have Laura Zelenko’s Standards team to call on. But I have asked Marty Schenker, our Chief Content Officer who works alongside Reto and myself on the Editorial Management Committee, to take special responsibility for overseeing our news coverage of Mike and his rivals (and the questions that may occur about this election all the way round the world), in the same way that Reto will oversee Opinion. We may well have to make quick decisions across many platforms. Marty has covered every election since Watergate; we need his experience and judgment, even if responsibility for any mistakes we make ultimately rests with me.

Given the workload this will involve, I have asked Heather Harris to take on Marty’s responsibilities as Chief Content Officer for EMEA and APAC – and she will join Reto, Marty and me on our management committee.

I think this is a structure that can cope with many eventualities. No doubt, many of you are already thinking of possible complexities that may arise. My response is: let’s get back to work. We can spend a long time debating “what ifs”. I would rather that we got on with the journalism and let that speak for itself. So write, blog, broadcast - and the rest will take care of itself.

— John

The spin on CNN today is amazing. Russia will hack 2020

Jesus fucking christ they are flat out lying

How loyal will the Clintons Bidens and Obama remain to each other?

Dr Hill doesnt know what a anti trumper is

Yeah, she’s credible

John Roberts on FOX really wants us to believe Russia

Changed votes in the election.

To be fair, he didn’t say who they helped

Did Trump tap Sweden on the shoulder and tell them to drop Assange rape charge?

Think about it, Trump is the master of playing the long game, and the swamp is the crown jewel of long games.

First of all, I believe Trump knows the importance of keeping our national secrets secret but I also believe he knows the biggest threat to our national security is the corruption infesting every part of the of the system.

Trump inherited this Wikileaks saga so I think he has simply played along with the deep state.

dropping the rape charge clears the way for his extradition to the US.

Trump was getting, might already have the crowdstrike details

Julian Assange- Wikileaks has all the dirt, on everybody!!!! By default, he is Trumps best friend, and the Deep State/MSM worst nightmare.

Assange sitting in a court talking and sharing his evidence and cross examining government witnesses only helps Trump.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »