Does Donald Trump Want to Ban German Luxury Cars from America?

[TexRex]

Pass.

Indeed; my Fiesta has an American badge on it, but it was designed in the UK and Germany and built in Cologne, and was never sold in the US. Despite the badge, it's barely an American car.

Fiesta? What happened to the Yaris?

 

[Scaff]

Okay, I've tried on a few different occasions to infer from context, and even played with my keyboard to discover possible intended words, but I can't figure this out and it's really starting to get on my nerves. I'm sure it's a typo, but...


What?

That apparently ''specific' as spelt by me and android autocorrect.

I know you can't really count the LA Times as "journalists" but here's their voter guide...surprise to no one, it's really hardcore lefty.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-endorsements-final-20180605-story.html

Oh look a sample size of one, that you're using to judge every US press and media outlet.

If you can't seem the problem with that you need to go and lie down and have a really good think about it. Or shall I just cite Breitbart to 'prove' that all US press and media outlets are heavily right wing?

 

[eran0004]

If right wing sympathisers have a higher IQ, why don’t they realise that they need to become journalists to balance the amount of left wing journalists?

 

[TexRex]

soecispe

specific

I kind of suspected as much, what with only the "o" differing in the first 5/8 of the word, but that last bit was particularly befuddling. And I suppose I derived a little more entertainment from not acknowledging my suspicion.

 

[Scaff]

If right wing sympathisers have a higher IQ, why don’t they realise that they need to become journalists to balance the amount of left wing journalists?

Ssssshhhhh.

Don't apply logic to it, that makes it fall apart.

Repeating the same un sourced rant is the only proof required.

 

[AbeFroman75]

That apparently ''specific' as spelt by me and android autocorrect.


Oh look a sample size of one, that you're using to judge every US press and media outlet.

If you can't seem the problem with that you need to go and lie down and have a really good think about it. Or shall I just cite Breitbart to 'prove' that all US press and media outlets are heavily right wing?

Touchy aren't you? Please point to where I said any of that?

Ohh, what's the deal with the knife control crap you guys have going on? Is that really a thing, with "knife turn in boxes" in Essex?


For ****s and giggles here's the NYT Presidential endorsements, or as you guys might spell it, endoursements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_presidential_endorsements

Eisenhower was the last Republican they endorsed?!


Edit: Is this better?

https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/

It's pretty much solid blue for 2016 and mostly blue for 2012. (For the non-Americans, Blue is democrat and Red is republican)

Keep in mind this is only for presidential endorsements. But I have little doubt that for other offices the results will still sway towards dems

If right wing sympathisers have a higher IQ, why don’t they realise that they need to become journalists to balance the amount of left wing journalists?

Why go to journalism when you can make actual money?

 

[Scaff]

Touchy aren't you? Please point to where I said any of that?

I already have, you used a single example as if it applied to the whole, in a minute you do it again.

It really not a difficult thing to see.

Ohh, what's the deal with the knife control crap you guys have going on? Is that really a thing, with "knife turn in boxes" in Essex?

which has what to do with this discussion?

For ****s and giggles here's the NYT Presidential endorsements, or as you guys might spell it, endoursements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_presidential_endorsements

Eisenhower was the last Republican they endorsed?!

See you do it again, cherry picking data doesn't prove the point, and certainly not when its this blatent.

Now if you can present a solid study of all news and media outlets in the US, weighted by influence and political leaning that would not be cherry picking the data.

Wait that already been posted here......

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
...and helps illustrate why I tend to use The Hill as a source as much as I can, its about as non-Partisan as its possible to get.

Why go to journalism when you can make actual money?

Please stop double posting.

https://www.gtplanet.net/faq/#guidelines

 

[eran0004]

Why go to journalism when you can make actual money?

If journalism isn’t important, why complain about it?

 

[AbeFroman75]

I already have, you used a single example as if it applied to the whole, in a minute you do it again.

It really not a difficult thing to see.

I gave you one example, then I gave you another. Then I gave you another.

which has what to do with this discussion?

Nothing, just simple curiosity. Since it seems to have offended you, I apologize.

See you do it again, cherry picking data doesn't prove the point, and certainly not when its this blatent.

Now if you can present a solid study of all news and media outlets in the US, weighted by influence and political leaning that would not be cherry picking the data.

Wait that already been posted here......


https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
...and helps illustrate why I tend to use The Hill as a source as much as I can, its about as non-Partisan as its possible to get.

Even your own source shows that the vast majority of the mainstream media is left. So what exactly is the argument about? I obviously came late to the game so I'm clearly too late for the circle jerk.

Before you get onto your high horse, I don't have the time or the desire to go in depth into your study, I'm just looking at the pretty pictures and reading some captions.

You're aware of this study I take it? There's a new one that shows things got a little worse but I don't really care to go looking for it, you're more than welcome to.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

Please stop double posting.

https://www.gtplanet.net/faq/#guidelines

Please mind your own business. If it upsets a mod, then they tell me and I have no issues fixing it. But go play mall cop some place else.

 

[Scaff]

I gave you one example, then I gave you another. Then I gave you another.

None of which support the claim that the media is massively biased to the left, or that Politifact is left of left (which was the original claim made that started this discussion).

Nothing, just simple curiosity. Since it seems to have offended you, I apologize.

It really hasn't, but thanks for attempting to assign a trait to me. /sarcasm.

Even your own source shows that the vast majority of the mainstream media is left. So what exactly is the argument about? I obviously came late to the game so I'm clearly too late for the circle jerk.

Before you get onto your high horse, I don't have the time or the desire to go in depth into your study, I'm just looking at the pretty pictures and reading some captions.

It doesn't show "that the vast majority of the mainstream media is left" at all, it shows a slight bias towards the left in traditional media and a higher bias towards the right (and a more partisan bias within the right) when it comes to social media sources,

I guess being bothered to read it has its advantages.

You're aware of this study I take it? There's a new one that shows things got a little worse but I don't really care to go looking for it, you're more than welcome to.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

I have and if you cherry pick sources in a study then don;t be surprised if you get a confirmation bias.

Did that study look at all media outlets or a specific group of media outlets?

Oh and did you bother looking at who funded the study? A study that concludes the nasty media says bad things about Trump was funded by a GOP fundraiser! That would indicate its a biased study, or as it gets called these days 'fake news'.

Please mind your own business. If it upsets a mod, then they tell me and I have no issues fixing it. But go play mall cop some place else.

I'm a retired mod here, as such I would suggest taking the advise rather than responding with digs.

 

[Belifant]

it's simply a matter of perspective: if you are standing at the very far right end of the political spectrum, of course everything to your left seems, well, like one big left conspiracy. Which of course, being on the right, is almost everything. Even media that is more right leaning is left to you. Almost everything is to you.

You just have to be aware when you say, "90% is left", you are not saying this from the neutral centre and factual position that you think you are in. You are looking at it from the far right side.

The only media you would consider "neutral" is in fact as far right as you are.

 

[Mr Tree]

I always laugh at Europeans who think they are experts on American politics. It is an undeniable fact that academia and journalists in the US are predominantly liberal.

Touchy aren't you? Please point to where I said any of that?

Ohh, what's the deal with the knife control crap you guys have going on? Is that really a thing, with "knife turn in boxes" in Essex?


For ****s and giggles here's the NYT Presidential endorsements, or as you guys might spell it, endoursements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_presidential_endorsements

Eisenhower was the last Republican they endorsed?!


Edit: Is this better?

https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/

It's pretty much solid blue for 2016 and mostly blue for 2012. (For the non-Americans, Blue is democrat and Red is republican)

Keep in mind this is only for presidential endorsements. But I have little doubt that for other offices the results will still sway towards dems




Why go to journalism when you can make actual money?

You seem to not realise that even if americans consider it left that doesn't mean europe considers it to be left.

I disagree with the idea that there are currently real leftwing policies wirhing the established part of the democrats. We'd consider them right wing on economic issues.

Look up 'the overton window' maybe you can understand the discrepancy between europes idea of left and yours (a lot of americans) a little better. Maybe it helps you understand why we are not wrong when looked at it from a european perspective.

Also don't foeget europeans get a lot of exposure to american news sources and thus know a bit pf what is said on your newssources. What is the last belgian/french/german newssource you've read/seen? I think dismissing our idea's because we don't know isn't fair as you probably have a smaller scope of newssources then we have currently.

 

[Liquid]

Going back to the original topic; would a hypothetical ban on German luxury cars result in better quality American cars? Somehow I doubt it. You can imagine that restricting the choices available to the consumer puts the suppliers in an advantageous position of being able to pass off cheaper, lower quality goods which will almost certainly sell by default.

Just look at Ford. When global car models weren't quite a thing in the 1970s, Ford USA went through a period of putting out absolute tosh like the Pinto before they realised what Ford Europe were putting out such as the Escort and Fiesta, and started to use knowledge, if not the actual models, from those markets to start manufacturing better products.

Restricting the importation of the 5-series or E-Class isn't going to suddenly make the CTS or Continental more appealing.

 

[AbeFroman75]

None of which support the claim that the media is massively biased to the left, or that Politifact is left of left (which was the original claim made that started this discussion).

Actually they do, but it doesn't fit into your narrative so you'll dismiss it.

As for Politifact, I didn't even know I was part of that discussion, but ok. There were more than a few times where they would rate Trump or a Republican as False/Mostly False but when the same/similar thing was said by a dem they would rate it mostly true. One particular involved a stat that Bernie used about Black economic growth or something along those lines, when Trump used more accurate statistics from the same report they rated him as false. Another thing was that they gave Obama a ton of passes on things that were clearly misleading or just flat out lies. One off the top of my head was him saying that "you can buy a gun online with no background check." They then (accurately) explained how that is impossible, but rather than rating him false they rate it "True" Also you're free to look into the people that are doing these ratings and you'll find that more than a few of their social media histories has them as pretty left.


All this does is create doubt. That pretty Thai lady just might have an Adam's Apple.

It really hasn't, but thanks for attempting to assign a trait to me. /sarcasm.

Oh that's great. So what's the deal with it? Or is it one of those things where if you speak publicly about it the Home Office will come with their spiffy bobby hats and assault whistles and will arrest you?

It doesn't show "that the vast majority of the mainstream media is left" at all, it shows a slight bias towards the left in traditional media and a higher bias towards the right (and a more partisan bias within the right) when it comes to social media sources,

I guess being bothered to read it has its advantages.

So beyond Fox News and Breitbart (which is mainstream in the same way HuffPo is as in not really) how many of the mainstream news agencies are right? CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc. all showed left (duh). Which would fall into the category of "the vast majority of the mainstream media is left"

In the same way DW, I personally consider left while Die Welt I consider right.

Now, let's just cut to the action. What is your argument?

I have and if you cherry pick sources in a study then don;t be surprised if you get a confirmation bias.

Did that study look at all media outlets or a specific group of media outlets?

Oh and did you bother looking at who funded the study? A study that concludes the nasty media says bad things about Trump was funded by a GOP fundraiser! That would indicate its a biased study, or as it gets called these days 'fake news'.

I'm not sure you understand the term of cherry picking. But if you're asking did I present this with my dissertation, then I would say no. I just looked for who the major newspapers in this country endorsed. The study in question was conducted by some ***** at Harvard the same joint as yours, as to who funded it and how many of the researchers owned dogs vs cats, what breeds the pets were and what size shoe they wore, I don't have that but you're more than welcome to look it up yourself. Not surprisingly they also showed the news coverage of US politics in Europe as something like well over 90% negative.

Here this may also find this important.
https://www.carprousa.com/these-are-the-most-popular-car-colors-and-whats-next

I'm a retired mod here, as such I would suggest taking the advise rather than responding with digs.

Key word retired. As such, I suggest minding your own business rather than playing hall monitour. A real mod, as I said, I have no issues whatsoever with them letting me know and following their instructions.

 

[UKMikey]

Hmmm, let's see... on one side we have

an objective study of the facts

which takes a large variety of sources into account.

On the other side we have a Republican blowhard who cherry picks a couple of examples and tells other people to shut up if they don't agree with his biased conclusion.

I wonder which one to go with.

 

[Scaff]

Actually they do, but it doesn't fit into your narrative so you'll dismiss it.

Nope, I dismiss them as they are singular examples being used as to determine the actions of the whole.

Are those specific publications biased politically in one direction? Yes. Does that make all media coverage biased in the same direction and/or can that then be applied as being true to the whole? Nope.

As for Politifact, I didn't even know I was part of that discussion, but ok. There were more than a few times where they would rate Trump or a Republican as False/Mostly False but when the same/similar thing was said by a dem they would rate it mostly true. One particular involved a stat that Bernie used about Black economic growth or something along those lines, when Trump used more accurate statistics from the same report they rated him as false. Another thing was that they gave Obama a ton of passes on things that were clearly misleading or just flat out lies. One off the top of my head was him saying that "you can buy a gun online with no background check." They then (accurately) explained how that is impossible, but rather than rating him false they rate it "True" Also you're free to look into the people that are doing these ratings and you'll find that more than a few of their social media histories has them as pretty left.

Left, but not left of left and that still doesn't then make 90% of the media (mainstream or otherwise) left wing.

Hell on a global basis what is considered left wing in the US would be considered right of centre in most of he rest of the world.

Oh that's great. So what's the deal with it?

Absolutely nothing, I'm not the one assigning traits to people.

Or is it one of those things where if you speak publicly about it the Home Office will come with their spiffy bobby hats and assault whistles and will arrest you?

Ah I see making stuff up that doesn't happen (please don't mention Tommy the far right moron).

So beyond Fox News and Breitbart (which is mainstream in the same way HuffPo is as in not really) how many of the mainstream news agencies are right? CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc. all showed left (duh). Which would fall into the category of "the vast majority of the mainstream media is left"

In the same way DW, I personally consider left while Die Welt I consider right.

Now, let's just cut to the action. What is your argument?

My argument is that the claim that 90%+ of US journalism is left of left wing (and that was the claim made - mainstream didn't come into it "left of left as is 90% of US journalism").

I'm not sure you understand the term of cherry picking. But if you're asking did I present this with my dissertation, then I would say no. I just looked for who the major newspapers in this country endorsed. The study in question was conducted by some ***** at Harvard the same joint as yours, as to who funded it and how many of the researchers owned dogs vs cats, what breeds the pets were and what size shoe they wore, I don't have that but you're more than welcome to look it up yourself. Not surprisingly they also showed the news coverage of US politics in Europe as something like well over 90% negative.

Here this may also find this important.
https://www.carprousa.com/these-are-the-most-popular-car-colors-and-whats-next

Looking at a reduced data-set and then attempting to apply the results to the whole (particularity when the chosen dataset is itself biased) is cherry-picking.

Looking at funding for studies is standard practice as it can and often does indicate bias in the study, interesting to see a double down on the logical fallacies however, pet ownership and political affiliation is a clear false equivalence i regard to a political study. One has nothing to do with it, the other has everything to do with it.

Key word retired. As such, I suggest minding your own business rather than playing hall monitour. A real mod, as I said, I have no issues whatsoever with them letting me know and following their instructions.

Noted, feel free to ignore advise.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Hmmm, let's see... on one side we have

which takes a large variety of sources into account.

On the other side we have a Republican blowhard who cherry picks a couple of examples and tells other people to shut up if they don't agree with his biased conclusion.

I wonder which one to go with.

Hmmm...let's see. On one side we have one objective site that simply shows the endorsements of every major newspaper in the US (which I guess to you that means cherry picking), as well as a study that has a nearly all the major media outlets both in the US and the major ones in Europe.

The other side, a study from the same institution that (albeit from a different department) that also concludes the media left wing bias. And some ***** that can't refute the evidence I put forward so they just dismiss it because it doesn't fit their narrative and really don't seem to understand what cherry picking means.

So what is your argument?

BTW please show me where I told anybody to shut up if they don't agree with me.

As a side note, what is the deal with the knife control bs? And are you a Jeremy Corbyn fan?

Going back to the original topic; would a hypothetical ban on German luxury cars result in better quality American cars? Somehow I doubt it. You can imagine that restricting the choices available to the consumer puts the suppliers in an advantageous position of being able to pass off cheaper, lower quality goods which will almost certainly sell by default.

Just look at Ford. When global car models weren't quite a thing in the 1970s, Ford USA went through a period of putting out absolute tosh like the Pinto before they realised what Ford Europe were putting out such as the Escort and Fiesta, and started to use knowledge, if not the actual models, from those markets to start manufacturing better products.

Restricting the importation of the 5-series or E-Class isn't going to suddenly make the CTS or Continental more appealing.

It definitely wouldn't. And this article was complete and total CNN style BS. It's actually a running joke over here with CNN and their "unnamed sources"

 

[eran0004]

Going back to the original topic; would a hypothetical ban on German luxury cars result in better quality American cars?

Probably not. It would make them more expensive though, since there would be less competition. Add the steel tariffs to that and the production cost increases as well which makes everybody a loser.

The environment might benefit from it though, if less people can afford to own a car.

 

[Scaff]

Hmmm...let's see. On one side we have one objective site that simply shows the endorsements of every major newspaper in the US (which I guess to you that means cherry picking), as well as a study that has a nearly all the major media outlets both in the US and the major ones in Europe.

In a discussion about if 90% of US journalism is left of left, then yes its cherry picking.

The other side, a study from the same institution that (albeit from a different department) that also concludes the media left wing bias. And some ***** that can't refute the evidence I put forward so they just dismiss it because it doesn't fit their narrative and really don't seem to understand what cherry picking means.

Oh come on, if your going to get all sweary and have a pop at me at least have the good grace to quote me directly and do the job properly!

(However it's fun trying to work out which five letter word triggered the swear filter; I'd remind you of the AUP as well, but that would only trigger you further).

What the report does show if that "The center of gravity of the overall landscape is the center-left", which is not a left wing bias in anything but the most vague manner, and certainly doesn't show that US Journalism is 90%+ left of left, which was the claim being discussed.

As a side note, what is the deal with the knife control bs? And are you a Jeremy Corbyn fan?

We have a lovely thread to discuss all things related to Britain, why not ask in that one?

However in short: we have an aversion to people dying unnecessarily and yes, at times.

 

[UKMikey]

Hmmm...let's see. On one side we have one objective site that simply shows the endorsements of every major newspaper in the US (which I guess to you that means cherry picking), as well as a study that has a nearly all the major media outlets both in the US and the major ones in Europe.

I'd love to know what this site says but...

The other side, a study from the same institution that (albeit from a different department) that also concludes the media left wing bias. And some ***** that can't refute the evidence I put forward so they just dismiss it because it doesn't fit their narrative and really don't seem to understand what cherry picking means.

If it concluded left wing media bias then the chart would be all blue. In fact it concludes that sites like Breitbart have set up their own right biased ecosystem in which people who read the site link only to other right wing sites. It may help to read the accompanying text.

And some ***** that can't refute the evidence I put forward so they just dismiss it because it doesn't fit their narrative and really don't seem to understand what cherry picking means.

Er... what?

So what is your argument?

See above and previous posts.

As a side note, what is the deal with the knife control bs?

Simple, we don't want weapons like this on our streets:

And are you a Jeremy Corbyn fan?

Not much of one, since I voted Liberal Democrat in the last two elections. Not sure what that or knife control has to do with anything though.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Pass.


Fiesta? What happened to the Yaris?

It failed its MOT back in September and as I didn't really need a car I sold it for scrap. I got an 07 plate Fiesta about a month ago since I can now justify owning a car again, I think there are some photos in the show off your latest purchase thread.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Nope, I dismiss them as they are singular examples being used as to determine the actions of the whole.

Are those specific publications biased politically in one direction? Yes. Does that make all media coverage biased in the same direction and/or can that then be applied as being true to the whole? Nope.

That listed all the major newspapers in the U.S. If that is not good enough for you, you've proved my point. Thank you.

Left, but not left of left and that still doesn't then make 90% of the media (mainstream or otherwise) left wing.

Hell on a global basis what is considered left wing in the US would be considered right of centre in most of he rest of the world.

Left of left of right with a u-turn at the intersection on 4th and main. Wtf are you even talking about? I said left. Not left of left or -5.87x + 0.0y. Just left. We can talk about far-right and far left but that is not the argument. But I'm glad that you agree with me and with my statement that the "vast majority of the media is left"

On a global basis, who gives a crap. This is American politics, involving American media outlets. You don't like it, you can stick to your media. You don't see us complaining about BBC or Skynews bias.

Absolutely nothing, I'm not the one assigning traits to people.


Ah I see making stuff up that doesn't happen (please don't mention Tommy the far right moron).

Assigning traits?! Should I have asked your preferred pronoun first?
Not making stuff up, it's fact that the US is the only industrialized nation with freedom of expression. And after seeing the crap going on in Europe, we've actually the only ones (between the US and the European nations) with a functioning democracy. It's not because of our people, far from it, it's because our constitution.

My argument is that the claim that 90%+ of US journalism is left of left wing (and that was the claim made - mainstream didn't come into it "left of left as is 90% of US journalism").

Let's clarify definitions because I have no clue what "left of left" means. Do you mean Scintea or BBC?
I said left. Just left. I feel I made that clear, but if I haven't let me repeat. Left. Just left.

Looking at a reduced data-set and then attempting to apply the results to the whole (particularity when the chosen dataset is itself biased) is cherry-picking.

Looking at funding for studies is standard practice as it can and often does indicate bias in the study, interesting to see a double down on the logical fallacies however, pet ownership and political affiliation is a clear false equivalence i regard to a political study. One has nothing to do with it, the other has everything to do with it.

It involved the 1st 100 days of Trump, their DeLorean is broken so they can't travel to 2024 to see all 8 years. So partial funding was by a GOP linked group. Does that make them any less correct? If so, please point out their inaccuracies. No really, please do. If the study is wrong we need to get on the horn with Harvard ASAP! We got to let them know they need to pass any and all studies through you in the future.

 

[UKMikey]

Not making stuff up, it's fact that the US is the only industrialized nation with freedom of expression. And after seeing the crap going on in Europe, we've actually the only ones (between the US and the European nations) with a functioning democracy. It's not because of our people, far from it, it's because our constitution.

Okay...

Let's clarify definitions because I have no clue what "left of left" means.

Us neither. That's what kicked off this whole conversation in the first place.

 

[AbeFroman75]

In a discussion about if 90% of US journalism is left of left, then yes its cherry picking.

Again with the left of left. Do you watch a lot of NASCAR or something? Do they even broadcast NASCAR over there? Off-topic but the European definition of "touring car racing" is much better than ours.

Oh come on, if your going to get all sweary and have a pop at me at least have the good grace to quote me directly and do the job properly!

(However it's fun trying to work out which five letter word triggered the swear filter; I'd remind you of the AUP as well, but that would only trigger you further).

Oh, it was **** .lol. It was more towards the both of you, but it did seem fitting with you guys being Brits and all, I thought you guys might like it. But yeah, I haven't bothered to figure out a way to get around the swear filter on this site.

What the report does show if that "The center of gravity of the overall landscape is the center-left", which is not a left wing bias in anything but the most vague manner, and certainly doesn't show that US Journalism is 90%+ left of left, which was the claim being discussed.

If it concluded left wing media bias then the chart would be all blue. In fact it concludes that sites like Breitbart have set up their own right biased ecosystem in which people who read the site link only to other right wing sites. It may help to read the accompanying text.

I'll quote both of you since this is getting ridiculous. That study, very clearly, showed the majority of the mainstream news outlets in the United States as having a left wing bias. Not left of left because who cares about what that even means. I gave examples of mainstream news outlets. Once again, the majority of those (the majors) were listed on the left. Maybe it's the lack of understand of the American media left/right system on your part but that is clearly what it says, even below the cute little pictures.

So we don't have to go over this again let's make this really simple. Of this list, which are red and which are blue according to that study. I don't care what twitter thinks or anything else. It's really simple. Here I'll help

Fox - Red (they are very open about being conservative bias**)
CNN - Blue (they still think they're journalists lol but it's pretty damn left)
MSNBC - Blue (they, like Fox, are very open about being on the left)
NBC - Blue
ABC - Blue
CBS - Blue
NYT - Blue
WaPo - Blue
LAT - Blue
WSJ - At times red, sometimes blue
Breitbart* - Deep Red (and very open about it)
HuffPo* - Deep Blue (and very open about it)

*Not really mainstream but tossed in for fun.
**Fun fact, Foxnews is actually the most "balanced" of the bunch, being that they are the only ones that have a show with a host that is openly on the opposite spectrum of the channel. All the shows on CNN and MSNBC have only left hosts.

We have a lovely thread to discuss all things related to Britain, why not ask in that one?


However in short: we have an aversion to people dying unnecessarily and yes, at times.

Why go there when I can just ask a couple of Brits right here?
Seems kind of silly don't you think, I mean stop blaming the tool and going after the animals? I mean it used to be a joke "Lol, what are you going to do knife control!" But then you guys turned around and took it seriously.

I'd love to know what this site says but...

View attachment 741467

It was the voter guide from the LA Times for the election that we just had yesterday. It's how the editorial staff recommends people vote.

Simple, we don't want weapons like this on our streets:

Lol. not gonna lie, at first I thought the video was about white vans.
But see it's really simple. Here we have the right of self-preservation. You would be allowed to run over that scumbag, or if you lived in a free-state, you could shoot that animal. I have a few co-workers that are Brits and when I asked them "The cops that only carry a whistle, what is their purpose they're essentially useless?" They only answer was "We can't even figure that one out."

Not much of one, since I voted Liberal Democrat in the last two elections. Not sure what that or knife control has to do with anything though.

Just curiosity is all.

Okay...

No really. It surprises so many foreigners. I do work with several Brits and a ton of Germans and they have the same reaction while trying to come up with examples of where the limits are. But in the US, thanks to the Constitution, we have freedom of speech in the way that no other country does. The only thing that will land you in jail are calls to action. For example, I can say "I hope that guy gets killed." and be totally fine. What I can't say is "Hey Mikey, see that guy over there, he raped your mother you need to go kill him." That will land me in jail.

Also, our Constitution is extremely difficult to modify....by design, I mean, out of around 12,000 attempts since 1789, it's only been changed 17 times so unless we start to get a bunch of looney toon far left Judges on the SCOTUS bench we'll enjoy our rights for good long while. The reason I say far left is because they're the group that chants "Hate speech is not free speech" despite the fact that it 10000000000% is.

Us neither. That's what kicked off this whole conversation in the first place.

I'm pretty sure it was hyperbole. But if it wasn't then I don't know.

 

[UKMikey]

Fox - Red (they are very open about being conservative bias**)
CNN - Blue (they still think they're journalists lol but it's pretty damn left)
MSNBC - Blue (they, like Fox, are very open about being on the left)
NBC - Blue
ABC - Blue
CBS - Blue
NYT - Blue
WaPo - Blue
LAT - Blue
WSJ - At times red, sometimes blue
Breitbart* - Deep Red (and very open about it)
HuffPo* - Deep Blue (and very open about it)

These seem to be mostly TV and print outlets and makes no mention of overall size of each outlet. Extending the survey to cover digital journalists as well results in this graph which was referenced earlier in which the majority of journalists declare as independent.

I'm pretty sure it was hyperbole. But if it wasn't then I don't know.

I'm pretty sure the guy said he was quoting facts.

Moving the rest to the Britain thread.

 

[GBO Possum]

Going back to the original topic; would a hypothetical ban on German luxury cars result in better quality American cars?

Keeping American consumers ignorant of what Germany can do goes 180° against the Republican mantra of the benefits of competition.

Hell on a global basis what is considered left wing in the US would be considered right of centre in most of he rest of the world.

That’s for sure. It was Australia’s right wing government which enacted sensible gun legislation to keep its citizens safer, which places it to the left of the US Democratic Party which has achieved nothing significant in this issue. Every time I hear the press raising the issue of "bump stocks", I get visions of schools of red herrings. (“Schools” in the fish sense, not the massacre sense)

And after seeing the crap going on in Europe, we've actually the only ones (between the US and the European nations) with a functioning democracy. It's not because of our people, far from it, it's because our constitution.

I just hope our constitution can survive the extreme right wing assaults on it. The ugly head of authoritarianism has been steadily rising here for years. This latest ploy that this “innocent” president can pardon himself is terrifying. More terrifying is that the Republican Party refuses to slap him down. Even MORE terrifying is that maybe 30% of the American PEOPLE are apparently OK with this!

I’m no expert on American history, probably because I’m an immigrant, but having a “King Donald J The First” seems to go against much of the motivation for what was an historic conflict between England and America. Kings weren’t all that popular back in the days of formation of my adopted country. Now we have millions ready to goose-step behind this guy. WTF!

 

[Scaff]

Again with the left of left.

Hey we didn't come up with it.

You seem to be at cross purposes with us here, a claim was made that US journalism (across all mediums) was '90%+ left of left', a claim that certainly appeared to made in all seriousness.

That was the point being refuted, nothing else.

Do you watch a lot of NASCAR or something? Do they even broadcast NASCAR over there? Off-topic but the European definition of "touring car racing" is much better than ours.

I watch a bit and yes it does get broadcast over here, as does almost all form of racing from the US. I prefer Indycar in that regard.

Oh, it was **** .lol. It was more towards the both of you, but it did seem fitting with you guys being Brits and all, I thought you guys might like it. But yeah, I haven't bothered to figure out a way to get around the swear filter on this site.

**** is four letters.

Not left of left because who cares about what that even means.

See above, wasn't our claim, but was what was being discussed.

Why go there when I can just ask a couple of Brits right here?
Seems kind of silly don't you think, I mean stop blaming the tool and going after the animals? I mean it used to be a joke "Lol, what are you going to do knife control!" But then you guys turned around and took it seriously.

We tend to take people getting stabbed seriously, and would argue that its not just about the people but also about the availability of the tool (an approach that has worked well in a number of countries in regard to a range of tools).

Lol. not gonna lie, at first I thought the video was about white vans.
But see it's really simple. Here we have the right of self-preservation. You would be allowed to run over that scumbag, or if you lived in a free-state, you could shoot that animal. I have a few co-workers that are Brits and when I asked them "The cops that only carry a whistle, what is their purpose they're essentially useless?" They only answer was "We can't even figure that one out."

I which case they are winding you up.

They don't carry a whistle (your friends seem to be from the 1950's), but do carry a baton, CS and a taser. Which suffices for most purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_uniforms_and_equipment_in_the_United_Kingdom

Then you have the armed response units and firearms officers who carry a variety of kit, details can be found here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

PSNI officers are slightly different in the fact that they are armed as standard (as are CNC and MOD police officers).

Damn, look at whistles on them!!!!

 

[Famine]

Why go there when I can just ask a couple of Brits right here?

That's what that thread is for. That's not what this thread is for. The title is a bit of a giveaway - it's a thread for Donald Trump and his purported desire to ban (or punitively tax) German luxury cars in the US market.

US media reporting falls under the broadest definition of that, as a lot of outlets are reporting it as actual fact that he wants this to happen. British civilian arms and police equipment... doesn't.

 

[Joey D]

It definitely wouldn't. And this article was complete and total CNN style BS. It's actually a running joke over here with CNN and their "unnamed sources"

Ours actually wasn't in the style of CNN. Yes, WirtschaftsWoche cited "unnamed sources" but we actually cited real sources (three of them to be exact).

It's also a fact that Trump has owned and maybe still owns German cars. And it's also a fact that the stock market reacted negatively to the news, which in itself is worthy of reporting since that's an indication of the economy.

So no BS here, just reporting the information that's available to the public.

 

[Belifant]

it's fact that the US is the only industrialized nation with freedom of expression. And after seeing the crap going on in Europe, we've actually the only ones (between the US and the European nations) with a functioning democracy.

You don't know as much about Europe as you think you do. All fine here with free speech, the only people complaining about it are the right wing fanatics. But since you seem to get your news from these groups, no wonder you think what you think. I'm sure you think the various stories are true of Sharia law being in place in large parts of London, Birmingham, Cologne and whatever city in Europe has been mentioned in that hoax.

And let's not talk about your "functioning democracy" with basically a two party system, both on the right side and heavily owned by corporate money, gerrymandering, excessive lobbying from private corporations, excessive spendings on election campaigns, limiting people's access to register to vote, etc, etc.

Speaking of which, guess what, we don't even need to register to vote. When we turn 18, we are registered automatically for being able to vote, and from then on get all the voting papers sent to us by mail. We can then also vote by mail. No need to get in line for several hours at a voting bureau to place our votes. You can guys on the other side seem to want to make it as hard and inconvenient to vote as possible. So much for democracy.