|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On June 27 2016 10:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2016 07:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Independent of any artificial censorship, Google is actually a perfect example of a system that is designed to lead to information feedback loops and independent reality bubbles. Their whole business model is feeding you what they think you want to click on as efficiently as possible. That's why everyone gets different Google results (unless you do some footwork to anonymize yourself completely). Which is still ultimately driven by what individuals actually click/search for. You don't get some Google/Facebook/Twitter shaped reality bubble until you've spent a long enough time avoiding anything that discredits your personal biases.
assuming you have enough outside influence either in the form of formal education or experience. If you've never visited a university and grown up on conservative talk radio you're not just going to sign up for the WaPo and listen to NPR, because at that point you're already believing that the evil intellectual elite is trying to trick you.
|
On June 27 2016 06:29 farvacola wrote:
I really think that this recent rise in populist politics a la the Tea Party, Trump, and the Brexit has more to do with the changing face of communications and how information spreads among demographics than anything the establishment should have done. Granted, the Democrats and Republicans are as impotent as ever, but there's definitely a pervasive undermining of knowledge/trust systems that seems rooted in how people establish their information communities. Huge portions of the US only expose themselves to media that agrees with their preexisting beliefs and this has become ever easier with the increasingly self-selecting nature of popular access to knowledge.
While there may be a trend of anti-elitism rooted in a rejection of the facticity of facts as though they were the weapons of superiors and nothing more, as has already been brought up here, I think its a mistake to overlook access as the predominant factor.
Yeah of course. Access is always going to set the terms between competing discourses/knowledges. I was trying to point out the underlying kernel of validity to the populist position founded upon a deeply felt and poorly articulated precarity amongst the majority of the electorate.
And @ those people saying that "let's just see what happens with Brexit" as if the "facts" will roll in and affirm how "wrong" the populists were you are totally missing the point. WHOOOOOOOOSH. History has winners and losers and the winner writes the narrative, as I'm sure you are aware. The winner also wins.
On June 27 2016 08:39 Plansix wrote:
The greatest trick the internet pulled tricking everyone into thinking they are seeing everything, when what they see is completely controlled.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Cracks in the awkward marriage between Donald Trump and Republican leaders grew wider on Sunday, as Senate stalwarts recoiled from their presumptive presidential nominee, his campaign moved in for a closer embrace, and the businessman fell freely in polls after a weekend romp in Scotland.
The most conspicuous silence in the room came from Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, who repeatedly refused to say whether he thought Trump was qualified to be president.
“Look, I’ll leave that to the American people to decide,” he told ABC’s This Week. “It’s a long time until November. And the burden, obviously, will be on him to convince people that he can handle this job.”
McConnell admitted Trump’s campaign has shown clear signs of disarray a month after the nomination was secured: its campaign manager was fired and it was revealed it had only $1.3m in cash and had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at Trump’s Florida resort and on hats. The Democratic presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, in contrast reported more than $42.5m raised.
The architect of Republican victories in the Senate, McConnell wrote in a new memoir that the three most important words in politics are “cash on hand”. On Sunday, he said Trump could not win with such weak fundraising.
“He needs to catch up and catch up fast,” he said. “Where the money comes from, whether it comes out of his own pocket or from others, it doesn’t really make all that much difference. But he’s going to have to have way more than he has now in order to run the kind of campaign he needs to win.”
One of the most powerful members of Congress, McConnell has acted as a diplomat between the candidate and lifelong Republicans horrified by Trump’s disregard for facts, support from racist groups and wide deviations from central conservative proposals.
This week, two top advisers to George W Bush endorsed Hillary Clinton, and prominent conservative writer George Will unregistered with the party. One Republican senator, Mark Kirk of Illinois, has started running an anti-Trump ad to support his re-election campaign.
McConnell tried to reassure Republicans, saying the party’s platform would be written by trusted members of the party – an implicit rebuke of many of Trump’s proposals.
Source
|
Why does the media keep bringing up his campaign finances when he raised 12 million dollars in like a week and forgave 50 million in debt and beat a dozen other candidates who ran against him in the primaries with far larger amounts of funding? It sounds like high-school gossip the way they're trying to paint a narrative out of nothing.
|
On June 27 2016 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +In other good news for Clinton, Sanders voters are already coming around to supporting her. For weeks, Clinton supporters have groused about the disloyalty of Bernie Sanders’ supporters. And it is true that, in the last Post-ABC poll, Clinton only won 71 percent of Sanders voters. But despite the acrimony of the Democratic primary, 81 percent of Sanders backers now support Clinton against Trump. Only 8 percent of Sanders voters now support Trump, compared with 10 percent of all Republicans who support Clinton. (Clinton die-hards should think twice before complaining about Sanders backers’ supposed foot-dragging. At this point in 2008, 22 percent of Clinton primary supporters said they would vote for John McCain in the fall, and 16 percent did so.)
Source
Speaking of facticity, I think they are going to need to increase the MoE's on these polls or something...
Also I wouldn't count on them debating at all. They've both hinted they might not and the media (MSNBC at least) has already said they wouldn't think that's strange.
|
On June 27 2016 12:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Why does the media keep bringing up his campaign finances when he raised 12 million dollars in like a week and forgave 50 million in debt and beat a dozen other candidates who ran against him in the primaries with far larger amounts of funding? It sounds like high-school gossip the way they're trying to paint a narrative out of nothing.
It will tell you in alot of the analysis pieces if you actually bother to read them. Before Trump was campaigning to beat people who suck and primaries dont require as much ground game. Now he is competing against someone who is organized and understands politics and the requirements to get people to vote much better than he does.
And more importantly this money isnt just for him, its for democrats running in their respective areas. If they dont get help from him they will have a hard time campaigning for him.
Whatever complaints people might have about money and politics the reality unfortunately is that it takes money to get people to vote because people are idiots.
|
On June 27 2016 12:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Why does the media keep bringing up his campaign finances when he raised 12 million dollars in like a week and forgave 50 million in debt and beat a dozen other candidates who ran against him in the primaries with far larger amounts of funding? It sounds like high-school gossip the way they're trying to paint a narrative out of nothing.
You deny that his campaign finance situation going into the general is a problem? Don't forget about the rest of the Republican ticket (and the GOTV effort in a general).
|
On June 27 2016 07:17 pmh wrote:
Time to put on some censorship then,just to make sure the plebs make the right choice with the next election.
One of the bigger offenders is google,filtering results when you search for Hilary Clinton for example. As showed a bit earlier in this thread by another poster.
A conspiracy that actually turned out to be true. No wonder people are looking for alternative sources. And now there is a source for everyone!
The democrats when they want to know about Clinton they can use google! Makes sure you wont see the bad things.
And the anti Clinton people when they want to know about Clinton they can go to trumps twitter! Makes sure you wont find anything good. Isnt it just wonderfull,everyone can live in his or her own reality.
Most of the people here do already anyway.
That was a hilarious video because it forgets to tell you that Google actually is designed to give you what you want, not "true" facts. Autocomplete and auto-correct is based on your own searches and habits.
This is the problem with conspiracy theories...
|
Anti-Trump forces will be sending an "advance team" to Cleveland this week to begin preparing their effort to strip the Republican presidential nomination from Donald Trump.
In a Sunday night conference call with allies around the country, the leaders of the effort described a slow-building organization that would begin setting up a command center outside the arena where the Republican National Convention will be held next month.
"We've built a list of every delegate in the country," said Steve Lonegan, the former New Jersey director for Ted Cruz's failed presidential campaign, who's now leading the anti-Trump Courageous Conservatives PAC.
Lonegan said his group would be identifying three regional field directors and is in talks with "key people" to name an executive director for the effort.
The central focus of these anti-Trump activists is a push to "unbind" the delegates who will choose the GOP nominee at the convention. Many are subject to party rules and state laws that require them to vote based on the results of primaries and caucuses. Unbinding delegates would free them to vote their conscience at the convention at a time when Trump is mired in miserable poll numbers and facing a backlash from conservatives who don't trust him.
Even as delegates on the call predicted victory in their uphill struggle, there were clear divisions. Lonegan emphasized that if Trump emerged from the convention as the GOP nominee, he'd work to help him ensure that Hillary Clinton isn't elected president. He said he'd "denouce" Republicans who suggested otherwise.
But other participants described Trump's ascendance in near-apocalyptic terms and made no pledge of support.
Source
|
On June 27 2016 13:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Anti-Trump forces will be sending an "advance team" to Cleveland this week to begin preparing their effort to strip the Republican presidential nomination from Donald Trump.
In a Sunday night conference call with allies around the country, the leaders of the effort described a slow-building organization that would begin setting up a command center outside the arena where the Republican National Convention will be held next month.
"We've built a list of every delegate in the country," said Steve Lonegan, the former New Jersey director for Ted Cruz's failed presidential campaign, who's now leading the anti-Trump Courageous Conservatives PAC.
Lonegan said his group would be identifying three regional field directors and is in talks with "key people" to name an executive director for the effort.
The central focus of these anti-Trump activists is a push to "unbind" the delegates who will choose the GOP nominee at the convention. Many are subject to party rules and state laws that require them to vote based on the results of primaries and caucuses. Unbinding delegates would free them to vote their conscience at the convention at a time when Trump is mired in miserable poll numbers and facing a backlash from conservatives who don't trust him.
Even as delegates on the call predicted victory in their uphill struggle, there were clear divisions. Lonegan emphasized that if Trump emerged from the convention as the GOP nominee, he'd work to help him ensure that Hillary Clinton isn't elected president. He said he'd "denouce" Republicans who suggested otherwise.
But other participants described Trump's ascendance in near-apocalyptic terms and made no pledge of support. Source
The question still remains: Who would be better than Trump at this point such that the effect of giving voters the finger doesn't matter?
|
Bloomberg. Where's the Bloomberg cheerleader?
|
On June 27 2016 06:29 farvacola wrote:
I really think that this recent rise in populist politics a la the Tea Party, Trump, and the Brexit has more to do with the changing face of communications and how information spreads among demographics than anything the establishment should have done. Granted, the Democrats and Republicans are as impotent as ever, but there's definitely a pervasive undermining of knowledge/trust systems that seems rooted in how people establish their information communities. Huge portions of the US only expose themselves to media that agrees with their preexisting beliefs and this has become ever easier with the increasingly self-selecting nature of popular access to knowledge.
While there may be a trend of anti-elitism rooted in a rejection of the facticity of facts as though they were the weapons of superiors and nothing more, as has already been brought up here, I think its a mistake to overlook access as the predominant factor.
to pinpoint that for you - it's because people don't talk to each other anymore, in real life.
you see/meet someone, talk about your day, your job, then suck in some of that gossip, that mundane bullshit, maybe some sports, fashion later, sex/porn obviously and after you've drank enough or got high enough, you go to bed; rinse and repeat.
the golden age of information and people seem to know less and less about everything; how's that for irony.
|
On June 27 2016 16:22 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2016 06:29 farvacola wrote:
I really think that this recent rise in populist politics a la the Tea Party, Trump, and the Brexit has more to do with the changing face of communications and how information spreads among demographics than anything the establishment should have done. Granted, the Democrats and Republicans are as impotent as ever, but there's definitely a pervasive undermining of knowledge/trust systems that seems rooted in how people establish their information communities. Huge portions of the US only expose themselves to media that agrees with their preexisting beliefs and this has become ever easier with the increasingly self-selecting nature of popular access to knowledge.
While there may be a trend of anti-elitism rooted in a rejection of the facticity of facts as though they were the weapons of superiors and nothing more, as has already been brought up here, I think its a mistake to overlook access as the predominant factor. to pinpoint that for you - it's because people don't talk to each other anymore, in real life. you see/meet someone, talk about your day, your job, then suck in some of that gossip, that mundane bullshit, maybe some sports, fashion later, sex/porn obviously and after you've drank enough or got high enough, you go to bed; rinse and repeat. the golden age of information and people seem to know less and less about everything; how's that for irony.
Maybe the people you know just suck?
|
On June 27 2016 17:04 FuzzyJAM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2016 16:22 xM(Z wrote:On June 27 2016 06:29 farvacola wrote:
I really think that this recent rise in populist politics a la the Tea Party, Trump, and the Brexit has more to do with the changing face of communications and how information spreads among demographics than anything the establishment should have done. Granted, the Democrats and Republicans are as impotent as ever, but there's definitely a pervasive undermining of knowledge/trust systems that seems rooted in how people establish their information communities. Huge portions of the US only expose themselves to media that agrees with their preexisting beliefs and this has become ever easier with the increasingly self-selecting nature of popular access to knowledge.
While there may be a trend of anti-elitism rooted in a rejection of the facticity of facts as though they were the weapons of superiors and nothing more, as has already been brought up here, I think its a mistake to overlook access as the predominant factor. to pinpoint that for you - it's because people don't talk to each other anymore, in real life. you see/meet someone, talk about your day, your job, then suck in some of that gossip, that mundane bullshit, maybe some sports, fashion later, sex/porn obviously and after you've drank enough or got high enough, you go to bed; rinse and repeat. the golden age of information and people seem to know less and less about everything; how's that for irony. Maybe the people you know just suck?
... can you describe some of those people that don't suck(you implied they exist in a place near you) and what you talk with them?(there have to be opposing views, conflicting ideas and ideals and would have to give at least the appearance of getting through; you know, the conversations).
few people talking about how racist and/or xenophobe other people are, won't cut it.
|
Come the election it'll be far higher than 55% of Sanders supporters voting Clinton.Maybe 75%.
|
A slot at the GOP convention used to be a career-maker — a chance to make your name on the big stage and to catch the eye of the Republican donors and activists who make or break campaigns.
In the year of Trump: Not so much.
With the convention less than a month away, POLITICO contacted more than 50 prominent governors, senators, and House members to gauge their interest in speaking. Only a few said they were open to it — and everyone else said they either weren’t planning on it, didn’t want to, weren’t going to Cleveland at all, or simply didn’t respond.
“I am not attending,” said South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who is overseeing the high-profile congressional Republican investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of the attacks on Benghazi. Gowdy, who said he was taking his family to the beach instead, hasn’t gone to conventions in the past and didn’t plan to now. “I’m not,” said South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, a former two-term governor. “But hope you have a good Thursday!” “Don’t know,” said Sean Duffy, a reality TV star-turned-Wisconsin congressman, “I haven’t thought about it.” Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo: "I won't be there.”
The widespread lack of interest, Republicans say, boils down to one thing: the growing consensus that it’s best to steer clear of Trump.
“Everyone has to make their own choice, but at this point 70 percent of the American public doesn’t like Donald Trump. That’s as toxic as we’ve seen in American politics,” said Stuart Stevens, a longtime Republican strategist who helped to craft the party’s 2012 convention. “Normally people want to speak at national conventions. It launched Barack Obama’s political career.”
Trump’s team is tight-lipped about who they’ll be extending speaking invitations to, as is the RNC. But many of the party's most prominent pols say they’re flat-out uninterested — and that Trump should look elsewhere. Their rejections range from terse to abrupt, and — in a year otherwise lacking GOP unity — they seem to be using the same talking points.
Source
|
On June 27 2016 21:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A slot at the GOP convention used to be a career-maker — a chance to make your name on the big stage and to catch the eye of the Republican donors and activists who make or break campaigns.
In the year of Trump: Not so much.
With the convention less than a month away, POLITICO contacted more than 50 prominent governors, senators, and House members to gauge their interest in speaking. Only a few said they were open to it — and everyone else said they either weren’t planning on it, didn’t want to, weren’t going to Cleveland at all, or simply didn’t respond.
“I am not attending,” said South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who is overseeing the high-profile congressional Republican investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of the attacks on Benghazi. Gowdy, who said he was taking his family to the beach instead, hasn’t gone to conventions in the past and didn’t plan to now. “I’m not,” said South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, a former two-term governor. “But hope you have a good Thursday!” “Don’t know,” said Sean Duffy, a reality TV star-turned-Wisconsin congressman, “I haven’t thought about it.” Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo: "I won't be there.”
The widespread lack of interest, Republicans say, boils down to one thing: the growing consensus that it’s best to steer clear of Trump.
“Everyone has to make their own choice, but at this point 70 percent of the American public doesn’t like Donald Trump. That’s as toxic as we’ve seen in American politics,” said Stuart Stevens, a longtime Republican strategist who helped to craft the party’s 2012 convention. “Normally people want to speak at national conventions. It launched Barack Obama’s political career.”
Trump’s team is tight-lipped about who they’ll be extending speaking invitations to, as is the RNC. But many of the party's most prominent pols say they’re flat-out uninterested — and that Trump should look elsewhere. Their rejections range from terse to abrupt, and — in a year otherwise lacking GOP unity — they seem to be using the same talking points. Source
Sounds like we'll get a nice few hours of Bachman and Perry talking about how they love Trump.
|
On June 27 2016 13:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2016 13:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Anti-Trump forces will be sending an "advance team" to Cleveland this week to begin preparing their effort to strip the Republican presidential nomination from Donald Trump.
In a Sunday night conference call with allies around the country, the leaders of the effort described a slow-building organization that would begin setting up a command center outside the arena where the Republican National Convention will be held next month.
"We've built a list of every delegate in the country," said Steve Lonegan, the former New Jersey director for Ted Cruz's failed presidential campaign, who's now leading the anti-Trump Courageous Conservatives PAC.
Lonegan said his group would be identifying three regional field directors and is in talks with "key people" to name an executive director for the effort.
The central focus of these anti-Trump activists is a push to "unbind" the delegates who will choose the GOP nominee at the convention. Many are subject to party rules and state laws that require them to vote based on the results of primaries and caucuses. Unbinding delegates would free them to vote their conscience at the convention at a time when Trump is mired in miserable poll numbers and facing a backlash from conservatives who don't trust him.
Even as delegates on the call predicted victory in their uphill struggle, there were clear divisions. Lonegan emphasized that if Trump emerged from the convention as the GOP nominee, he'd work to help him ensure that Hillary Clinton isn't elected president. He said he'd "denouce" Republicans who suggested otherwise.
But other participants described Trump's ascendance in near-apocalyptic terms and made no pledge of support. Source The question still remains: Who would be better than Trump at this point such that the effect of giving voters the finger doesn't matter?
probably noone; which is why some (myself included) have considered the republicans screwed in the presidential race for a few months now.
|
On June 27 2016 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2016 07:17 pmh wrote:
Time to put on some censorship then,just to make sure the plebs make the right choice with the next election.
One of the bigger offenders is google,filtering results when you search for Hilary Clinton for example. As showed a bit earlier in this thread by another poster.
A conspiracy that actually turned out to be true. No wonder people are looking for alternative sources. And now there is a source for everyone!
The democrats when they want to know about Clinton they can use google! Makes sure you wont see the bad things.
And the anti Clinton people when they want to know about Clinton they can go to trumps twitter! Makes sure you wont find anything good. Isnt it just wonderfull,everyone can live in his or her own reality.
Most of the people here do already anyway.
That was a hilarious video because it forgets to tell you that Google actually is designed to give you what you want, not "true" facts. Autocomplete and auto-correct is based on your own searches and habits. This is the problem with conspiracy theories...
No matter what you do/search, Hillary Clinton ind/cri will never be autocompleted to criminal charges/indictment.
On any other search engine (even ones I have never used before) it is the case, for every other presidential candidate, it is the case.
Google clearly messed with their algorithm to stop this from happening.
|
Uhhh, it autocompletes to Hillary indictment for me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://rydersword.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/greatest-trick-devil-pulled.jpg)
