President Donald J. Trump

[chefist]

You guys should check out Roku, I think it comes free with most TVs now or is like under $20. It has literally hundreds of channels with tons of righteous old stuff. I burn up the old Dragnet archives.

Yup...had it for 4 years now...it's still the best with the most content...share account numbers with friends too...I shared my Amazon Prime account with someone who had HBO GO...that's the best way to do it...

[littlechris]

Haven't had subscription TV for over 4 years now...so much content OTA and online...obi100 for phone...free Google Voice number for free calls to US/Canada routed through an obi100 analogue phone router ($35)...works great! Had it for 2 years now...MV recommened it!

True. I was paying over $100 a month for cable and would only watch news and a few documentary channels. Just not worth it.I guess there are companies now that let you pay for only the channels you watch, but I haven't really cared that much to look into it.

[chefist]

True. I was paying over $100 a month for cable and would only watch news and a few documentary channels. Just not worth it.I guess there are companies now that let you pay for only the channels you watch, but I haven't really cared that much to look into it.

more and more are just charging $10/month for their channel...many find that better, especially if you just want to watch AMC, or HBO, etc...the cable/satellite companies are quickly dying out...it's the golden age for free content...

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Aside from Turner Classic Movies and the NHL Network, TV is archaic and dead to me. I either subscribe or pirate everything now.

I got WWE Network, NHL Center Ice, Netflix and Prime. Really couldn't care less about television.

Is Amazon Prime's media cool? I haven't even messed with it yet.

[chefist]

Aside from Turner Classic Movies and the NHL Network, TV is archaic and dead to me. I either subscribe or pirate everything now.

I got WWE Network, NHL Center Ice, Netflix and Prime. Really couldn't care less about television.

Is Amazon Prime's media cool? I haven't even messed with it yet.

Well I pay personally for Netflix, but Amazon Prime comes with my business account...they have some good original content. The best were "The Man in the High Castle" and "Bosch"...I don't know if I would pay the ten bucks just for that...Netflix is still the king of content...

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Well I pay personally for Netflix, but Amazon Prime comes with my business account...they have some good original content. The best were "The Man in the High Castle" and "Bosch"...I don't know if I would pay the ten bucks just for that...Netflix is still the king of content...

Totally. By the way, a little secret. If you have a good VPN and can bounce around countries, you can get literally 10-20 times as much content as you can in just your country on Netflix.

[chefist]

Totally. By the way, a little secret. If you have a good VPN and can bounce around countries, you can get literally 10-20 times as much content as you can in just your country on Netflix.

I'll try that...I have one on my work computer, but haven't tried to search...thanks!

[GuerrillaUnReal]

I'll try that...I have one on my work computer, but haven't tried to search...thanks!

Yeah, it blew my mind when I randomly discovered. Each country has it's own library due to licensing and what not. You can find practically anything on there.

[albrecht]

Totally. By the way, a little secret. If you have a good VPN and can bounce around countries, you can get literally 10-20 times as much content as you can in just your country on Netflix.

Yeah, I haven't invested in super high speed internet and still run some slow computers. So like the quick easy of the antenna (and also, hey totally legal and they don't even know what you are watching.) I do have some access to some very high-speed off-shore seedboxes for downloads but only for legal and non-piracy reasons. Obviously. Aside from sports and breaking news there is no reason for me to watch 'live' stuff. Still rather do that, even if with slower eventual downloads, than try to stream stuff live or d/l directly from sites or torrents. A chance for some fire-walls, verifying if legit stuff, scanning it, secure ftping it, store to removable flashdrives, etc.
I don't like, not even for the obvious potential conspiratorial reasons, how the Amazon, Google, Netflix, cable-companies, etc put you in boxes by preferences and data-mining. I would rather seek out my own content, obtain it, and read, listen, or watch it. And not have that recorded or data-mined. Not because I'm doing illegal stuff or watching subversive content but why limit your choices based on stuff you already watched, listened too, read, etc? Then you get to just watching MeTV on an antenna! But, more seriously, the numbers of available content, and the then the pigeon-holing and 'suggesting' content is a scheme to Balkanize, in some cases, or brain-wash in others.

[chefist]

Yeah, it blew my mind when I randomly discovered. Each country has it's own library due to licensing and what not. You can find practically anything on there.

Can't wait to try on Monday! Thanks, man

[albrecht]

Can't wait to try on Monday! Thanks, man

It might be a breach of Netflix TOS. So beware. Especially once these things like TTIP, TPP, etc come into effect. One never knows. I can't see the logic either and think the business model is broken from content providers and even downstream. They should've gone with ala carte programming and pay for channels you want/watch and cable would be winning instead of cannibalizing themselves. Likewise in the older days of all-region mods (or certain players) for region-free DVD. They are fighting against the tide and interesting to see the former 'game changers' (Netflix etc) for online falling into line with the old style region and licensing systems. (Whatever happened to Slingbox btw?)

[136 or 142]

Yes, and no.  I can buy from whoever the government or professional organizations have allowed to sell to me.  The government has chosen many winners / losers by tax incentives and direct investment (and regulatory restrictions.) 

For (one really dumb example), if I am in Louisiana and wish to buy a flower arrangement for my wife- I cannot just buy it from anybody.  The state has a licence to arrange flowers.  Unless the "professional" who I visit has proven to a board that they can arrange flowers in an aesthetically pleasing manner, they cannot legally engage in the trade.

Thank goodness they have protected the public from rogue flower arrangers- but they have limited my ability to "vote"with my dollars. 

The same thing happens with telephone regulation, cable companies, almost all industry, food and even my dentist (I would really rather save a few dollars next time and get a root canal by a mechanically inclined neighbour...)  After that, they tax me to reduce my share of the "vote" by reducing the dollars that I can spend and then override my interests by purchasing from their friends and those who donate to their campaigns.

A free market is as rare as a white buffalo.

"Almost all industry" is too vague for me to even comment on. 

Regulatory restrictions by themselves aren't inherently government picking winners and losers.  I mean I guess if you want to eat in a restaurant where the food preparers don't wash their hands after using the bathroom, you could look for one, but I personally like that regulation and I like that's it's generally enforced.

Getting down to specifics, how does any of this prevent chefist from freely choosing to shop at those businesses that sell American made goods that I posted a link for him to?

[136 or 142]

That is takes special action to find US-made consumer goods to purchase just validates the issue; "strike 1". 
When it's a challenge for shoppers to find US-made goods in most retail stores; "strike 2". 
When When Congress succumbed to GATT and loosened 'country of origin" labeling so distributors and retailers can hide it, that's "strike 3".

A google search is a 'special action'?

[albrecht]

Getting down to specifics, how does any of this prevent chefist from freely choosing to shop at those businesses that sell American made goods that I posted a link for him to?

Actually if you look at various WTO (and other stuff) including various laws and regulations, even in our country ingoring the future TPP, TIPP, and etc stuff,  you will find that in some cases you ARE specifically not allowed to say things like this. I seem to recall some beef issues a while back but also stuff about labeling organic. "Free Speech," as we have (I realize you don't up in the Great White North) doesn't extend to certain claims with food or medicine (though there is a BIG loop-hole, that people like C2C guest take advantage of- when you 'express no claim' (even though you are.) But I'm guess the supra-national agreements will solve all these petty issue like democracy, jurisdiction, differences of opinion, or the right to express, them fairly soon. Just keep in mind, it might be Trudeau or Obama (or their funders today) but what happens, heaven forbid when someone else or some rival bank in office. Will you also then like the laws, regulations, snopping, wars, and civil rights violations?

[136 or 142]

The media is manipulating the public's general lack of familiarity of what a commercial construction business does.  He needs to do a Ross Perot...an hour on TV with simple charts that people will understand.  It would cut the legs off Clinton and the CNN/MSNBC anklebiters in the constant attacks related to Trump the Businessman.

The only people who would watch this hour are Trumptards like you.

[136 or 142]

Look at what the mainstream media did with Romney.  All of the attacks leveled at him from those who had their jobs affected by corporate downsizing to the criticism about him keeping his dog in a cage above the family car while going on a vacation.  I may not agree with Romney about certain issues but I think he is basically a nice guy.  Expect a hell of a lot more criticism like that coming Trump's way.  A hundred fold.

Like the lady who lost her home to Trump due to eminent domain.  The party has only just started.

Only the losers whine about unfair treatment by the press.

For instance, this is what one winner, said about media coverage.  Our very own Premier, Christy Clark:

“What I now understand about the media is that they’re not as influential and relevant to the outcome in politics as they think they are and often tell people they are,” says the premier. “They are not able to shape public opinion about a lot of things, because people make their own judgments.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/vaughn+palmer+christy+clark+learned+early+prove+doubters+wrong/11747522/story.html

I actually had a brief email exchange with Vaughn Palmer regarding this comment and this is what I wrote: "As an aside, I've made this exact same point in the social media that most people end up making their own decisions and that I don't believe the media is as important as even some political insiders seem to think it is.  However, I do think the mainstream media still plays a very large role in deciding what gets covered and that does play a role in what some political scientists now term the "Overton Window."

If you check all my comments, I think you'll find that I've never whined about anybody I support receiving unfair media treatment, but I may have complained that a story I thought was important received scant coverage.

If anyone cares, if you read this article, Christy Clark makes this comment in regards to how when she first ran in 1996 she says 'the media just trashed Gordon Wilson' and the main reason I wrote to Vaughn Palmer was pointing out that I remembered a number of favorable articles written about Gordon Wilson and I mentioned a couple of them to him. Hence, 'as an aside.'

This was Vaughn Palmer's reply to me that relates to this discussion: The more recent example of clark's view that of the media lack of influence is of course the many pieces, including my own, that had her losing in 2013.   

Also, wikipedia considers this a cognitive bias: Third-person effect   Belief that that mass communicated media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves.

[136 or 142]

Whoever came up with the term "free market" probably never imagined that anyone would ever take the word "free" in an absolute sense, meaning that one is able to buy anything from anyone with no rules or restrictions. A better term would have been "open market," which suggests maximizing competition and opportunity to produce and purchase goods and services.

Nobody ever meant to promise the kind of freedom you seem to want and expect. It's hard enough delivering on what they actually do promise. Better not to let our expectations be driven by misinterpreted phrases but by real-life conditions which need to be improved.

I initially wrote 'under the capitalist system' but I thought it read poorly.  Free market/free enterprise are probably as inaccurate and loaded as terms as 'free trade' is, but they're what people are familiar with. 

[136 or 142]

Actually if you look at various WTO (and other stuff) including various laws and regulations, even in our country ingoring the future TPP, TIPP, and etc stuff,  you will find that in some cases you ARE specifically not allowed to say things like this. I seem to recall some beef issues a while back but also stuff about labeling organic. "Free Speech," as we have (I realize you don't up in the Great White North) doesn't extend to certain claims with food or medicine (though there is a BIG loop-hole, that people like C2C guest take advantage of- when you 'express no claim' (even though you are.) But I'm guess the supra-national agreements will solve all these petty issue like democracy, jurisdiction, differences of opinion, or the right to express, them fairly soon. Just keep in mind, it might be Trudeau or Obama (or their funders today) but what happens, heaven forbid when someone else or some rival bank in office. Will you also then like the laws, regulations, snopping, wars, and civil rights violations?

I'm sure it's me and not you, but I honestly have no idea what you are referring to here.

[albrecht]

I'm sure it's me and not you, but I honestly have no idea what you are referring to here.

Seriously? You never heard of international trade agreements and organizations or the one's I've mentioned? 
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/
https://www.wto.org/

[136 or 142]

Seriously? You never heard of international trade agreements and organizations or the one's I've mentioned? 
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/
https://www.wto.org/

:|  I was referring to your references about 'free speech.'

[136 or 142]

Trump Nasty gonna give you and the rest of the left leaning world a Hart Attack this November.

Just one national poll today: 
Reuters/Ipsos:
Hillary Clinton 46%
Donald Trump 35%

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0YW287?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Were I interested in being biased I would also mention that there is a Zogby poll showing Clinton ahead of Trump in Kansas 43-36%.  Of course, you might say that I just mentioned it, but I only did so to point out that Zogby is an absolute junk polling firm.  I had actually thought that Zogby gave up polling in 2013 and retired because it was evident he could no longer figure out how to poll in this era of cell phones and less and less landlines.

[TigerLily]

Aside from Turner Classic Movies and the NHL Network, TV is archaic and dead to me. I either subscribe or pirate everything now.

I got WWE Network, NHL Center Ice, Netflix and Prime. Really couldn't care less about television.

Is Amazon Prime's media cool? I haven't even messed with it yet.

TCM!  You and 21st Century and I should start a classic movie thread

[136 or 142]

TCM!  You and 21st Century and I should start a classic movie thread

I recommend Double Indemnity and White Heat but not The Public Enemy.

Three film noir. (Some regard The Public Enemy as very early film noir)

[FightTheFuture]

Probably the most cogent article to date on our current political dilemma. Big hat tip to Doc Krauthammer.

http://www.newsmax.com/CharlesKrauthammer/X/2016/06/10/id/733304/

[FightTheFuture]

Greatest movie ever made, IMHO, The Searchers. A close second is Psycho

[136 or 142]

I initially wrote 'under the capitalist system' but I thought it read poorly.  Free market/free enterprise are probably as inaccurate and loaded as terms as 'free trade' is, but they're what people are familiar with.

Just to add, in general I regard any made up term that uses 'free' or 'freedom' in it as a loaded term because those words strike strong positive sentiments in so many people.  For instance, on occasion I'll see somebody on Facebook or Twitter that I follow post a report  from a right wing economic 'think tank' that claims to measure 'economic freedom' and whenever that poster takes such a  report seriously , I always reply "by 'economic freedom' they really mean limited regulation or unregulated economy.  Do you really think you should take seriously a report that uses such a loaded term as 'economic freedom'?"

However, the terms free market and free enterprise far predate the era of attempted mass propaganda.

[Value Of Pi]

Just to add, in general I regard any made up term that uses 'free' or 'freedom' in it as a loaded term because those words strike strong positive sentiments in so many people.  For instance, on occasion I'll see somebody on Facebook or Twitter that I follow post a report  from a right wing economic 'think tank' that claims to measure 'economic freedom' and whenever that poster takes such a  report seriously , I always reply "by 'economic freedom' they really mean limited regulation or unregulated economy.  Do you really think you should take seriously a report that uses such a loaded term as 'economic freedom'?"

However, the terms free market and free enterprise far predate the era of attempted mass propaganda.

There are certain buzzwords that have been used, re-used, tested, re-tested and found to be eternally effective and bulletproof. "Free" is one, "new" is another, just as examples. When the political world started to embrace the marketing/advertising world in the 1960s, they also embraced their whole playbook.

Now, there are no longer any hard lines between selling products to consumers and selling ideas and candidates to voters in America -- just as the hard line between news and entertainment has disappeared.

There is absolutely no problem with a term like "free market" in the sense that it has a clear, dictionary definition. The only problem is that so few people know or care about assigned definitions. Things mean what they want them to mean or what others want them to think they mean. Confusion and manipulation of words and ideas is not new in politics but the sophistication of the people behind it is something new, as is the technology involved.

There are a bunch of reasons Donald Trump is a stone's throw from the White House and this is one of them.

[136 or 142]

Since Donald Trump is the new Hitler, is it ok to shoot him before he becomes president? I mean if you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, you should, right? This is the same thing.

Donald Trump is more like Mussolini

[136 or 142]

I think those two you mentioned are kind of big. The dog on top of his car, for example, was so scared he got diarrhea, Romney just sprayed it off at a gas station and put the dog back up there. It showed a serious lack of empathy. 

You didn't mention it but not releasing his taxes was also big. I don't think I'm alone with imagining he invested in countries that we are at literal or economic war with. I think Trump has too.

Just for clarification, Mitt Romney did release several years of his tax returns before the election.  There were complaints that he didn't go back far enough and that he was late in releasing them, but he did end up releasing several years of his tax returns.

[136 or 142]

This is going to be a good test to see how powerful the media/information gatekeepers are. Remember, polls had Clinton and Sanders tied or with a margin of error lead for Clinton. Clinton won CA by 13%. Many polls had Romney beating Obama by as much at 5%, and Obama won by 4% points.

For some reason I can't sleep. I have a couple of other things to do, but I can't do them right now. So, I'm actually here  looking for another post, but I found this first.

This is just factually wrong:
First: RCP Average   October 22 â€" November 4, 2012   Barack Obama   48.8%   Mitt Romney   48.1%   0.7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Since_convention_nominations

On that wiki there are 43 polls reported that were conducted starting no earlier than October 22, one poll, a Gallup tracking poll of 2,700 'likely voters' (as determined by Gallup) gave Romney a 6% lead (51-45)

There was an Ipsos-Reuters poll of 1,133 registered voters that gave Obama a 51-39% lead, but their screening of likely voters among those 1,133, produced a sample of 795 likely voters with the result of 49-46%

Every other poll reported there was either within the margin of error or was within the margin of error for Obama's roughly 4% margin.

I can only guess that chefist in 2012 wasn't actually looking at RCP or polling sites, but was looking at the websites that claimed to 'unskew' the polls.