In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
You missed the good part where Jon Stewart talks about how no one can be sure of what Hillary actually thinks because even she doesn't know, and compares her to a mac running a shoddy simulation of Windows:
God I miss seeing Jon on a regular basis. His understanding of the problems go far beyond what most political experts and politicians know. He might have a left wing bias, but he's in no way in the pocket of the democratic party and will speak out against any party that is doing a bad job.
Noah, Wilmore, Oliver, and Bee all pale in comparison to what Jon used to do. Only Colbert used to be comparable, but his format is so different now that it's not competing in the same category.
Glad to see the whole thing posted and I watched every minute of it.
Yeah, he is a good man, the proof of it is that he desired to get out of all that. His interviewer is such an idiot tho.
On May 11 2016 16:04 zatic wrote: So will Trump now complete the primary circuit even though he is the only one left running?
I guess he still technically has to reach the magic number of delegates to avoid a contested convention, although it's really a formality at this point. He's already shifting his rhetoric for the general election (focusing on Hillary), which is what he needs to be doing. For the remaining states, he'll still make himself visible to show those voters that he cares about those votes.
On May 11 2016 17:25 WhiteDog wrote: Yeah, the problem is that all this important discussion (on economic policy and such) is lost with the strategy the pro sanders are doing right now, because they are making it personal / subjective, akin to a collective discussion on the topic of "Hillary Clinton". This might actually a subtle trap made by the hillary campaign, since she's so uninteresting from a policy point of view.
I'm so bored about the anti trump media. Really just envision that, I live on the other side of the ocean, half the newspapers I read quoted Jon Stewart on Trump, they all made at least an article basically arguing that Trump for president is bad and I've yet to see a valid and thoughtful argument on anything that is not related to Trump personality but that take into account his policy proposals. Now I watch Stewart entire interview and I entirely agree with him, but at no point is he arguing that Hillary is good in any way ; voting Hillary is basically damage control. I'm not for Trump at all, first of all I'm french/canadian, and I don't vote anymore in my own country, but god damn the media and our institutions are the reason we're in such situation, because they make everything personal while everytime an important discussion is brought up they simplify it until it's pointless.
I'm not sure I would blame the media really. I blame the people themselves.
The media is a business like any other, in it to make money off of news and we, the people, want more news faster. Its more profitable for the media to have dozens of stations compete with 'pointless simplified news' rather then for some to focus on actual high quality pieces for 'intellectuals'.
The market goes where the demand is. We created the overwhelming demand for news that can be absorbed in 2 seconds and gets distributed 24 hours a day so there is no time for reflection and investigation.
I don't know what you guys are talking about.
I read French, English and American newspapers, and we have PLENTY of in depth articles in every serious newspapers about the respective platforms and proposals of both Clinton and Trump. We know in details what Trump has been saying, what his program is, and, yes, everybody is fucking horrified because it's fucking horrifying. And Clinton's program is also under intense scrutiny. Open the Guardian, the New York Times or Le Monde and you will find a shitload of reliable information about what this campaign is really about.
Clinton's is by all mean at the left of what the Dems have traditionally be. I don't know what you guys complain about, it's a VERY progressive program, and, contrarily to Sanders', it's also realistically achievable and doesn't violate the laws of arithmetics.
WhiteDog: politics is most of the time about damage control. It's also about patience, incremental changes and compromises. If you take Obama presidency, it has been intensely frustrating for many reasons, but he leaves America a better country with healthcare system it could only dream ten years ago, a better international image, a comparatively excellent economic recovery and a functional badly needed financial reform.
Clinton is going to the same direction. Minimum wages, parental leaves, climate change action, high education and progressive taxation, those are policies that are needed and will make a gigantic difference. That's her platform, and there is no reason to believe she won't achieve at least some of those if she is elected.
Now if people want to keep being stupid and not vote because they don't have everything they want, that duh, the system is fucked, and that between all the above and a grotesque Mussolini wanted to deport people, bully foreign countries, fucking default the debt and so on, and that make alliances with white nationalists, there is no difference, there is little to be done. Can't force people to act responsibly if they don't want to.
Sadly on that topic, right wingers are a bit less stupid, and this is actually how they win. They win because they go voting.
Le Monde reliable information ? Come on... Read anything on the economy, on europe, on trump from them and tell me it's thoughtful and nuanced ? For god sakes, their page on the economy are awful. The only newspaper that never disappoint me is le monde diplomatique, that's it. Huff post seems like a good read that's true, altho I don't read it that much. Guardian too.
You're certainly right that min wage, parental leaves and climage change action are important (and all those topic are discussed because activists and various political forces forced Hillary to move on those topic, nothing else), but it doesn't change the big picture ; which is that of resentment/lack of credibility for both institutions and media, etc. A big part of the discontent in regards to Obama is there actually ; while he was successful from a certain point of view (healthcare - and overall I believe him to be a great politician), he didn't really respond to the hope for "change" (which are institutional and not marginal) he created and his presidency actually exposed, more than anything, the institutional problems that the US had (leading to both Trump and Sanders as "anti-system" candidates). You can accumulate laws, reforms and "progress" all you want, when it's the entire system that is viewed as corrupted (true or not), what you need is institutional change (looking at the finance of parties, at the way the congress works and manage its money, regulate the relationship between politics, media and business, etc.). Also, to me, the idea of left / right has long lost any kind of relevance. The left is not homogeneous, there are plenty of "conservatism" in the left (the fight for the environment is deeply conservative for exemple), and what you call the right is very "progressive" from a very neoclassical standpoint ; to most republicans, growth and money are way more important than anything else, even "familly values".
On May 11 2016 20:50 WhiteDog wrote: Le Monde reliable information ? Come on... Read anything on the economy, on europe, on trump about them and tell me it's thoughtful and nuanced ? For god sakes, their page on the economy are aweful. The only newspaper that never disappoint me is le monde diplomatique, that's it. Huff post seems like a good read that's true, altho I don't read it that much. Guardian too.
You're certainly right that min wage, parental leaves and climage change action are important (and all those topic are discissed because activists and various political forces forced Hillary to move on those topic, nothing else), but it doesn't change the big picture ; which is that of increasing inequalities and resentment/lack of credibility for both institutions and media, etc. A big part of the discontent in regards to Obama is there actually ; while he was successful from a certain point of view (healthcare - and overall I believe him to be a great politician), he didn't really respond to the hope for "change" (which are institutional and not marginal) he created and his presidency actually exposed, more than anything, the institutional problems that the US had (leading to both Trump and Sanders as "anti-system" candidates). You can accumulate laws, reforms and "progress" all you want, when it's the entire system that is viewed as corrupted (true or not), what you need is institutional change (looking at the finance of parties, at the way the congress works and manage its money, regulate the relationship between politics, media and business, etc.). Also, to me, the idea of left / right has long lost any kind of relevance. The left is not homogeneous, there are plenty of "conservatism" in the left (the fight for the environment is deeply conservative for exemple), and what you call the right is very "progressive" from a very neoclassical standpoint ; to them growth and money are way more important than anything else, even "familly values".
What matters to me is how people, and especially poor / middle class people live, and our future to all. That's what politics is about.
Healthcare, parental leave, minimum salary that changes people's life, and makes it better. And the difference in program between Trump and Clinton on climate change could change the future of our species, very literally.
You have the right to find that people's life and our future to all is detail and not the big picture. I don't.
A friend of mine knows someone who died of cancer because he didn't have enough to pay a proper insurance and ended up not covered. With Obamacare, he would still be alive. You might dismiss that as detail because of some grand dream of "changing the system". Go tell that to his family.
I understand people want a radical change in the system, but things don't happen overnight. People got disappointed by Obama because what they expected was simply not possible. He did a gigantic lot and will be remembered as one of the president that really changed America. As I said politics is not about revolutions that solve all the problems in one month, it's about patient, incremental changes that add up (or not). Politics is about making things a bit better or simply worse. Clinton will make things a bit better, as Obama did. Trump will make them an awful lot worse. That's pretty much it.
Le Monde Diplo is a joke. I used to read it regularly, but they are so ideologically biased and militant that most of their articles are just ridiculous. I don't think any hardcore far left media is a reliable source of information anyway. I don't like Le Monde, in fact I cherry pick what I read there (Economy is bad, South America is god awful also), but you find very good articles from time to time. Same in Libération. Their coverage of the American campaign has been mostly good though : http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/
World, just like the media, is not black and white. Now our actions have consequences, and the US election will have gigantic repercussions. Playing the card "it doesn't matter anyway, they are all crooked, bla bla" is immature and irresponsible.
I don't see why people have so much beef with not voting. If you don't vote in this usa election then your vote effectively goes to the winner. If you don't vote then you indicate that you are fine with this. Clinton going to win anyway right? so whats the problem with people not voting?
People in the former ussr,when they had elections you could pick between 2 communists. Many people did not vote because the more people voted,the more the government could claim that their system was working. Sometimes not voting is the only option you have to protest against a certain system. Or going to the streets and occupy wallstreet or something.
Come on, there's some great pieces in there. Their article on this campaign are pretty good for exemple.
I understand people want a radical change in the system, but things don't happen overnight. As I said politics is not about revolutions that solve all the problems in one month, it's about patient, incremental changes that add up (or not). Politics is about making things a bit better or simply worse. Clinton will make things a bit better, as Obama did. Trump will make them an awful lot worse. That's pretty much it.
Problem is that, in today's world, the system largely produce the policies (the TIPP is a good exemple of that). I don't believe in the progressive idea of incremental change (step by step highway to heaven), and I'm very conservative from a certain point of view - most notably from an environmental point of view. There are things that are supposed to be protected, not "improved", like a species, a landscape or a forest. And overall, change is rarely uniform, and rarely, if ever, positive for everybody. The arguments you gave are all right, and I understands them, but the exact same was said about the current french president (for what result ?). You are giving your trust to a candidate three times : he will both do what he says he will and have the power to do what he says, while, at the same time, fight any kind of policies/evolution that will negatively impact the situation of its people. Many people do not wish to make that leap of faith anymore and want clear institutional change ; it's not an utopian position.
What matters to me is how people, and especially poor / middle class people live, and our future to all. That's what politics is about.
Yeah, it's also the case for me, but everything is in the word "live".
A friend of mine knows someone who died of cancer because he didn't have enough to pay a proper insurance and ended up not covered. With Obamacare, he would still be alive. You might dismiss that as detail because of some grand dream of "changing the system". Go tell that to his family.
Kind of a cheap attack, I'm very fiercely for public healthcare - it's an institution, a systemic change.
You missed the good part where Jon Stewart talks about how no one can be sure of what Hillary actually thinks because even she doesn't know, and compares her to a mac running a shoddy simulation of Windows:
God I miss seeing Jon on a regular basis. His understanding of the problems go far beyond what most political experts and politicians know. He might have a left wing bias, but he's in no way in the pocket of the democratic party and will speak out against any party that is doing a bad job.
Noah, Wilmore, Oliver, and Bee all pale in comparison to what Jon used to do. Only Colbert used to be comparable, but his format is so different now that it's not competing in the same category.
Glad to see the whole thing posted and I watched every minute of it.
They all lack the tired, yet earnest hope that we can all do better that John has. As much as the Daily Show poked at media and the terrible news coverage, I always felt John hoped the news outlets would take some responsibility. But after well over a decade of shit getting worse, he just had to move on for his own good.
And to a previous commenter, I think his criticisms of Clinton are totally valid. But I also know that Clinton would take the criticism as part of the job and might even listen. I have no idea what Trump would do, but there are a lot of ways the White House can act against the press all on their own.
On May 11 2016 20:50 WhiteDog wrote: Le Monde reliable information ? Come on... Read anything on the economy, on europe, on trump about them and tell me it's thoughtful and nuanced ? For god sakes, their page on the economy are aweful. The only newspaper that never disappoint me is le monde diplomatique, that's it. Huff post seems like a good read that's true, altho I don't read it that much. Guardian too.
You're certainly right that min wage, parental leaves and climage change action are important (and all those topic are discissed because activists and various political forces forced Hillary to move on those topic, nothing else), but it doesn't change the big picture ; which is that of increasing inequalities and resentment/lack of credibility for both institutions and media, etc. A big part of the discontent in regards to Obama is there actually ; while he was successful from a certain point of view (healthcare - and overall I believe him to be a great politician), he didn't really respond to the hope for "change" (which are institutional and not marginal) he created and his presidency actually exposed, more than anything, the institutional problems that the US had (leading to both Trump and Sanders as "anti-system" candidates). You can accumulate laws, reforms and "progress" all you want, when it's the entire system that is viewed as corrupted (true or not), what you need is institutional change (looking at the finance of parties, at the way the congress works and manage its money, regulate the relationship between politics, media and business, etc.). Also, to me, the idea of left / right has long lost any kind of relevance. The left is not homogeneous, there are plenty of "conservatism" in the left (the fight for the environment is deeply conservative for exemple), and what you call the right is very "progressive" from a very neoclassical standpoint ; to them growth and money are way more important than anything else, even "familly values".
What matters to me is how people, and especially poor / middle class people live, and our future to all. That's what politics is about.
Healthcare, parental leave, minimum salary that changes people's life, and makes it better. And the difference in program between Trump and Clinton on climate change could change the future of our species, very literally.
You have the right to find that people's life and our future to all is detail and not the big picture. I don't.
A friend of mine knows someone who died of cancer because he didn't have enough to pay a proper insurance and ended up not covered. With Obamacare, he would still be alive. You might dismiss that as detail because of some grand dream of "changing the system". Go tell that to his family.
I understand people want a radical change in the system, but things don't happen overnight. People got disappointed by Obama because what they expected was simply not possible. He did a gigantic lot and will be remembered as one of the president that really changed America. As I said politics is not about revolutions that solve all the problems in one month, it's about patient, incremental changes that add up (or not). Politics is about making things a bit better or simply worse. Clinton will make things a bit better, as Obama did. Trump will make them an awful lot worse. That's pretty much it.
Le Monde Diplo is a joke. I used to read it regularly, but they are so ideologically biased and militant that most of their articles are just ridiculous. I don't think any hardcore far left media is a reliable source of information anyway. I don't like Le Monde, in fact I cherry pick what I read there (Economy is bad, South America is god awful also), but you find very good articles from time to time. Same in Libération. Their coverage of the American campaign has been mostly good though : http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/
World, just like the media, is not black and white. Now our actions have consequences, and the US election will have gigantic repercussions. Playing the card "it doesn't matter anyway, they are all crooked, bla bla" is immature and irresponsible.
Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.
Funnily enough, whenever I listened to the speeches and read the platform of Bill, Hillary, and Obama, they sound like they could be European left-wingers and champions of the poor and wretched. However, how can anyone honestly believe this about the Democratic Party when they were very much in favor of passing free trade deals, dismantling our welfare state, throwing up prisons and, continue to wage war? (boots on the ground is not a peace approach) Of course you can talk about the horrors of Republicans, but I know damn well that if Republicans headed these policies, liberals would be up in arms in crying foul. In regards to the myth that is especially promoted by those living outside the US, things may have stabilized, but take a drive through middle America and you see a Third World country and a white working class that is undergoing what African Americans experienced during the crack epidemic. Crime, poverty, and drug abuse has become so bad that the most discussed issue during the Maine primary was heroine addiction. This is the reality of what much of America is undergoing. The liberal class can talk all they want about the horrific racism of Trump of wanting to build a wall (which will never happen), but they happily ignore the horrors caused to millions of Mexican farmers who had to compete with global prices causing an extreme dilemma of either immigrating to America or joining a cartel. Trump at least opposed NAFTA and TPP. I guess the point I am trying to make is that this kind of apologism that is constantly being displayed for the Democrats is outright infuriating. Keep talking about hope and progress all you want, but when things seem to be going backwards under a Democratic presidency in the same way if not more so than a Republican, then you get demagogues like Trump and the rise of extremists who have nothing but contempt for the "moderates" that rule society.
On May 11 2016 20:50 WhiteDog wrote: Le Monde reliable information ? Come on... Read anything on the economy, on europe, on trump from them and tell me it's thoughtful and nuanced ? For god sakes, their page on the economy are aweful. The only newspaper that never disappoint me is le monde diplomatique, that's it. Huff post seems like a good read that's true, altho I don't read it that much. Guardian too.
You're certainly right that min wage, parental leaves and climage change action are important (and all those topic are discussed because activists and various political forces forced Hillary to move on those topic, nothing else), but it doesn't change the big picture ; which is that of resentment/lack of credibility for both institutions and media, etc. A big part of the discontent in regards to Obama is there actually ; while he was successful from a certain point of view (healthcare - and overall I believe him to be a great politician), he didn't really respond to the hope for "change" (which are institutional and not marginal) he created and his presidency actually exposed, more than anything, the institutional problems that the US had (leading to both Trump and Sanders as "anti-system" candidates). You can accumulate laws, reforms and "progress" all you want, when it's the entire system that is viewed as corrupted (true or not), what you need is institutional change (looking at the finance of parties, at the way the congress works and manage its money, regulate the relationship between politics, media and business, etc.). Also, to me, the idea of left / right has long lost any kind of relevance. The left is not homogeneous, there are plenty of "conservatism" in the left (the fight for the environment is deeply conservative for exemple), and what you call the right is very "progressive" from a very neoclassical standpoint ; to most republicans, growth and money are way more important than anything else, even "familly values".
lol dude just called huffpo reliable
reliably full of shit more like (to clarify the site not you whitedog)\
it's like buzzfeed, except buzzfeed doesn't advertise it as some sort of actual journalism. plus the actual buzzfeed news section isn't completely terrible.
Yeah huffington post is terrible. It's basically a periodical in online form. How credibal is time magazine? Exactly. The blatant bias doesnt help either.
On May 11 2016 23:33 WhiteDog wrote: I only know the huff post through some facebook post tho, so forgive me for my ignorance.
Huffpo was news, then Americans crucified it for not being more like Buzzfeed by not buying it. Now American news is Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed lite. Not because the Media wants to be that, but because the American people only consume that.
People want to blame "the media" for being this entity of evil trying to control the message when the media is just a seller of goods and will only sell what people want to buy. The only reason it looks like shit is because the people want shit and not news.
Yeah it has gone downhill and has become more like buzzfeed. However, it was always shit, but it's now shit that attracts people. Online and hands on periodicals should be taken with a grain of salt.
Donald Trump’s campaign has enlisted influential conservative economists to revise his tax package and make it more politically palatable by slashing the $10 trillion sticker price. Their main targets: Lifting the top tax rate from Trump’s original plan and expanding the number of people who would have to pay taxes under it.
Trump’s initial proposal, rolled out with fanfare at Trump Tower in Manhattan last September, has been in the spotlight since he became the presumptive Republican nominee last week and promptly declared that it was only a starting point for any negotiations with congressional Democrats, should he become president.
But it turns out Trump’s team is open to revamping it far sooner than that; the campaign last month contacted at least two prominent conservative economists — Larry Kudlow, the CNBC television host, and Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and a longtime Wall Street Journal writer — to spearhead an effort to update the package.
“What we’ve been trying to do is help advise him a little bit to try to reduce the cost of the plan” and still encourage economic growth, Moore said in an interview.
Trump’s initial plan has come under criticism from both the right and left for vastly expanding the deficit, with the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimating it would add $10 trillion to the federal deficit in the next decade. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has moved quickly to tattoo the plan’s steep price tag onto Trump, with her team holding a call on Monday calling it a reckless expansion of debt.
EPT
