Did Black Lives Matter cost Hillary the presidency?

[Loren Pechtel]

By the way, Darthmouth refused to punish #BLM activists who were harassing white students in the library and destroyed a Blue Lives Matter display.

There is no such thing as a blue life.

And the BLM movement is a small movement.

The vast majority of Americans don't even know it exists.

Unless they happen to be racists.

Then this tiny movement is blamed for everything.

You have a pretty low opinion of the average person.

Anyone who pays any attention to the news knows about BLM.

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as a blue life.

And the BLM movement is a small movement.

The vast majority of Americans don't even know it exists.

Unless they happen to be racists.

Then this tiny movement is blamed for everything.

You have a pretty low opinion of the average person.

Anyone who pays any attention to the news knows about BLM.

What percentage of the news did BLM occupy over the last 6 months?

FOX or it's low information viewers does not count.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have a pretty low opinion of the average person.

Anyone who pays any attention to the news knows about BLM.

What percentage of the news did BLM occupy over the last 6 months?

FOX or it's low information viewers does not count.

It doesn't have to occupy a high % for people to be aware of it.

 

[skepticalbip]

What percentage of the news did BLM occupy over the last 6 months?

FOX or it's low information viewers does not count.

It doesn't have to occupy a high % for people to be aware of it.

Unless the viewers are the really, really low information viewers who pay so little attention that they have never heard of BLM. I don't think they have been discussed on the reality shows or the Cartoon Network.

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone who pays any attention to the news knows about BLM.

Given the amount of utter nonsense posted about BLM in this forum, I'd say anyone who pays attention to the news has heard or seen the term "BLM".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You have a pretty low opinion of the average person.

Anyone who pays any attention to the news knows about BLM.

What percentage of the news did BLM occupy over the last 6 months?

FOX or it's low information viewers does not count.

The coverage was mainly from the Internet where the Deplorables love to congregate. Pushed along by the right-wing AM Radio assholes.

 

[Derec]

The coverage was mainly from the Internet where the Deplorables love to congregate. Pushed along by the right-wing AM Radio assholes.

Calling people that disagree with you "deplorables" is part of the problem here.

- - - Updated - - -

Given the amount of utter nonsense posted about BLM in this forum, I'd say anyone who pays attention to the news has heard or seen the term "BLM".

Vast majority of it by you and other #BLM supporters.

 

[Derec]

What percentage of the news did BLM occupy over the last 6 months?

When there were active riots or when a black nationalist murdered five police officers during a #BLM protest it was covered pretty extensively in the national media. Same when the #BLM activists disturbed political events.
But people who lived in the areas affected by #BLM protests/riots would be aware of it either through local news or because they are personally affected even when it doesn't make national news. Wisconsin saw recent riots over shooting of armed Sylville Smith. That did not make national news as much as Ferguson, Baltimore or more recently Charlotte, but it was heavily covered in Wisconsin itself. And of course, many local people were directly affected by the unrests. Wisconsin went Republican for the first time since 1984. Yes, Hillary was not able to hold a state that even Dukakis held on to.

 

[Derec]

There is no such thing as a blue life.

It's at least as meaningful a designation as a "black life".

And the BLM movement is a small movement.

That might be, but they have an ousized influence because of their disruptive and often violent tactics. They are a small minority trying to impose their will onto the majority.
America watched as cities like Ferguson and Baltimore burned because #BLMers did not get their way. America saw #BLMers block highways, bridges, malls and even airports.

The vast majority of Americans don't even know it exists.

I would find that very surprising. Do you have a citation for that claim?

Unless they happen to be racists.

Having heard of #BLM makes one a racist?

Then this tiny movement is blamed for everything.

They certainly have their share of the blame.

 

[skepticalbip]

What percentage of the news did BLM occupy over the last 6 months?

FOX or it's low information viewers does not count.

The coverage was mainly from the Internet where the Deplorables love to congregate. Pushed along by the right-wing AM Radio assholes.

You are apparently one of the small percentage of people who trust the MSM for their news. According to Gallup polling, only 32% think they are reliable.

I find Al Jazeera (that I watch over the internet) to be much more reliable and informative than US MSM. They have also covered BLM.

Anyone who wants to have any idea of what is happening in the world has to go to the internet to find it because the US networks have become more opinion than news.

I also went to the internet to watch the full unedited speeches of both Clinton and Trump. I found that what both were saying was often quiet different than the impression that the edited snippets shown on MSM gave. I would think that anyone who only relied on MSM to inform them about the positions of the candidates had no idea what their positions really were.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The coverage was mainly from the Internet where the Deplorables love to congregate. Pushed along by the right-wing AM Radio assholes.

You are apparently one of the small percentage of people who trust the MSM for their news. According to Gallup polling, only 32% think they are reliable.

View attachment 8762

I find Al Jazeera (that I watch over the internet) to be much more reliable and informative than US MSM.

I also went to the internet to watch the full unedited speeches of both Clinton and Trump. I found that what both were saying was often quiet different than the impression that the edited snippets shown on MSM gave. I would think that anyone who only relied on MSM to inform them about the positions of the candidates had no idea what their positions really were.

Interesting strawman. Though it'd be interesting to point out that the "MSM" is a bullshit term by Rush Limbaugh and the lack of trust with the media is from people like Rush who keep saying the media is biased... which automatically means 40% of the nation won't trust the general media because they've been indoctrinated into not trusting it because it doesn't say what they want it to say. The scary thing is that this is how movements like the Nazis and other dictatorships work (cults too!).

Meanwhile, I would agree that Trump voters (the Republicans that voted for the not-Hillary person) didn't know what his actual positions were on things like Net Neutrality.

 

[skepticalbip]

Interesting strawman. Though it'd be interesting to point out that the "MSM" is a bullshit term by Rush Limbaugh and the lack of trust with the media is from people like Rush who keep saying the media is biased... which automatically means 40% of the nation won't trust the general media because they've been indoctrinated into not trusting it because it doesn't say what they want it to say. The scary thing is that this is how movements like the Nazis and other dictatorships work (cults too!).
.

Great argument. "Those who disagree are like Nazis".

I thought Democrats would have learned from the last election that name calling and insults is not discussion. Maybe I was wrong.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I thought Democrats would have learned from the last election that name calling and insults is not discussion. Maybe I was wrong.

Then you must not be very observant as this is exactly how Trump won.

 

[skepticalbip]

I thought Democrats would have learned from the last election that name calling and insults is not discussion. Maybe I was wrong.

Then you must not be very observant as this is exactly how Trump won.

You say that like you think I am a Trump supporter. Absolutely Trump did call names but he also gave a hell of a lot of specifics in his speeches about his plans that the media never mentioned in their coverage. HRC was also guilty of name calling but the rest of her speeches were mostly nothing but "stem winders" with very little in the way of specifics.

By Democrats, I was talking about the rank and file "arguing" their position.

ETA:
The typical political "discussion" that I have seen during this election went something like:

Rep. - "I support Trump because he is going to put an end to illegal emigration."
Dem. - "Racist!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting strawman. Though it'd be interesting to point out that the "MSM" is a bullshit term by Rush Limbaugh and the lack of trust with the media is from people like Rush who keep saying the media is biased... which automatically means 40% of the nation won't trust the general media because they've been indoctrinated into not trusting it because it doesn't say what they want it to say. The scary thing is that this is how movements like the Nazis and other dictatorships work (cults too!).
.

Great argument. "Those who disagree are like Nazis".

I wasn't putting out a Godwin. The Nazis gave people radios that had limited receiving capability to make it easier to control the media and what they heard. Controlling the media is a major tool of dictatorships, and the fact that people use the term "MSM" is scary because it is normalizing the bullshit propaganda of the right-wing.

I thought Democrats would have learned from the last election that name calling and insults is not discussion. Maybe I was wrong.

Ari Fleischer said we should "watch what we say". That was scary. Now we have a President Elect who is whining about SNL and the NY Times. The Right-Wing has had a strong propaganda arm for 30 years. Now a notable cog in that propaganda arm is the Chief Advisor to the President. This isn't name calling, it is called an actual slippery slope. They won't be reporting propaganda, they'll be making policy.

 

[skepticalbip]

Great argument. "Those who disagree are like Nazis".

I wasn't putting out a Godwin. The Nazis gave people radios that had limited receiving capability to make it easier to control the media and what they heard. Controlling the media is a major tool of dictatorships, and the fact that people use the term "MSM" is scary because it is normalizing the bullshit propaganda of the right-wing.

Sorry if the term "mainstream media" bothers you but that is how the major established news sources refer to themselves.

I thought Democrats would have learned from the last election that name calling and insults is not discussion. Maybe I was wrong.

Ari Fleischer said we should "watch what we say". That was scary. Now we have a President Elect who is whining about SNL and the NY Times. The Right-Wing has had a strong propaganda arm for 30 years. Now a notable cog in that propaganda arm is the Chief Advisor to the President. This isn't name calling, it is called an actual slippery slope. They won't be reporting propaganda, they'll be making policy.

We have been sliding down that slippery slope for a while now with the established news outlets mixing opinion and their own propaganda into their newscasts as news. Propaganda from both right and left is a hell of a lot better than propaganda from only one side.

 

[laughing dog]

Vast majority of it by you and other #BLM supporters.

Coming from the "Oh noes, some black people are scaring/inconveniencing me because of the Black Panthers" crowd, that would be hilarious if it were not so abysmally pathetic.

I am pretty sure if HRC had won, you'd have started a thread "HRC should thank the BLM for getting her the POTUS".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wasn't putting out a Godwin. The Nazis gave people radios that had limited receiving capability to make it easier to control the media and what they heard. Controlling the media is a major tool of dictatorships, and the fact that people use the term "MSM" is scary because it is normalizing the bullshit propaganda of the right-wing.

Sorry if the term "mainstream media" bothers you but that is how the major established news sources refer to themselves.

I thought Democrats would have learned from the last election that name calling and insults is not discussion. Maybe I was wrong.

Ari Fleischer said we should "watch what we say". That was scary. Now we have a President Elect who is whining about SNL and the NY Times. The Right-Wing has had a strong propaganda arm for 30 years. Now a notable cog in that propaganda arm is the Chief Advisor to the President. This isn't name calling, it is called an actual slippery slope. They won't be reporting propaganda, they'll be making policy.

We have been sliding down that slippery slope for a while now with the established news outlets mixing opinion and their own propaganda into their newscasts as news. Propaganda from both right and left is a hell of a lot better than propaganda from only one side.

You can feel free to demonstrate that CNN has the same level of propaganda for the left wing as Fox News and then AM Radio does for the right wing.

 

[laughing dog]

We have been sliding down that slippery slope for a while now with the established news outlets mixing opinion and their own propaganda into their newscasts as news. Propaganda from both right and left is a hell of a lot better than propaganda from only one side.

An increase in propaganda is not better for anyone. An increase in information is better by propaganda is not information. As it is, there is a tremendous amount of self-selection in propaganda sources which simply reinforces ignorance and rigidity in thinking.

 

[skepticalbip]

We have been sliding down that slippery slope for a while now with the established news outlets mixing opinion and their own propaganda into their newscasts as news. Propaganda from both right and left is a hell of a lot better than propaganda from only one side.

An increase in propaganda is not better for anyone. An increase in information is better by propaganda is not information. As it is, there is a tremendous amount of self-selection in propaganda sources which simply reinforces ignorance and rigidity in thinking.

I don't disagree. That is why I rely more on news sources from outside the US. Our MSM likely began their intentional bias in reporting much earlier but I didn't really begin to notice it until the early 1970s. I would love to see unbiased news but, given that we don't have that, bias news from both sides is better than being stuck with only one side.