-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 05, 2019, 09:49:51 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 103308 times)
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: November 29, 2016, 07:12:11 PM »

Quote from: ♩♬☮ Vegan ♯♫♩☮
If the policy means nothing to you, then what is the reason for voting for him (or anybody, for that matter)?
I'm not American, so I didn't vote. This election wasn't won on policy, so that's why I'm not invested that deeply in it, but if he stays as adaptable as he was during the campaign, I think you're country is in good, large hands. He's great at controlling a situation.

Quote
Depends on who you mean by "we". Those who aren't in the upper tax brackets may disagree with  you.
The world generally. There's been stacks of gloom and doom, talks about secret nazi factions and general hysteria. I don't think the world is gonna do a 180, 8 years from now most people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

The people who have been chosen for his cabinet,unfortunately, have not been good choices; pretty much across the board, those not in the op 1% will definitely feel the pinch, financially and otherwise.

I won't lie, I've seen some of the baggage that some of his picks have and it's not all good stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if there are stacks of firings down the line, considering who their boss is.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: November 29, 2016, 07:25:40 PM »

I was specifically referring to Sanders and Stein supporters rather than Sanders and Stein themselves: I have not seen their supporters make a point of objecting to the dominance of fake news in this campaign and I have seen them further fake news, which was disappointing. I certainly think that they (the supporters) have a responsibility (as does everyone) to object to and to not further fake news. When I've seen Sanders supporters further fake things against Clinton, I'm sorry to say that it unfairly gave me a bad feeling about Sanders, which I tried to overcome but found difficult. But beyond supporters, yes, I think ALL candidates and in fact everybody, public or private, has a responsibility to make an effort to combat the scourge. And I was very disappointed overall at the population in general for not combatting it more strongly and at non-Clinton supporters for sitting by and watching it happen without objecting further. The fact that you don't support Clinton is not an excuse for not trying to stop something that is so extremely destructive to a system in which the government is chosen by general public elections. But yes, Stein, Clinton, Sanders, Johnson, Obama, and even Trump, as people who are or seek to be leaders in that government, that relies on informed citizens for wise selections, should be particularly active in denouncing false information.

My apologies for missing your point a bit here. However, if by "you," you mean me, I'm a bit surprised because both you and I, and others like The Captain, were frequently working to dismantle some prevalent false narratives here, some surrounding Clinton. Here's an example of an instance of that:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20357.msg581361.html#msg581361

And I think it's fair to note that despite not being an American voter, I was more supportive of both Sanders and Stein and still made "a point of objecting to the dominance of fake news in this campaign." However, as I noted above, I object to the term fake news the way it's currently being used mostly because I think it emanates out of a certain belief about mainstream news which I don't think is a particularly healthy way of promoting critical thinking (I don't lump you in with that group). I have no doubt that this right-wing extremist media is heinous and that it is having a serious effect when it comes to distorting public opinion. However, mainstream media, which I still think is more powerful, not just because of the concentration of power but because it essentially sets the tone and the agenda for most people entering into political discussion (online or elsewhere) distorts reality in a way that may not be as ludicrous of a distortion but probably misinforms more people. So while I will definitely combat misinformation where I see it no matter what it is, it just so happens that closer to the election, I was personally seeing more misinformation emanating from the centre-right status quo outlets that were by-and-large backing Clinton, and so that's what I ended up talking about. Apart from the discussions I had on here with certain posters who are now mostly gone, I rarely encountered the extremist positions that are undoubtedly shaping minds in a negative way.

Quote
Regarding critical thinking - there's a lot of space between someone who wants to defund public education and someone who doesn't; someone who is allied with people who explicitly put in their party platform that they don't support teaching critical thinking because it has "the purpose of challenging the studentís fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority" and someone who doesn't; someone who is a science denier and allies himself with people who want to teach creationism "alongside" evolution. Yes, Clinton is a cynic about politics (perhaps deservedly so given the treatment she's received), but to lump her with Trump in terms of education seems a bit much.

I agree there's a significant difference between Clinton and Trump in their positions. But I wasn't so much talking about education when I mentioned critical thinking. Mostly I was thinking about the candidates ability to think critically about politics in the United States. And to be perfectly honest, I see very little ability either from Clinton or anybody from the mainstream DNC for that matter as having the ability to think in these terms. There's actually quite a good interview if you can find it where the great Amy Goodman gets Bill Clinton on the phone when he was campaigning for Al Gore in 2000. Goodman took the opportunity to ask Clinton some serious policy questions. I don't think Clinton had ever been asked questions like this before and by the end of the interview, Clinton goes from his usual self to being irate and angry that Goodman would even be daring to ask these questions. Madeleine Albright had much the same reaction to Goodman. You'll probably recall that Albright in an interview said that the sanctions against Iraq which led to the deaths of 500,000 children was "worth it."Albright eventually backed away from the comment but when Goodman asked her if she thought the sanctions helped to lay "the groundwork for later being able to target Iraq and make it more acceptable on the part of the Bush administration," Albright became offended and proceeded to once again defend the sanctions. This, to me, is not a party that thinks critically nor is it frequently able to accept the truth when it is presented to them. The DNC, and Clinton among them, live in their own bubble with their own version of events which, to me, is a complete fabrication of reality. Do I like the fabrication more than like I like the one coming from the extreme right? Absolutely. Is it a fabrication that is less dangerous? Definitely. Are both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton critical thinkers? In my view, no.

Quote
I'm curious about the studies to which you refer. I've not seen them and based on the information I have, I don't suspect Sanders would have had a better outcome, so they must be taking something into account that I am not, or have analyzed data differently. Can you provide links?


Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out how "Itís astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble ó that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate ó are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway." Greenwald linked to his own very good analysis of the evidence:

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/

And while one could say that the polls don't tell us anything, I think it is important to note that the polls in general gave Clinton specifically an advantage that didn't exist. And in actual real life cases, even when the polls were leaning more towards Clinton, the voters would end up going with Sanders, which is exactly what happened in Michigan. So it seems to me that not only does the data support this, but so did the actual outcomes.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: November 29, 2016, 07:34:14 PM »

Quote from: Emily
News based on facts, not fiction.
I mean, could you list a couple?

Quote from: Emily
So you are fine with the constant misinformation emanating from him and his campaign and his allies? And you're fine with him encouraging his supporters in their misinformed evaluation of, say, the effects and degree of illegal immigration and about the level of violent crime committed by illegal immigrants? And you're fine with him implying - actually straight out saying, really - that American Muslims, as a class, protect terrorists and don't cooperate with law enforcement? Don't you see that this kind of thing encourages violence? Is that really OK with you?
Could you link me to this misinformation about illegal immigration?  I need to touch up before I comment on it.
I think the media is the biggest pot stirrer when it comes to violence. Try wearing a MAGA hat in California and see what happens, though I do think there are problems on both sides and I absolutely do not condone violence.
Have there been certain American Muslims that have protect terrorists? Well yeah, that's just the truth.

Quote from: Emily
In your own research you didn't learn that the original speech in which Clinton made the public/private remark was her talking it in the context of the Lincoln movie. That that was where the quote came from? Apparently not - because you repeated Trump's line about her "blaming" Lincoln. It's pretty clear from the original context that she meant, though it was badly worded, as she explained in the debate, that for a politician, public speaking is about ideals and goals, while the private work is about compromise, exchange and negotiation. That's just a fact of our system. It seems from things you've said here and on the other thread that your research is limited to one-sided sources.
I clearly said that was a joke, didn't I?

Quote from: Emily
No. No one more eloquent than you can make a good case for Trump's policies. So basically you just have a crush on him. OK.
I mean I'm sure I could find someone that explains it much better, but if I did would you listen?

And I still wanna know if you changed your mind about his extreme luck.
I listed some fake news sites and items above in this thread.
Regarding illegal immigration - I'm baffled. That was the cornerstone of his campaign and you don't know what he's said? Just search 'Trump illegal immigrants criminals' or 'trump illegal immigrants taking jobs'
Regarding Muslims first, it's not what Trump said that certain American Muslims protected terrorists. Second, certain American Christians and probably American Jews and possibly American Sikhs and Buddhists have too. There's no evidence that more American Muslims have than anyone else, so singling them out as a group is implying something incorrect and is a dangerous way for a public figure to speak.
Regarding his policies,  I know what his policies are; I've studied history and economics; I've consulted with experts. I don't need someone "eloquent" to explain to me why they think that Trump's policies are good policies. Reagan is perfectly eloquent. He's already explained it. And he was wrong, as history shows. If you know someone who is going to explain that history, I and every professional economist not paid by Trump are wrong, I'll listen.
You seem to think that electing a president is similar to choosing who to root for on Survivor. Policy matters. Legal rights matter. This is real sh*t. It is going to mean children lose their parents. It is going to mean ill people lose their health insurance. It is going to mean more poverty. This is real.
And no, I haven't changed my mind about his luck, and I don't think it's extreme. I think it's chance that he's the idiot who was born rich and with a big blowhard personality and 0 ethics or concern for the damage he leaves in his wake (or even an understanding of it) and was constantly trying to run for office for decades and the circumstances came around that his opportunistic, autocratic rage fit neatly with a right-wing machine that's been building over the last few decades. His success has not been due to his skill. Just due to his having the right personality and platform (not policy platform, but media platform) for the right-wing demagogue Bannon and his ilk were waiting for.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 07:58:39 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: November 29, 2016, 07:56:50 PM »

I was specifically referring to Sanders and Stein supporters rather than Sanders and Stein themselves: I have not seen their supporters make a point of objecting to the dominance of fake news in this campaign and I have seen them further fake news, which was disappointing. I certainly think that they (the supporters) have a responsibility (as does everyone) to object to and to not further fake news. When I've seen Sanders supporters further fake things against Clinton, I'm sorry to say that it unfairly gave me a bad feeling about Sanders, which I tried to overcome but found difficult. But beyond supporters, yes, I think ALL candidates and in fact everybody, public or private, has a responsibility to make an effort to combat the scourge. And I was very disappointed overall at the population in general for not combatting it more strongly and at non-Clinton supporters for sitting by and watching it happen without objecting further. The fact that you don't support Clinton is not an excuse for not trying to stop something that is so extremely destructive to a system in which the government is chosen by general public elections. But yes, Stein, Clinton, Sanders, Johnson, Obama, and even Trump, as people who are or seek to be leaders in that government, that relies on informed citizens for wise selections, should be particularly active in denouncing false information.

My apologies for missing your point a bit here. However, if by "you," you mean me, I'm a bit surprised because both you and I, and others like The Captain, were frequently working to dismantle some prevalent false narratives here, some surrounding Clinton. Here's an example of an instance of that:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20357.msg581361.html#msg581361

And I think it's fair to note that despite not being an American voter, I was more supportive of both Sanders and Stein and still made "a point of objecting to the dominance of fake news in this campaign." However, as I noted above, I object to the term fake news the way it's currently being used mostly because I think it emanates out of a certain belief about mainstream news which I don't think is a particularly healthy way of promoting critical thinking (I don't lump you in with that group). I have no doubt that this right-wing extremist media is heinous and that it is having a serious effect when it comes to distorting public opinion. However, mainstream media, which I still think is more powerful, not just because of the concentration of power but because it essentially sets the tone and the agenda for most people entering into political discussion (online or elsewhere) distorts reality in a way that may not be as ludicrous of a distortion but probably misinforms more people. So while I will definitely combat misinformation where I see it no matter what it is, it just so happens that closer to the election, I was personally seeing more misinformation emanating from the centre-right status quo outlets that were by-and-large backing Clinton, and so that's what I ended up talking about. Apart from the discussions I had on here with certain posters who are now mostly gone, I rarely encountered the extremist positions that are undoubtedly shaping minds in a negative way.

Quote
Regarding critical thinking - there's a lot of space between someone who wants to defund public education and someone who doesn't; someone who is allied with people who explicitly put in their party platform that they don't support teaching critical thinking because it has "the purpose of challenging the studentís fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority" and someone who doesn't; someone who is a science denier and allies himself with people who want to teach creationism "alongside" evolution. Yes, Clinton is a cynic about politics (perhaps deservedly so given the treatment she's received), but to lump her with Trump in terms of education seems a bit much.

I agree there's a significant difference between Clinton and Trump in their positions. But I wasn't so much talking about education when I mentioned critical thinking. Mostly I was thinking about the candidates ability to think critically about politics in the United States. And to be perfectly honest, I see very little ability either from Clinton or anybody from the mainstream DNC for that matter as having the ability to think in these terms. There's actually quite a good interview if you can find it where the great Amy Goodman gets Bill Clinton on the phone when he was campaigning for Al Gore in 2000. Goodman took the opportunity to ask Clinton some serious policy questions. I don't think Clinton had ever been asked questions like this before and by the end of the interview, Clinton goes from his usual self to being irate and angry that Goodman would even be daring to ask these questions. Madeleine Albright had much the same reaction to Goodman. You'll probably recall that Albright in an interview said that the sanctions against Iraq which led to the deaths of 500,000 children was "worth it."Albright eventually backed away from the comment but when Goodman asked her if she thought the sanctions helped to lay "the groundwork for later being able to target Iraq and make it more acceptable on the part of the Bush administration," Albright became offended and proceeded to once again defend the sanctions. This, to me, is not a party that thinks critically nor is it frequently able to accept the truth when it is presented to them. The DNC, and Clinton among them, live in their own bubble with their own version of events which, to me, is a complete fabrication of reality. Do I like the fabrication more than like I like the one coming from the extreme right? Absolutely. Is it a fabrication that is less dangerous? Definitely. Are both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton critical thinkers? In my view, no.

Quote
I'm curious about the studies to which you refer. I've not seen them and based on the information I have, I don't suspect Sanders would have had a better outcome, so they must be taking something into account that I am not, or have analyzed data differently. Can you provide links?


Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out how "Itís astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble ó that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate ó are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway." Greenwald linked to his own very good analysis of the evidence:

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/

And while one could say that the polls don't tell us anything, I think it is important to note that the polls in general gave Clinton specifically an advantage that didn't exist. And in actual real life cases, even when the polls were leaning more towards Clinton, the voters would end up going with Sanders, which is exactly what happened in Michigan. So it seems to me that not only does the data support this, but so did the actual outcomes.

Not at all. By 'you' I meant, and should have said, 'one'. I did not mean you, or the Captain, or 'Vegan'.
I'm not wholly comfortable with the term 'fake news' either. It's the current term. I've been kind of flopping around trying to find the right term, but have been unable to.
Regarding the media - the mainstream media was open in it's support of Clinton toward the end - more as a reaction against Trump than for Clinton, I believe. The mainstream media has a history of being mainly very negative about Clinton. But I'm not sure that the mainstream media has that much control over information anymore. I think there is a significant enough to sway an election portion of the population that immediately distrusts anything reported by the mainstream media and immediately believes anything reported by alternate sites, which range from being quite accurate to being absolutely inaccurate in their reporting. A significant constellation of those sites are extreme right-wing and intentionally lie regularly. Here's a list of the most popular right-wing sites in 2014:
http://rightwingnews.com/special/the-top-100-conservative-websites-of-2014/
Literally half in the top 10 don't even pretend to be fact-based. And you can see that they are much-frequented sites. Breitbart is now the 35th most frequented site in the US (not news site, but SITE). I think you underestimate the impact of the right-wing internet media.
Mainstream media - at least you can read between the lines and learn some real information. Breitbart, which is mainstream media now, you can't. They publish things that are completely false.

Regarding the critical thinking and Goodman and the Sanders' studies and your comments on the polls - I take your points and will read/listen. I'm inclined to expect you're right about the first two and not about the 3rd, but I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong there - so I'll try to take it in objectively.
However, I'm trying to get on a regular sleep schedule and it's a half hour past my bedtime - so the reading I'll do on the train tomorrow, the listening, tomorrow evening, depending on how much attention my daughter feels like she needs. In any case, I'll do the listening soon.
Thank you.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: November 29, 2016, 07:59:10 PM »

I was specifically referring to Sanders and Stein supporters rather than Sanders and Stein themselves: I have not seen their supporters make a point of objecting to the dominance of fake news in this campaign and I have seen them further fake news, which was disappointing. I certainly think that they (the supporters) have a responsibility (as does everyone) to object to and to not further fake news. When I've seen Sanders supporters further fake things against Clinton, I'm sorry to say that it unfairly gave me a bad feeling about Sanders, which I tried to overcome but found difficult. But beyond supporters, yes, I think ALL candidates and in fact everybody, public or private, has a responsibility to make an effort to combat the scourge. And I was very disappointed overall at the population in general for not combatting it more strongly and at non-Clinton supporters for sitting by and watching it happen without objecting further. The fact that you don't support Clinton is not an excuse for not trying to stop something that is so extremely destructive to a system in which the government is chosen by general public elections. But yes, Stein, Clinton, Sanders, Johnson, Obama, and even Trump, as people who are or seek to be leaders in that government, that relies on informed citizens for wise selections, should be particularly active in denouncing false information.

My apologies for missing your point a bit here. However, if by "you," you mean me, I'm a bit surprised because both you and I, and others like The Captain, were frequently working to dismantle some prevalent false narratives here, some surrounding Clinton. Here's an example of an instance of that:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20357.msg581361.html#msg581361

And I think it's fair to note that despite not being an American voter, I was more supportive of both Sanders and Stein and still made "a point of objecting to the dominance of fake news in this campaign." However, as I noted above, I object to the term fake news the way it's currently being used mostly because I think it emanates out of a certain belief about mainstream news which I don't think is a particularly healthy way of promoting critical thinking (I don't lump you in with that group). I have no doubt that this right-wing extremist media is heinous and that it is having a serious effect when it comes to distorting public opinion. However, mainstream media, which I still think is more powerful, not just because of the concentration of power but because it essentially sets the tone and the agenda for most people entering into political discussion (online or elsewhere) distorts reality in a way that may not be as ludicrous of a distortion but probably misinforms more people. So while I will definitely combat misinformation where I see it no matter what it is, it just so happens that closer to the election, I was personally seeing more misinformation emanating from the centre-right status quo outlets that were by-and-large backing Clinton, and so that's what I ended up talking about. Apart from the discussions I had on here with certain posters who are now mostly gone, I rarely encountered the extremist positions that are undoubtedly shaping minds in a negative way.

Quote
Regarding critical thinking - there's a lot of space between someone who wants to defund public education and someone who doesn't; someone who is allied with people who explicitly put in their party platform that they don't support teaching critical thinking because it has "the purpose of challenging the studentís fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority" and someone who doesn't; someone who is a science denier and allies himself with people who want to teach creationism "alongside" evolution. Yes, Clinton is a cynic about politics (perhaps deservedly so given the treatment she's received), but to lump her with Trump in terms of education seems a bit much.

I agree there's a significant difference between Clinton and Trump in their positions. But I wasn't so much talking about education when I mentioned critical thinking. Mostly I was thinking about the candidates ability to think critically about politics in the United States. And to be perfectly honest, I see very little ability either from Clinton or anybody from the mainstream DNC for that matter as having the ability to think in these terms. There's actually quite a good interview if you can find it where the great Amy Goodman gets Bill Clinton on the phone when he was campaigning for Al Gore in 2000. Goodman took the opportunity to ask Clinton some serious policy questions. I don't think Clinton had ever been asked questions like this before and by the end of the interview, Clinton goes from his usual self to being irate and angry that Goodman would even be daring to ask these questions. Madeleine Albright had much the same reaction to Goodman. You'll probably recall that Albright in an interview said that the sanctions against Iraq which led to the deaths of 500,000 children was "worth it."Albright eventually backed away from the comment but when Goodman asked her if she thought the sanctions helped to lay "the groundwork for later being able to target Iraq and make it more acceptable on the part of the Bush administration," Albright became offended and proceeded to once again defend the sanctions. This, to me, is not a party that thinks critically nor is it frequently able to accept the truth when it is presented to them. The DNC, and Clinton among them, live in their own bubble with their own version of events which, to me, is a complete fabrication of reality. Do I like the fabrication more than like I like the one coming from the extreme right? Absolutely. Is it a fabrication that is less dangerous? Definitely. Are both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton critical thinkers? In my view, no.

Quote
I'm curious about the studies to which you refer. I've not seen them and based on the information I have, I don't suspect Sanders would have had a better outcome, so they must be taking something into account that I am not, or have analyzed data differently. Can you provide links?


Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out how "Itís astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble ó that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate ó are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway." Greenwald linked to his own very good analysis of the evidence:

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/

And while one could say that the polls don't tell us anything, I think it is important to note that the polls in general gave Clinton specifically an advantage that didn't exist. And in actual real life cases, even when the polls were leaning more towards Clinton, the voters would end up going with Sanders, which is exactly what happened in Michigan. So it seems to me that not only does the data support this, but so did the actual outcomes.

Not at all. By 'you' I meant, and should have said, 'one'. I did not mean you, or the Captain, or 'Vegan'.
I'm not wholly comfortable with the term 'fake news' either. It's the current term. I've been kind of flopping around trying to find the right term, but have been unable to.
Regarding the media - the mainstream media was open in it's support of Clinton toward the end - more as a reaction against Trump than for Clinton, I believe. The mainstream media has a history of being mainly very negative about Clinton. But I'm not sure that the mainstream media has that much control over information anymore. I think there is a significant enough to sway an election portion of the population that immediately distrusts anything reported by the mainstream media and immediately believes anything reported by alternate sites, which range from being quite accurate to being absolutely inaccurate in their reporting. A significant constellation of those sites are extreme right-wing and intentionally lie regularly. Here's a list of the most popular right-wing sites in 2014:
http://rightwingnews.com/special/the-top-100-conservative-websites-of-2014/
Literally half in the top 10 don't even pretend to be fact-based. And you can see that they are much-frequented sites. Breitbart is now the 35th most frequented site in the US (not news site, but SITE). I think you underestimate the impact of the right-wing internet media.
Mainstream media - at least you can read between the lines and learn some real information. Breitbart, which is mainstream media now, you can't. They publish things that are completely false.

Regarding the critical thinking and Goodman and the Sanders' studies and your comments on the polls - I take your points and will read/listen. I'm inclined to expect you're right about the first two and not about the 3rd, but I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong there - so I'll try to take it in objectively.
However, I'm trying to get on a regular sleep schedule and it's a half hour past my bedtime - so the reading I'll do on the train tomorrow, the listening, tomorrow evening, depending on how much attention my daughter feels like she needs. In any case, I'll do the listening soon.
Thank you.


Thank you! Always good to chat. And as always I think we are more in agreement than disagreement, which is important.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 07:59:49 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: November 29, 2016, 08:16:48 PM »

Quote
I listed some fake news sites and items above in this thread.
I'm asking for what you consider to be real news. I know what you believe fake news to be, like what is real news to you? Please list what you consider factual news so I can understand your view point better.

Quote
Regarding illegal immigration - I'm baffled. That was the cornerstone of his campaign and you don't know what he's said? Just search 'Trump illegal immigrants criminals' or 'trump illegal immigrants taking jobs'
I know what he's said about the border, bad people, drugs pouring in. What's the big misinformation that he pushed?

Quote
Regarding Muslims first, it's not what Trump said that certain American Muslims protected terrorists. Second, certain American Christians and probably American Jews and possibly American Sikhs and Buddhists have too. There's no evidence that more American Muslims have than anyone else, so singling them out as a group is implying something incorrect and is a dangerous way for a public figure to speak.
This is another one I'm fuzzy on. When did he say it was an entire class?

Quote
Regarding his policies,  I know what his policies are; I've studied history and economics; I've consulted with experts. I don't need someone "eloquent" to explain to me why they think that Trump's policies are good policies. Reagan is perfectly eloquent. He's already explained it. And he was wrong, as history shows. If you know someone who is going to explain that history, I and every professional economist not paid by Trump are wrong, I'll listen.
Experts can be wrong, I think this cycle showed that, but that's not the point I want to make. I wanted to say that someone could explain their support for Trump better than I could. I don't think I can change your mind or rock your world, but I don't think my support of him should baffle or shock you.

Quote
You seem to think that electing a president is similar to choosing who to root for on Survivor.
The campaign is a lot like Survivor, don't you think? And funnily, plenty of women have won before.

Quote
Policy matters. Legal rights matter. This is real sh*t. It is going to mean children lose their parents. It is going to mean ill people lose their health insurance. It is going to mean more poverty. This is real sh*t.[/i]
How are children going to lose parents? I say just wait and see what moves he makes instead of jumping to the worst case scenarios, things change all the time.

Quote
And no, I haven't changed my mind about his luck, and I don't think it's extreme. I think it's chance that he's the idiot who was born rich and with a big blowhard personality and 0 ethics or concern for the damage he leaves in his wake (or even an understanding of it) and was constantly trying to run for office for decades and the circumstances came around that his opportunistic, autocratic rage fit neatly with a right-wing machine that's been building over the last few decades. His success has not been due to his skill. Just due to his having the right personality and platform (not policy platform, but media platform) for the right-wing demagogue Bannon and his ilk were waiting for.
So did Hillary lose due to bad luck? I mean, he smashed her in the electoral vote, there are plenty of factors in play. From my point of view, if Hillary can't take down a 'lucky idiot' with no political experience, then it's a good thing she didn't get the top job. Come 2020, if people don't adapt to Trump, he's going to steamroll the competition and it's gonna be a white knuckled 8 years for them.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: November 30, 2016, 03:51:28 AM »

I specifically suggested you use the words "crime" and "taking jobs" in your searches. That might be a tip-off to the oft-repeated, false assertions Trump has made. For the other, https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/6/14/11925278/trump-speech-muslims?client=safari.
Regarding losing parents - that's what deportation does. It's also what no health insurance does. It's also what poverty does.
It is not at all like survivor in its import in reality or in what qualities matter.
People have asked multiple times for you to explain why you support Trump other than "he won, so he's got to be good," which to any thinking adult is on it's face absurd. Based on this and your dodging or ignorance regarding Trump's policies and campaign themes, your avoidance of engaging with adult reality, your illogic and your admiration of school yard skills, I've come to the conclusion that you are callow (and extraordinarily callous). I sincerely hope you are actually very young or very old. Preferably very old because,you are exhibiting a complete lack of empathy and I don't think that can be learned.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 04:06:16 AM by Emily » Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: November 30, 2016, 03:54:55 AM »

People have asked multiple times for you to explain why you support Trump other than "he won, so he's got to be good," which to any thinking adult is on it's face absurd. Based on this, your dodging or ignorance regarding what Trunp has said, your avoidance of engaging with adult reality, your illogic and your admiration of school yard skills, I've come to the conclusion that you are callow (and extraordinarily callous). I sincerely hope you are actually very young or very old.

I'd just like us to find a half way point, if you can answer my questions I think that'd help.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: November 30, 2016, 04:05:05 AM »

People have asked multiple times for you to explain why you support Trump other than "he won, so he's got to be good," which to any thinking adult is on it's face absurd. Based on this, your dodging or ignorance regarding what Trunp has said, your avoidance of engaging with adult reality, your illogic and your admiration of school yard skills, I've come to the conclusion that you are callow (and extraordinarily callous). I sincerely hope you are actually very young or very old.

I'd just like us to find a half way point, if you can answer my questions I think that'd help.
I've added to my above post. There's no half-way point if you won't engage with things that matter.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #134 on: November 30, 2016, 04:14:07 AM »

Sinistersmile is Barron Trump! Cool Guy
Logged

And production aside, Iíd so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: November 30, 2016, 04:18:33 AM »

People have asked multiple times for you to explain why you support Trump other than "he won, so he's got to be good," which to any thinking adult is on it's face absurd. Based on this, your dodging or ignorance regarding what Trunp has said, your avoidance of engaging with adult reality, your illogic and your admiration of school yard skills, I've come to the conclusion that you are callow (and extraordinarily callous). I sincerely hope you are actually very young or very old.

I'd just like us to find a half way point, if you can answer my questions I think that'd help.
I've added to my above post. There's no half-way point if you won't engage with things that matter.

Sorry, I am trying. I get like 3 or 4 people hitting me with big questions so I do apologize if I miss some or don't delve deep enough.

Truthfully, I'm very interested in what you consider real news. I'll try my best to answer the rest, but if you could list a few real news outlets, I think that'd speed things along.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: November 30, 2016, 04:20:02 AM »

Sinistersmile is Barron Trump! Cool Guy

Same hair, no lie!
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #137 on: November 30, 2016, 04:35:57 AM »

Well played sir! LOL
Logged

And production aside, Iíd so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: November 30, 2016, 05:01:25 AM »

Quote
I specifically suggested you use the words "crime" and "taking jobs" in your searches. That might be a tip-off to the oft-repeated, false assertions Trump has made. For the other, https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/6/14/11925278/trump-speech-muslims?client=safari.
The reason why I would have liked direct links from you is due to this fake/real news fiasco. I want to see from your perspective what qualified as real. Before I comment on this article, is it safe to assume that this is a non-fake website?

Quote
Regarding losing parents - that's what deportation does.
I thought he was only deporting people staying in the country illegally, right?

Quote
It's also what no health insurance does. It's also what poverty does.
Won't lie, the health insurance stuff over there does my head in, I have to look into it more.

Quote
It is not at all like survivor in its import in reality or in what qualities matter.
In a very simplified way, the general election is like Survivor. It's an extremely emotional game. If you want to come out on top, you have to defend your gameplay and convince people to vote you as the winner. I'm glad you bought up the Survivor angle, and I'd be happy to delve deeper into it if you wanna.

Quote
People have asked multiple times for you to explain why you support Trump other than "he won, so he's got to be good," which to any thinking adult is on it's face absurd.
He won because he was good, and my thinking is more along the lines of 'he earned it, give him a chance and he might surprise you'. There are a lot of reasons why I support him, I repeated them here plenty. Also, I think you'll admit this has been a very absurd election

Quote
Based on this and your dodging or ignorance regarding Trump's policies and campaign themes
I think Trump's going to be pretty flexible with his policies, and I don't think the world is going to end with him, I'm not going to get too worked up over it.

Quote
Your avoidance of engaging with adult reality
In my reality, I predicted he would win in the face of bad polls and I explained my reasoning for the decision. Also featured in my reality is President Trump, so I'm happy with where I'm at.

Quote
Your illogic and your admiration of school yard skills
I like his ability to take a punch and work a situation to his favour, amongst other things.

Quote
I've come to the conclusion that you are callow (and extraordinarily callous).
I think optimistic is a better word.

Quote
I sincerely hope you are actually very young or very old. Preferably very old because,you are exhibiting a complete lack of empathy and I don't think that can be learned.
Why do you want me to be old, so I die faster or something? I hope not. You can say I lack empathy, but I'm being very patient and trying to get my point of view across. We don't have to agree, but I'd like to have a conversation without being talked down to.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 05:08:16 AM by SinisterSmile » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: November 30, 2016, 05:24:27 AM »

People have asked multiple times for you to explain why you support Trump other than "he won, so he's got to be good," which to any thinking adult is on it's face absurd. Based on this, your dodging or ignorance regarding what Trunp has said, your avoidance of engaging with adult reality, your illogic and your admiration of school yard skills, I've come to the conclusion that you are callow (and extraordinarily callous). I sincerely hope you are actually very young or very old.

I'd just like us to find a half way point, if you can answer my questions I think that'd help.
I've added to my above post. There's no half-way point if you won't engage with things that matter.

Sorry, I am trying. I get like 3 or 4 people hitting me with big questions so I do apologize if I miss some or don't delve deep enough.

Truthfully, I'm very interested in what you consider real news. I'll try my best to answer the rest, but if you could list a few real news outlets, I think that'd speed things along.
I don't put faith in any particular news outlet. They all have a raison d'etre that might skew their editorial choices and they all hire humans who have their own flaws. ALL traditional mainstream sources make a point of reporting stories (and one must learn to distinguish reporting from editorializing) based on fact. Almost all have a corporate and government bias and some are more slightly to the corporate left and some to the right. None simply post things that they know are factually incorrect or with the conscious intention of leaving the reader with a false impression of the facts, though they all sometimes err or report a selection of facts considered important to their angle, so one should seek out another version to get a full picture. There is no news story that matters to me that I don't check several sources, some mainstream, some independent right, some independent left, There is no outlet that I go straight to as "my news source."  It's important to me to find the root of each story that matters so I will always click through or search out the original source if available. I will usually check a somewhat random selection of outlets to see the headlines and go from there.
Left sources, like Mother Jones and The Nation, and right sources like the Financial Times and The Economist try to adhere to the truth and often report different stories from the mainstream media.
BBC, PBS and formerly Al Jazeera are mainstream sources that are probably the strictest about accuracy and lack of bias.
But it's important to separate bias from straight fiction and intentional manipulation. The New York Times, for instance, is held up as being biased for its negative reporting on Trump. 1. They were still factual and took a long time before they reported several stories that were circulating in less careful publications because they researched and found evidence before they reported. 2. There's a false equivalence in the idea that a journal should be equally negative/positive with each candidate. In this case, there was a lot more negative to say about Trump.  To report the encouragement of white supremacy, say,  as if it's just a routine campaign story balanced against the opponent's negatives would be not balance but a tremendous bias for the white supremacy promoter. 3. anyway the emails were the most covered story of the campaign, including in the NYT and at CNN, so this "pro-Clinton" thing is a myth.
But 1. Is the most pertinent. They still reported facts. The NYT and Post and, yes, CNN, but also the WSJ and the National Review,refrained from reporting outright lies and manipulations such as the ones pushed and passed around on the new right-wing media. That has in the past been relegated to a few tabloids (i.e.  The National Enquirer) that the vast majority of people knew should be taken with a hunk of salt. That has changed.
There are a few relatively unsuccessful equivalent fake and/or intentionally lying and manipulating news sources on the left, but it is literally a multi-billion dollar industry on the right. As I said above, the main campaign tactic of this wing is to personally smear and to appeal to bigotry through manipulation. This has been, part and parcel, the campaign of Trump. Trump didn't invent it, but he was the perfect front-man for it. It's a thoroughly repulsive turn of events.
Beyond this, I will not engage with you unless you indicate good faith in engaging with the seriousness of the topic at hand and with the real issues that the Captain and CSM have raised.



Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: November 30, 2016, 05:26:48 AM »

Though your message was specifically for Emily, I wanted to respond to a few things:

I thought he was only deporting people staying in the country illegally, right?

Wrong. He has said he would deport children of illegal immigrants despite the fact that they are US citizens. And that's putting aside the fact that even if he were just deporting illegal immigrants, it would be impossible and also, in my view, harsh for the sake of being harsh.

Quote
I think Trump's going to be pretty flexible with his policies, and I don't think the world is going to end with him, I'm not going to get too worked up over it.

Just to be clear, you saw a flexibility in Trump that makes you think he would reverse all of his policies? If so, where did you see that kind of flexibility? Remember when he was on Colbert and said he didn't have to apologize to anyone for anything?

Quote
I like his ability to take a punch

He recently threw a childish tantrum because someone at a theatre was critical of his vice president and proceeded to say that the theatre should be the kind of safe space that his advocates have been criticizing for years. How do you view that as being able "to take a punch"?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 05:29:57 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: November 30, 2016, 05:59:08 AM »

I'll say this re flexibility: he has continuously changed positions on many issues--most issues--and has on several (outlined above, a few pages back in sure) gone to more traditional positions since being elected.

This "flexibility"--one might call it cluelessness, oh-sh*t-this-is-real acknowledgement, or good old fashioned lying--could be positive or negative, relatively speaking.

Positive because some of his campaign nonsense ranged from illegal to unconstitutional to immoral, and at best radical. And like it or not, the world likes stability, predictability. This In many  ways, even a typical GOP administration is preferable to candidate Trump, because at least we know they wouldn't name reality stars to the cabinet or start a war with the U.K. over a Scot tweeting a joke about his hair. So, "flexibility" to walk back from moronic and amoral "policy" (to more traditional positions that I often still find severely lacking, sometimes corrupt and immoral) is seemingly out there, and that's a plus.

But on the other side, for whom and what did his voters vote if positions are so easily discarded? Even if his "flexibility" ends up with him pointing in a less terrifying position, how is outright lying to win acceptable? The end doesn't justify the means, even if it's the right (or less shockingly wrong) end. If he ends up--as seems likely to me based on his cabinet--leading some typical, pro-rich, deregulating, pro-corporate Republican administration (only with juvenile tweeting and bluster to keep reality tv fans engaged), ought not the Everyman who voted for "draining the swamp," for jobs, for healthcare and retirement security, for staying out of foreign wars, shouldn't that Everyman be FURIOUS that he was lied to, explicitly and repeatedly, only to later witness "flexibility?"
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: November 30, 2016, 06:05:20 AM »

I look forward to seeing details of the deal struck with Carrier "to keep close to 1,000 jobs in Indy." (Their tweet)

Presumably we're talking about tax breaks, of which I'm often wary because the things those taxes pay for don't disappear, meaning either needs go unmet or a shell game just makes someone **cough cough the public** pay for it elsewhere.

But I'm trying to keep an open mind, and certainly I'm glad if jobs are not lost. (Not lost isn't the same as added, but it's better than lost.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: November 30, 2016, 06:07:16 AM »

The swamp is drained just a little bit more with yet another stellar, "everyman" cabinet nomination: former Goldman Sachs partner and hedge fund manager Steven Mnuchin. Finally, someone who understands Joe Average will change the culture of that revolving door between Goldman Sachs and Washing--oh. Oh, wait. Never mind.

Trump supporters are paying attention, I hope. He sure told it like it is. Nothing but the truth, straight talk. For f***'s sake.

I remember when after Obama took power in 2008/09, he began to fill his administration with status quo old-school government figures after running on a platform of hope and change. He held a press conference after appointing several of these figures and one reporter quite appropriately asked, "what about the hope and change?" Obama replied, "the change is me" and left it at that. From the beginning of the whole campaign, I knew that the hope and change rhetoric was just that - an empty message backed with almost no substance to garner the votes of the population who were genuinely tired of politics-as-usual this time. His staff additions and the press conference that followed, though, solidified in a real sense precisely how empty this rhetoric all was and that, in fact, Obama would represent the same interests that had always dominated political life in the country.

Now, in my view, we have the same exact story being replayed here. As Glenn Greenwald just pointed out on Twitter a few minutes ago, "Steven Mnuchin is basically the cartoon-villain personification of everything alt-right rails against & Trump put him in charge of Treasury." Indeed, this moment must illustrate to Trump supporters what a sham his entire campaign was - what an absolute con it was and that, in fact, like I said months ago on this board, Trump really represents the status quo politics-as-usual position far more than he presents himself to the public. But my guess is that ardent Trump supporters will be as willing to admit this as ardent Obama supporters were willing to admit it in 2008.

For my earlier thoughts on Trump, please see here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23492.msg563861.html#msg563861
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 06:11:45 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: November 30, 2016, 06:25:13 AM »

Yeah, The Obama appointments and his stimulus plan were very annoying, though his previous votes or notable non-votes were a clue ahead of time. For what the core Trump supporters see and read and think (see comments for the latter), Breitbart.com is the source. They have no 'front page' reporting on Mnuchin. You won't see it if you go to the site and look. They had this yesterday evening, but removed it from sight when the comments were hating: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/29/donald-trump-to-appoint-former-goldman-sachs-partner-steven-mnuchin-as-treasury-secretary/#disqus_thread
Logged
bachelorofbullets
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #145 on: November 30, 2016, 10:09:02 AM »

I look forward to seeing details of the deal struck with Carrier "to keep close to 1,000 jobs in Indy." (Their tweet)

Presumably we're talking about tax breaks, of which I'm often wary because the things those taxes pay for don't disappear, meaning either needs go unmet or a shell game just makes someone **cough cough the public** pay for it elsewhere.

But I'm trying to keep an open mind, and certainly I'm glad if jobs are not lost. (Not lost isn't the same as added, but it's better than lost.)

Carrier is owned by United Technologies (a defense contractor).  It's not hard to apply pressure.  By the way, Trump's tax cuts are expected to add 10 trillion dollars to the national debt, and Trump has no plan on how get the money back.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: November 30, 2016, 10:18:36 AM »

Yes, the tax cuts have been inexplicable. My understanding (from today's W Post) is that even if you use the "dynamic scoring" that supply-sliders try to argue in such things (i.e., the economic growth will result in increased revenues), it's still at best going to add $2-4 trillion to the federal debt over a decade.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: November 30, 2016, 02:10:54 PM »

It's ridiculous. No one believes we're that far over on the Laffer curve.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: December 01, 2016, 04:55:31 AM »

I've been thinking about my comments and CSM's comments on the media and 'bias'. Of course bias is subjective. If one is leaning - what is one leaning toward and what is one leaning from? My comments mainly took as the center the status quo. So a left of right bias would be away from that center. All of the mainline journals have a bias for the status quo, but may lean away to the 'left' or 'right' or most often, toward deeper corporatism, left or right.
So when I mentioned journals that have a 'left' or 'right' bias, that was against the status quo in the US.
I will add that the status quo has shifted over the last couple of years but also significantly since the 80s, and before that it had shifted significantly since the 50s which was a significant shift since the teens and twenties. Maybe there's a 35-year or so pattern.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: December 01, 2016, 11:26:58 AM »

I don't put faith in any particular news outlet. They all have a raison d'etre that might skew their editorial choices and they all hire humans who have their own flaws. ALL traditional mainstream sources make a point of reporting stories (and one must learn to distinguish reporting from editorializing) based on fact. Almost all have a corporate and government bias and some are more slightly to the corporate left and some to the right. None simply post things that they know are factually incorrect or with the conscious intention of leaving the reader with a false impression of the facts, though they all sometimes err or report a selection of facts considered important to their angle, so one should seek out another version to get a full picture. There is no news story that matters to me that I don't check several sources, some mainstream, some independent right, some independent left, There is no outlet that I go straight to as "my news source."  It's important to me to find the root of each story that matters so I will always click through or search out the original source if available. I will usually check a somewhat random selection of outlets to see the headlines and go from there.
Left sources, like Mother Jones and The Nation, and right sources like the Financial Times and The Economist try to adhere to the truth and often report different stories from the mainstream media.
BBC, PBS and formerly Al Jazeera are mainstream sources that are probably the strictest about accuracy and lack of bias.
But it's important to separate bias from straight fiction and intentional manipulation. The New York Times, for instance, is held up as being biased for its negative reporting on Trump. 1. They were still factual and took a long time before they reported several stories that were circulating in less careful publications because they researched and found evidence before they reported. 2. There's a false equivalence in the idea that a journal should be equally negative/positive with each candidate. In this case, there was a lot more negative to say about Trump.  To report the encouragement of white supremacy, say,  as if it's just a routine campaign story balanced against the opponent's negatives would be not balance but a tremendous bias for the white supremacy promoter. 3. anyway the emails were the most covered story of the campaign, including in the NYT and at CNN, so this "pro-Clinton" thing is a myth.
But 1. Is the most pertinent. They still reported facts. The NYT and Post and, yes, CNN, but also the WSJ and the National Review,refrained from reporting outright lies and manipulations such as the ones pushed and passed around on the new right-wing media. That has in the past been relegated to a few tabloids (i.e.  The National Enquirer) that the vast majority of people knew should be taken with a hunk of salt. That has changed.
There are a few relatively unsuccessful equivalent fake and/or intentionally lying and manipulating news sources on the left, but it is literally a multi-billion dollar industry on the right. As I said above, the main campaign tactic of this wing is to personally smear and to appeal to bigotry through manipulation. This has been, part and parcel, the campaign of Trump. Trump didn't invent it, but he was the perfect front-man for it. It's a thoroughly repulsive turn of events.
Beyond this, I will not engage with you unless you indicate good faith in engaging with the seriousness of the topic at hand and with the real issues that the Captain and CSM have raised.

I agree with most of what you are saying here, Emily, though I might add that when a media outlet prints a false story based on false information because it reinforces their pre-set agenda and assumptions about what is true, then I think that ends up being the same thing. The actions might be different - one is more wilful than the other - but the consequences end up being the same:   the public becomes misinformed.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.482 seconds with 21 queries.