Trump Takes on NFL - Page 47 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14922294
maz wrote:Colin Kaepernick and his lawyers are blaming the President Trump for Kaepernick not getting picked up by any NFL teams. Not because he would have been a distraction their team, wasn't a good fit for their team, or not even good enough for their team, but because the teams are scared of the president.
Sources: Colin Kaepernick’s Legal Team Expected To Subpoena President Trump In Case Against NFL

I've been waiting for something like this … expect lots of public endorsements from NFL players. Trump will try and wiggle out on "executive privilege," but that's gonna make him look bad. Knowing Giuliani I'd also expect a "gag" order request and a continuation motion until after the mid terms.
Should give the talk shows something to gnaw on.

Zam
User avatar
By Drlee
#14922308
Yep, and according to Rush Limbaugh (just had to throw that in), demonstrated political mastery in the culture wars.


Rush is right. (No pun intended.)

Trump is thriving because he has fully embraced some basic truths about Americans. They are:

1. America is a racist country to a considerable extent. Trump knows this and also realizes that with the odd dog-whistle, he can own their loyalty. Why? Because he is absolutely the only candidate who gives them any credit at all.

2. Trump owns the news cycle. He is playing reporters like a cheap drum.
#14924618
Since Kaepernick's protest seems to have been motivated primarily by police shootings of blacks, I'll leave this here:

Sagepub wrote:
Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police Use of Deadly Force? Analyses of Officer-Involved Fatal Shootings in 2015–2016

Abstract

Is there evidence of a Black–White disparity in death by police gunfire in the United States? This is commonly answered by comparing the odds of being fatally shot for Blacks and Whites, with odds benchmarked against each group’s population proportion. However, adjusting for population values has questionable assumptions given the context of deadly force decisions. We benchmark 2 years of fatal shooting data on 16 crime rate estimates. When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-Black disparity of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for Blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive.

User avatar
By Drlee
#14924641
This may well be true. I would not care to argue the case without some pretty good evidence to the contrary.

That notwithstanding we have evidence of police shooting of people who ought not to have been shot under the circumstances of their shooting. Clearly a solution should be applied to these whether or not race was a factor.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14924655
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Since Kaepernick's protest seems to have been motivated primarily by police shootings of blacks, I'll leave this here:

Today, on another topic, we learned that the media was giving FBI agents free event tickets, golf games, food and drinks and invitations to exclusive parties--more or less in exchange for leaks of classified information. I've said for a long time that the media wouldn't be doing what it's doing unless people were being paid off.

I don't think Kaepernick was particularly motivated personally. I think heavily monied political actors with an agenda to press decided to target the NFL, because it has a huge audience. Obama really didn't care too much about whether something was true or not. He just needed an event. The problem with the protests is that it all started with Michael Brown being shot by Darren Wilson, and rightly so. Obama's political stooges worked with the media to concoct a phony "hands up don't shoot" narrative suggesting that Michael Brown was surrendering, and got shot while unarmed. Most thinking people didn't fall for that, and all the physical evidence corroborated Darren Wilson's story.

That didn't matter. They still decided to go with the Saul Alinksky antics and try to gaslight the entire country. All it did was piss people off.

Drlee wrote:That notwithstanding we have evidence of police shooting of people who ought not to have been shot under the circumstances of their shooting.

Michael Brown certainly had it coming to him. That's what started the NFL protests.

Drlee wrote:Clearly a solution should be applied to these whether or not race was a factor.

Clearly, a football game is not the place to address it. Nobody would be too pleased if television actors broke character in the middle of a show and started doing some sort of "hands up don't shoot" routine and then jumped back into character. It would just piss people off, just like it pissed off NFL audiences.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14924710
Drlee wrote:This may well be true. I would not care to argue the case without some pretty good evidence to the contrary.

That notwithstanding we have evidence of police shooting of people who ought not to have been shot under the circumstances of their shooting. Clearly a solution should be applied to these whether or not race was a factor.


There is also evidence that neighborhoods that don’t cooperate with the police have more people shooting one another and being shot by the police. Clearly a solution should be applied.
The solution is to quit creating distrust of the police by sensationalizing every police shooting whether it is justified or not. They are an extreme rarity whose sensationalizing results in more deaths instead of fewer. The current ‘solution’ appears to be a contributing factor.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14924738
I'm always happy to see things like this: Fox News Poll: Political correctness has gone too far, NFL fumbling :D :)

By a 68-19 percent margin, the latest Fox News poll finds voters feel political correctness has “gone too far.” That’s about the same as last fall when it was 66-23 percent (September 2017).

That suggests the sentiment that underpins Trump's victory is a little stronger than just before the election.

This is encouraging:
And voters see fallout: nearly half, 46 percent, think political or business leaders “frequently” make bad decisions because they are worried about being politically correct, and another 34 percent feel it happens “sometimes.” Fifteen percent think it’s “not very often” or “hardly ever.”

This suggests that 80% of voters think PC is harmful to policy makers, at least sometimes if not more. It's true even among Democrats, where PC is almost a religion.

Among Republicans, most feel the country is too PC (83 percent) and almost all think leaders regularly make bad decisions out of fear of being politically incorrect (89 percent). Fewer Democrats, although still majorities, feel the country is too censored (55 percent), and think top people make bad decisions because of it (72 percent).


The National Football League got sacked again by a low favorability rating, just weeks after the league’s May 23 announcement of a national anthem rule.

The NFL’s popularity continues to lose ground, with 42 percent viewing the league favorably, down from 46 percent in 2017 and 64 percent in 2013.

The poll also marks the first time more voters have a negative view of the organization (43 percent unfavorable) than a positive one – albeit just by one percentage point.

What's awesome about this is that major organizations now need to think about the political blowback of allowing themselves to be used as an outlet for political movements. The NFL is taking a pretty bad beating for Kaepernick and his supporters. 8)
User avatar
By One Degree
#14924746
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes-border-crisis/germany-s-merkel-faces-political-crisis-over-migrant-policy-n883441


This is very telling also. NBC actually has a news story about liberalism being on it’s last legs and Merkel’s downfall will pretty much be their destruction, leaving only Macron in Europe.
The revolutionary change seems to have crossed the tipping point if NBC will print this.
I thought it might still be in doubt in the US, but perhaps even I believe the MSM too much.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14924752
Here's some interesting facts from a poll taken some time ago:

32 percent said that they stopped watching NFL games in support of President Donald Trump, who has vocally been opposed to national anthem protests.

22 percent said that they stopped watching NFL games as a gesture of solidarity with those players who kneeled during national anthem protests.

12 percent said that they stopped watching NFL games in support of Colin Kaepernick, who started the national anthem protest movement.

11 percent said that they stopped watching NFL games in response to the news of traumatic brain injuries among league players.

13 percent said that they stopped watching NFL games as they had no interest in the teams playing during the 2017 season.

46 percent of those surveyed chose, “some other reason.”.


So saying it's all because of the protest, is really silly. It's interesting that some people stopped watching due to solidarity with the protest/Kaepernick (23%).


The NFL's ratings are down. But national anthem protests aren't the whole story.
President Trump wants to blame the protests — but most of the decline is driven by cord-cutting.

As is often the case when Trump talks about TV ratings, he’s correct in a big-picture sense: The NFL’s ratings are down. But he’s also lacking the necessary context, because attributing that slide to any one factor — as opposed to the massive ratings declines facing all television programming — is specious at best.

There are a bunch of different reasons NFL ratings could be down, and they’re likely interrelated; there’s no one most obvious culprit.

Sure, the NFL’s ratings are down. But have you looked at the NBA’s ratings? How about MLB’s? Even NASCAR, which once posted some of the biggest ratings growth in sports, has been flagging. Under the right circumstances (as we saw with the Cubs winning the 2016 World Series to record ratings), a sporting event can still post historic ratings. But the circumstances really have to be right.

For a long time, sports were considered TV’s best chance to hang onto cable subscribers, because there isn’t much of a benefit to watching a game days or weeks after it airs. For sports-loving cord cutters, the tradeoff of paying lower cable bills was that they couldn’t always watch the big game without going out to a bar or buying an over-the-air antenna. Things got even more difficult if the leagues they were most interested in were ones whose TV packages are tied to cable networks like ESPN. (The NFL still airs most of its games on CBS, NBC, and Fox, which are available to cord-cutters with an antenna, which may help explain why its ratings declines have been somewhat milder than other leagues’ declines.)

At least some NFL viewers really have tuned out thanks to the national anthem protests — but almost as many have stopped watching thanks to the league’s domestic violence problems.

Are there people who have stopped watching the NFL because of the protests? Sure, almost certainly. But arguing that the protests are the main reason the NFL’s ratings are down — without accounting for the massive changes in the television industry that are dragging down live ratings across the board — makes very little sense.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/26/1 ... tings-down
User avatar
By One Degree
#14924789
That’s 136% @Godstud .
User avatar
By Godstud
#14924899
Yes. Providing facts in response to hysteria and beliefs.

Incidentally, in case you were unaware, some polls allow you to list off two reasons, which is probably the ignorant implication you are making as a worthless rebuttal.

Poll's source: https://www.ozy.com/the-huddle/ozys-foo ... ults/83093

I used it because it indicates that the NFL's problem are more complicated than a simple protest, and that people even stopped watching in SUPPORT of the protests.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14924910
Godstud wrote:Yes. Providing facts in response to hysteria and beliefs.

Incidentally, in case you were unaware, some polls allow you to list off two reasons, which is probably the ignorant implication you are making as a worthless rebuttal.

Poll's source: https://www.ozy.com/the-huddle/ozys-foo ... ults/83093

I used it because it indicates that the NFL's problem are more complicated than a simple protest, and that people even stopped watching in SUPPORT of the protests.


Everyone giving two responses has no effect on percentages. Percentages must total a 100%.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14924912
:lol: So did you look at the source and provided some evidence it's in error, or are you talking from a position of ignorance, yet again?

From the source: The full results are below. In some cases, the numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding, or if respondents could choose more than one answer.

Also, it had to do with that there was MORE than one poll. You'd know that, of course, if you looked at the source, instead of simply complaining.

Are you going to address my other source, or are you doing the usual cherry-picking?
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14924915
One Degree wrote:Everyone giving two responses has no effect on percentages. Percentages must total a 100%.

Ok, it's back to 5th grade math for you.
Each answer has a possibility of a 100% response … 2 answers may equal as much as 200% of the surveyed population.

Image

Zam :eh:
User avatar
By One Degree
#14925050
Zamuel wrote:Ok, it's back to 5th grade math for you.
Each answer has a possibility of a 100% response … 2 answers may equal as much as 200% of the surveyed population.

Image

Zam :eh:


You can only come up with 136% by distorting data. You are combining percent of responses with percent of people.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14925059
One Degree wrote:You can only come up with 136% by distorting data. You are combining percent of responses with percent of people.


No distortion, we are comparing rather than combining ... It's just an accurate count of total response to a Question. No Answer can have more than 100%. But the aggregate number of several optional answers, when users may choose more than one, can easily exceed the number of people responding.

Zam 8)
User avatar
By One Degree
#14925060
Zamuel wrote:No distortion, we are comparing rather than combining ... It's just an accurate count of total response to a Question. No Answer can have more than 100%. But the aggregate number of several optional answers, when users may choose more than one, can easily exceed the number of people responding.

Zam 8)


No answer can exceed the number of people responding no matter how many choices they have. Each person can only choose it once. I am also referring to the specific poll numbers he listed, not some ideal situation.
  • 1
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
Why do I keep harping on MMT?

Oh, well, if you're going to define away Keynesi[…]

We seem to be back to conflating ‘illegal immigra[…]

S Wrong. Just wrong. We do not have laws offer[…]

Just because France or whatever nation has a lar[…]