|
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. |
Tell us how you really feel about Hillary, General Powell:
"I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect. A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy,not [sic] transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home (according to the NYP)."
Source.
|
He didn’t want to. That email is stolen because privacy is bad.
And I have no love for Powel. He was the guy who testified before congress and the UN making the case for the Iraq war. He is the guy who presented the evidence of WMDs and said it was sufficient proof Iraq had them. He convinced the Senate to authorize the war and was never charged or even asking about if he knew it was a lie.
|
On September 15 2016 04:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Not so much trust but nobody watches the Mass Media anymore expect for older people in their 60's... We all 'watch' mass media, hell it would be difficult to avoid it even for someone intent on doing so. Information from the likes of CBS, WaPo, Fox News, etc is mass media regardless of whether you see it online or on tv or in print.
There's a graph there about age + Show Spoiler +
|
I consume mass media, but I trust them about as much as I trust Uncle Bob when he recounts a fish story at Thanksgiving dinner.
|
Mass News Media. then. the chart you posted proves it, they are in big trouble as advertisers are also in trouble with people cutting the cord in this country at a rapid pace, along with the "News" in this basically just be the Home Shopping Network and an Infomercial put together.
I could easily see big news companies possibly exploring the option of a bailout in a decade or more if they don't change quick enough.
|
That's not exactly a reason to celebrate though. People replacing CNN with infowars and liveleak videos isn't making the situation any better.
|
A group called ScienceDebate sent 20 science and technology questions to the presidential candidates, and the responses are illuminating:
sciencedebate.org
In particular, I think Trump's response on climate change is pretty funny:
There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.
People complaining that Clinton only talks about Trump and not policy should take a look at her answers.
|
To be fair we as the public mostly decided we didn't want to really pay for real news anymore so media companies had to shift priorities around. This hit print media more so than TV but still its a problem.
|
United States42017 Posts
On September 15 2016 04:40 Mercy13 wrote:A group called ScienceDebate sent 20 science and technology questions to the presidential candidates, and the responses are illuminating: sciencedebate.orgIn particular, I think Trump's response on climate change is pretty funny: Show nested quote +There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous. People complaining that Clinton only talks about Trump and not policy should take a look at her answers.
Any attack on the Internet should be considered a provocative act that requires the utmost in protection and, at a minimum, a proportional response that identifies and then eliminates threats to our Internet infrastructure.
Clinton's answer talked about how the nation needed to respond to the changing nature of warfare due to cyberterrorism and other advanced warfare. Trump thought the question was literally about someone launching a missile at the internet.
Although it does make you question the whole "dearie me what is this server all the young kids are talking about" grandma Clinton narrative.
Related
Trump on government snooping
I assume when I pick up my telephone, people are listening to my conversations anyway, you want to know the truth. It’s pretty sad commentary. But I err on the side of security. and for balance Trump on government snooping
The United States government should not spy on its own citizens. That will not happen in a Trump administration.
|
Meanwhile Gary Johnson is too stoned to answer any questions. Seriously though, Clinton is the only person who actually proposed policies.
|
We're really talking about two different issues here. Traditional mass media consumption is clearly going down the toilet. Younger generations aren't interested in print newspapers or cable TV -- even those with money. Media consumption is going to be almost strictly online before long.
As for the falling credibility of mass media, I don't see why anyone would be surprised. For months mass media told us that only conspiracy kooks were questioning Hillary's health and that there was no cause for alarm. Clearly there's some egg on their faces now. People on the right have noticed the obvious shilling like this for decades.
|
On September 15 2016 04:49 xDaunt wrote: We're really talking about two different issues here. Traditional mass media consumption is clearly going down the toilet. Younger generations aren't interested in print newspapers or cable TV -- even those with money. Media consumption is going to be almost strictly online before long.
As for the falling credibility of mass media, I don't see why anyone would be surprised. For months mass media told us that only conspiracy kooks were questioning Hillary's health and that there was no cause for alarm. Clearly there's some egg on their faces now. People on the right have noticed the obvious shilling like this for decades.
I don't understand how a pneumonia infection Friday/last week makes all previous health questioning valid. That's as silly as people thinking teams bombing out of video game tournaments didn't deserve to be invited or that the winners should have been-it's backwards logic.
That said, almost all information is more suspect now than ever. If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's that the internet is flooded with shills.
|
On September 15 2016 04:49 xDaunt wrote: We're really talking about two different issues here. Traditional mass media consumption is clearly going down the toilet. Younger generations aren't interested in print newspapers or cable TV -- even those with money. Media consumption is going to be almost strictly online before long.
As for the falling credibility of mass media, I don't see why anyone would be surprised. For months mass media told us that only conspiracy kooks were questioning Hillary's health and that there was no cause for alarm. Clearly there's some egg on their faces now. People on the right have noticed the obvious shilling like this for decades.
Why do you act like the right doesn't have their MSM shills as well? Mass media were also the ones showing and giving people platforms to talk about Clinton's health. Its not like there were some heros of the internet trying to get the info on her health out there and were shut out.
|
The problem with US media is that they are all for profit organizations who need views more then they need 'the truth'.
Sadly politics is so partisan that a state funded news organization would just become a politician fight over funding.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 15 2016 03:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 03:18 LegalLord wrote:On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol. They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories. I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either. Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand. Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present. Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary. EDIT: I missed this: Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol. They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories. I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either. Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand. EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused: On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: Hillary supporters (rather than reluctant voters) are not really any better. Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them. It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate. As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e). As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices. So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions. First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. .... And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple. My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on. The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs. By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now. Like what? That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
|
Gorsameth has it. The media has every incentive to ignore the truth and do whatever it takes to grab attention. The only thing holding them back right now is that culturally they view themselves like they're all the heroes from Spotlight; they can't completely drive off the clickbait/who needs facts cliff and maintain their fantasy.
|
On September 15 2016 04:49 xDaunt wrote: We're really talking about two different issues here. Traditional mass media consumption is clearly going down the toilet. Younger generations aren't interested in print newspapers or cable TV -- even those with money. Media consumption is going to be almost strictly online before long.
As for the falling credibility of mass media, I don't see why anyone would be surprised. For months mass media told us that only conspiracy kooks were questioning Hillary's health and that there was no cause for alarm. Clearly there's some egg on their faces now. People on the right have noticed the obvious shilling like this for decades. Any claim that Hilary has some outstanding, terrible health conditions is still baseless speculation. Just like it would be if someone said the same about Trump. Pneumonia doesn’t change that any more than the flu would.
|
On September 15 2016 04:49 xDaunt wrote: We're really talking about two different issues here. Traditional mass media consumption is clearly going down the toilet. Younger generations aren't interested in print newspapers or cable TV -- even those with money. Media consumption is going to be almost strictly online before long.
As for the falling credibility of mass media, I don't see why anyone would be surprised. For months mass media told us that only conspiracy kooks were questioning Hillary's health and that there was no cause for alarm. Clearly there's some egg on their faces now. People on the right have noticed the obvious shilling like this for decades. Yes, egg on their faces for not reporting in July that Hillary would come down with pneumonia in September.
That's something that generally falls under "conspiracy kook".
|
On September 15 2016 05:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 04:49 xDaunt wrote: We're really talking about two different issues here. Traditional mass media consumption is clearly going down the toilet. Younger generations aren't interested in print newspapers or cable TV -- even those with money. Media consumption is going to be almost strictly online before long.
As for the falling credibility of mass media, I don't see why anyone would be surprised. For months mass media told us that only conspiracy kooks were questioning Hillary's health and that there was no cause for alarm. Clearly there's some egg on their faces now. People on the right have noticed the obvious shilling like this for decades. Yes, egg on their faces for not reporting in July that Hillary would come down with pneumonia in September. That's something that generally falls under "conspiracy kook".
Everytime I hear the word shill from conservatives I find the lack of self awareness astounding.... you would think one would get used to it at some point.
|
On September 15 2016 04:56 Gorsameth wrote: The problem with US media is that they are all for profit organizations who need views more then they need 'the truth'.
Sadly politics is so partisan that a state funded news organization would just become a politician fight over funding.
News long ago stopped being about having a better informed public. The real sign of trouble was the creation of CNN, but you can see it building back in the 70s when they created the left vs right dynamic for ratings.
|
|
|
|