Word.
<and as opined above, The Trumpster is way ahead of the mediacracy bubble>
DaveBsaid
Iām with you. The other side is thinking of doing other things to themselves though. 
So the questions remains:
How do we measure media bias?
What are the variables, we need to measure?
What are the experiments, we need to conduct?
What are the statistical tests, we need to preform?
Etc.
If we donāt do that, then all we are left with is:
What does Dave Think?
What does Donald Trump think?
What does Kim Jong-un think?
What does Vladimir Putin think?
What do the P-Zombies, Zombies and Robots think?
David quoting Dr. Keith Ablow said:
And where did you get this from, Dr.? Is Trump a patient of yours?
David quoting Dr. Keith Ablow said:
No. He graduated from the pretentious, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.
David quoting Dr. Keith Ablow said:
What is the Fox News Medical A-Team? What is the criteria to join it? And how can you analyze a personās motives, thoughts, feelings, etc., if they were never - a patient of yours? And you never interviewed him in person, for psychiatrist and psychological issues?
For those who want more info, hereās a Dr. bio on Wiki:
Hey Randy, You are a intellectual being (obviously very intelligent) that obviously needs certain amount of professional (what ever that is) assurances, to validate your position, and that is cool. But there are those that believe that change can and will happen outside of the professional/expert/what everyone has done/ scenario. 
I donāt mind change, Chad. Iām all for it. If Trump can bring about positive changeā¦and down the road, the quality of my lifeā¦ is that much betterā¦ because of his policies and ideas - so much the better. But I still side with the āIām from Missouri - show meā motto. 
But if we are talking about something abstract - like āmedia biasāā¦Then letās quantify itā¦Measure itā¦Put on the hats of scientists and researchers. Not say something like āall media has a liberal biasā, āall media has a conservative biasā, etc. What does that mean, really? And how can we move from subjective opinion, to something we can measure and quantify? Iām not saying anything, that academic professors and researchers wouldnāt say.
For example. Look at this study, from the Oxford Quarterly Journal of Economics from 2005 (note that results could be different in 2017):
Let me quote briefly from the abstract:
http://www.propeciaforwomen.com/thumbnail/p/peanuts-lucy-psychiatrist-12.jpeg
As far as a psychiatrist, giving opinions on someone like Trump. Itās really armchair psychiatry or armchair psychology. They are only accurate, if the person is a patient - they saw in person. Then doctor/patient confidentially and legalities would apply. Letās examine an article at:
Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair Analysis Of Public Figures
Letās look at some brief tidbits - from the article:
Isnāt the A.P.A. the equivalent of the A.M.A. for medical doctors? After all, psychiatry is just a medical doctor, that specializes in abnormal psychology.
Obviously, the Fox news psychiatrist, doesnāt listen to the A.P.A.
Isnāt that what Iāve been saying all along?
The only ones that can be completely objective (and not exhibit bias) are Zombies, P-Zombies Robots and Androids - for obvious reasons 
Now Iām off to inventing a Zombie Robot
This sounds like a good idea: Donald Trump Says Heāll Give Christian Refugees Priority
abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-hell-give-christian-refugees-priority/story?id=45099271
Therefore, as we have opportunity, we must work for the good of all, ESPECIALLY for those who belong to the household of faith ~~ Galatians 6:10
Just found this from John Piper:
The way to fight terrorists is not by closing our doors ā or hearts ā to their victims. | Robert P. George
QUESTION: What is Social Darwinism?
ANSWER:
Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of āthe strong survive,ā including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.
At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the āWhite Europeanā was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.
At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitlerās march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.
Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwinās theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwinās theory of Natural Selection and Spencerās beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.
It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencerās philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwinās work.
However, according to evolutionary theory, nature is a ākill-or-be-killedā system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. If evolution, through chance, is solely responsible for life as we now know it, why should that process be countered? If āsurvival of the fittestā or ākill or be killedā cannot apply in what we define as ādecent society,ā then, which is wrong, society or evolution? If neither, then how do we explain morality, charity, and compassion? Why drain resources from the strong to support the weak? Certainly, we should be charitable and help those in need.
Though Darwin did not promote Social Darwinism, basic evolutionary theory raises some nagging questions.
Michael, Do you know the context of Georgeās words? Was it uttered in response to Trumpās closing the borders of the U.S.A. to Muslim immigrants?
I donāt know. John Piper put it up.
Randy said:
You seem to be waffling towards your own biasās, wanting science and research to qualify what you are believing. Media bias can and will be figured in the long run by the position the reporters and editors want to portray. Mr Trumpsā staff is as we speak taking steps to negate the tremendous biasā against him and his administration. Your āShow Meā stance should be taken and realized as a true actual āhere is what is happeningā and I think things are happeningā¦ Faster and more out reaching than ever before.
The following is quoted from above: Iāve made a small comment or two.
So the questions remains: <No they donāt. If you doubt, you can find the answers, though anyone not living under a rock the past 2 years saw the bias on a daily basis for themselves. The day I need an expert to tell me that the bias I am seeing with mine own eyes is wrong, is the day I stop being a responsible adult. None of the following has to be done. Weāve SEEN it ourselves for years>
How do we measure media bias?
What are the variables, we need to measure?
What are the experiments, we need to conduct?
What are the statistical tests, we need to preform?
Etc.
If we donāt do that, then all we are left with is: <ALL? Eyewitness of bias before millions of viewers, many of whom thankfully could see through the obvious lying prevaricating BS, does not need to be studied, neither are said eyewitness reports to be sneered at. Trying to kill by a thousand small strokes, iow 20 questions, is a game Iāve been onto for a long time>
What does Dave Think? --I"m in good company, below. Try not insulting people Randy, it does not become you.
What does Donald Trump think?
What does Kim Jong-un think?
What does Vladimir Putin think?
What do the P-Zombies, Zombies and Robots think?
David quoting Dr. Keith Ablow said:
For journalists who still donāt get it, here it is, again, in direct terms: When Trump says something like āIf I were you I would take your camera and look at the size of the crowd,ā he is actually saying, āLetās debate crowd size, again, because otherwise you might ask me questions about my real and historically powerful plans and ideas, which I donāt trust you to report on fairly, anyhow.ā
And where did you get this from, Dr.? Is Trump a patient of yours? <prove him wrong, Randy - you know better, yes?>
David quoting Dr. Keith Ablow said:
Is Trump stupid?
No. He graduated from the pretentious, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.
David quoting Dr. Keith Ablow said:
Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. <I donāt care if he is, that was not the point and you know it>
What is the Fox News Medical A-Team? <watch Fox, they make this and your following questions once again just yapping> What is the criteria to join it? And how can you analyze a personās motives, thoughts, feelings, etc., if they were never - a patient of yours? And you never interviewed him in person, for psychiatrist and psychological issues? <AGAIN, the repetitious, unnecessary and pretentious words. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ>
For those who want more info, hereās a Dr. bio on Wiki:
Keith Ablow
Thatās a good summary, Michael. That is also the Leftās vision of what conservatism is all about, but they are wrong. A careful reading of Trumpās message and, more importantly, what he actually does will I think show clearly that SD is not his idea of America.
No but it reflects the comments of you people here and you support Trump. I didnāt know that was the lefts position. I came to that conclusion on my own by listening to you.
Not at all. The key to science is to find out what is true. And separate it from what is false. If science leads to studies and conclusions, that contradict my beliefs - no problem. The only beliefs that science canāt change for me, is my Christian theology. And sometimes, we have to adjust those, for new scientific evidence (i.e. big bang, old earth, evolution, etc. and how we look at Genesis).
The āshow me - Iām from Missouriā ā¦And my working with the AARP lobbyistsā¦ shows my pragmatic stance. Letās see what he can do (i.e. show me), ā¦but letās work towards a good, Medicare and Social Security agenda (i.e. AARP lobbyist efforts). And I encourage all concerned folks to stop protestingā¦ stop complainingā¦and get behind your favorite lobbyist (i.e. AMA) and court action groups (i.e. ACLU).
In the words of an unknown author
See answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070110002046AA5jxhB
Let me quote their best answer:
And this was said by a Democrat - but nobody listened.
Anyway, yesterday I saw La La Land. The movie was exceptional. The IMDB is an organization that rates movies. The movie goers gave it 8.6 out of 10 stars. And itās won many Oscar nominations. It does remind me of a Bollywood movie - but with western music.
And, yes. As a satirist, Iāll continue to poke fun at Mr. Trump,ā¦his chosen staffā¦ and his F.F.A. (āFanatical Fans of Americaā) here and outside the forumā¦just as the worldās political cartoonists will do. And Iām sure they are now mad, at tech firms and the BBC 
Tech firmsā alarm over Donald Trumpās travel ban
David said:
As someone with:
A masters degree in psychology
Who had hours of discussion over the years, on abnormal psychiatric disordersā¦ with a Greek Orthodox, state licensed counselor friendā¦with a masters from the University of Chicagoā¦a PhD from Oxford
Volunteered numerous hours, with a social clubā¦ for mentally challenged adults, with abnormal psychological disorders
Iām definitely more qualifiedā¦ to speak about the good doctorā¦violating ethics and playing armchair psychiatrist. But Iām not saying anything, that representatives from the A.P.A. (AKA American Psychiatric Association) arenāt saying. And if someone belongs to a professional organizationā¦and that organization (AMA, APA, etc.), says certain activities violates ethical standardsā¦they should listen.
Now let me share the current blog entry of Sunil Bali at sunilbali.com/2017/01/ok-buster/
And here is a joke at quora.com/Would-ISIS-dare-to-attack-China, as to why ISIS, would not attack China:
No but it reflects the comments of you people here and you support Trump. I didnāt know that was the lefts position. I came to that conclusion on my own by listening to you.
I asked you before for one specific example, simply a quote! Still waiting?
The content of Ablowās comments can be checked; I only mentioned his name because I clipped it by mistake when I clipped the comments.
Iāve had ācounselingā from a number of certified, masterās degreed and above, counselors. Most for only 1 session, because they were crazier than I am. Take that to the bank. That is NOT to say the majority are like that; Iām sure they are not.
Attacking the person of Ablow, who I donāt pretend to know in any way, does no good. We have to judge what they say/do. And we can each do that.
Iām not impressed by experts, as a whole. There are a few Iāve learned and judged - on my own - to have earned my trust. Experts have their own agendas, are paid by someone , whose interest s they had better pay attention to.
Look we agree on one thing - Missouri. I am not āfor Trumpā, unless he is 'for America." Weāll see what he does, but when he does well I will support him; when he doesnāt I wonāt.
Letās move on. Not moveon.org.