BigRedBuster Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 1 hour ago, commando said: shep destroys trumps claims about amazon I wonder why I never see Trump rave about how great Shep is.......hmmmm...... Link to comment
Fru Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 I'm surprised Shep hasn't been shown the door at Fox. Bravo for him being a voice of reason. 1 Link to comment
sho Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: It's because if it's another company just using Amazon to facilitate the sale, it's not Amazon's responsibility to collect and pay the tax. It's the selling company and the government would need to go after all those 1,000s of individual companies. One simple regulation that could be put in is that a sale is not possible to be processed through Amazon (no matter who the seller is) without charging sales tax. It actually would be a simple fix. Amazon could have in it's software all the various sales taxes across the country and charge appropriately. Tell me about it. I was one of the idiots that bought Amazon right before Bozo went after Bezos. And to add to this, if the company is not located in a particular state, they are not required to collect and pay sales tax to that state. The onus then falls on to the buyer to calculate the tax they owe and pay it to their home state. Example if a company in solely located in Omaha and ships online purchases to Council Bluffs the company is not required to collect Iowa sales tax. The customer is required to pay Iowa the sales tax. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 6, 2018 Author Share Posted April 6, 2018 Chicken s#!t!!! 1 Link to comment
commando Posted April 6, 2018 Share Posted April 6, 2018 40 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Chicken s#!t!!! it's those darn bone spurs. 2 Link to comment
Making Chimichangas Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 Trump is such a small-minded, ignorant, f'ing dumbass. It boggles my mind at how anyone can still support that moronic blowhole. To Trump supporters: At what freaking point do you start holding that lying sack of excrement accountable? 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) This is some very interesting work that piggybacks on the conversation in another thread about the media as a whole. Trump did better in areas where there was no local counter to the enormous amount of questionable or outright false statements he made. It's quite long, so here's the meat of it: Quote POLITICO’s analysis shows how he succeeded in avoiding mainstream outlets, and turned that into a winning strategy: Voters in so-called news deserts — places with minimal newspaper subscriptions, print or online — went for him in higher-than-expected numbers. In tight races with Clinton in states like Wisconsin, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, the decline in local media could have made a decisive difference. To assess how the decline in news subscriptions might have affected the presidential race, POLITICO made a county-by-county comparison of data from AAM. Almost all daily newspapers report their subscription numbers, print and online, to AAM for verification in order to sell to advertisers. (Some of the smallest outlets do not, though, including weekly publications.) After ranking the counties on subscription rates, POLITICO compared election results between counties with high and low subscription rates, and used regression analysis to determine the correlation between news circulation and election results. Among the findings: Trump did better than Romney in areas with fewer households subscribing to news outlets but worse in areas with higher subscription rates: In counties where Trump’s vote margin was greater than Romney’s in 2012, the average subscription rate was only about two-thirds the size of that in counties where Trump did worse than Romney. Trump struggled against Clinton in places with more news subscribers: Counties in the top 10 percent of subscription rates were twice as likely to go for Clinton as those in the lowest 10 percent. Clinton was also more than 3.7 times as likely to beat former President Barack Obama’s 2012 performance in counties in the top 10 percent compared to those in the lowest 10 percent — the driest of the so-called news deserts. Trump’s share of the vote tended to drop in accordance with the amount of homes with news subscriptions: For every 10 percent of households in a county that subscribed to a news outlet, Trump’s vote share dropped by an average of 0.5 percentage points. To many news professionals and academics who’ve studied the flow of political information, there’s no doubt that a lack of trusted local media created a void that was filled by social media and partisan national outlets. “Without having the newspaper as kind of ‘true north’ to point you to issues, you are left to look for other sources,” said Penny Abernathy, a University of North Carolina professor who has closely studied the decline of local media. “And because of the dramatic rise in social media, that ends up being your Facebook friends.” Rick Tyler, who served as communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) presidential campaign, had a front-row seat for the rise of Trump, and noted that for many Trump supporters, the candidate himself was the most trusted source of news. “What he’s doing is he is becoming the source and they believe him,” Tyler said. “It doesn’t matter if the people they don’t believe say he’s not telling the truth. Trump’s breakthrough is that he’s unencumbered by the truth.” The bolded is a real problem, and I'm not sure how you fix it for people that just don't care. Edited April 9, 2018 by Clifford Franklin 3 Link to comment
TheSker Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 22 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said: This is some very interesting work that piggybacks on the conversation in another thread about the media as a whole. Trump did better in areas where there was no local counter to the enormous amount of questionable or outright false statements he made. It's quite long, so here's the meat of it: The bolded is a real problem, and I'm not sure how you fix it for people that just don't care. So Abernathy referred to newspapers as a guide to "true north" on issues? Wow....... Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, TheSker said: So Abernathy referred to newspapers as a guide to "true north" on issues? Wow....... What are your thoughts? Personally it seemed to make sense to me, but it's kind of dumb phrasing. I think a lot of small-town America thinks of their local paper (to the extent to which they're left) and their local news as reliable. Which is exactly why Sinclair's takeover of so many local news stations to blast pro-Trump propaganda is dangerous. 2 Link to comment
NM11046 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 10 hours ago, TheSker said: So Abernathy referred to newspapers as a guide to "true north" on issues? Wow....... Local. As we discussed somewhere else lately, the local news people have a responsibility to speak to what impacts their local population. Those that watch/read trust them. So yes, they are certainly more of a "true north" than national news on occasion, and almost 100% better than the opinion shows branding themselves as "news" that people lock into. Link to comment
TheSker Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 9 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said: What are your thoughts? Personally it seemed to make sense to me, but it's kind of dumb phrasing. I think a lot of small-town America thinks of their local paper (to the extent to which they're left) and their local news as reliable. Which is exactly why Sinclair's takeover of so many local news stations to blast pro-Trump propaganda is dangerous. I'm not sure most issues have a "true north". That's why they are subject to debate. I think more accurately would be reporting what "stance" each candidate is taking on a particular issue. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, TheSker said: I'm not sure most issues have a "true north". That's why they are subject to debate. I think more accurately would be reporting what "stance" each candidate is taking on a particular issue. I think you misunderstand what he means by that. I don't take it as "your newspaper knows whats right" about an issue more as your newspaper won't try and influence you one way or another. Link to comment
ZRod Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 2 hours ago, TheSker said: I'm not sure most issues have a "true north". That's why they are subject to debate. I think more accurately would be reporting what "stance" each candidate is taking on a particular issue. There is almost always a true north when it comes to facts or fact based statements. There is debate on interpreting those facts, as they relate to the issues, but Trump clearly is not interested in facts. Link to comment
TheSker Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, ZRod said: There is almost always a true north when it comes to facts or fact based statements. There is debate on interpreting those facts, as they relate to the issues, but Trump clearly is not interested in facts. Agreed. But newspapers don't just publish fact statements for each side. Editorial content, even within a "news" article and headline is used to persuade and influence. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/2018/04/06/department-of-homeland-security-compiling-database-of-journalists-and-media-influencers/#2498546e6121 ^ Homeland security to start monitoring members of the media. Link to comment
Recommended Posts