EPTCould be why Trump is focusing more on blasting the media than on his own plans these days
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5621
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9137 Posts
Could be why Trump is focusing more on blasting the media than on his own plans these days | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18125 Posts
On October 17 2016 23:48 farvacola wrote: The remarkable thing that happens to poor kids when you help their parents with rent Do the vouchers work just as well? It seems so, so I don't really care. It's quite obvious that some type of housing solution is required. Of course, if vouchers are more expensive and not demonstrably better (or more desirable along some other axis), then you should obviously go with the cheaper solution, but vouchers at least don't seem to be bad. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:03 Acrofales wrote: Do the vouchers work just as well? It seems so, so I don't really care. It's quite obvious that some type of housing solution is required. Of course, if vouchers are more expensive and not demonstrably better (or more desirable along some other axis), then you should obviously go with the cheaper solution, but vouchers at least don't seem to be bad. Vouchers are better for rural areas with limited public housing. And they allow mobility for the family receiving the subsidy. Both have value in the system and we are better with a mix than doubling down on public housing or pure vouchers. There are also merits to mixed public and private housing, but those are harder create in general. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:03 Acrofales wrote: Do the vouchers work just as well? It seems so, so I don't really care. It's quite obvious that some type of housing solution is required. Of course, if vouchers are more expensive and not demonstrably better (or more desirable along some other axis), then you should obviously go with the cheaper solution, but vouchers at least don't seem to be bad. The problem with vouchers is that they inherently benefit those with the resources needed to maximize their use-value, namely through moving to an area with better services. Those who are in the most dire need are also less likely to be able to understand and navigate the additional bureaucratic elements inherent to a voucher system. The issue is similar to school vouchers; though there are benefits seen by those who can use them, those who cannot are then left even further behind. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 17 2016 22:38 RoomOfMush wrote: I loved the old colbert report the most. Since colbert is now on the late show its not quite the same anymore. He became much more tame in my opinion. I really like John Oliver though because his topics are something different. Most of the time he speaks about things that no one else ever mentions or talks about. I respect that. But I'd say he is definitely not unbiased. There is very obvious bias in his show but I dont mind. Bias is not a bad thing as long as you know its there and you dont believe everything unconditionally. Sam Bee is pretty good too if you haven't given that one a try. Some bits do fall flat, but the same was true for Daily Show and Colbert. I don't disagree about being unbiased, but also think the claim is thrown around a lot unnecessary. Bias is all about the frame you're talking about and most (not all) of what's biased about John Oliver is really just a matter of one side being completely ridiculous. Sometimes people *should* be biased about things. ---- Is there any good unbiased information about what's going on with Wikileaks & RT? What a shitshow this weekend has been. From dems patting themselves on the back for donating excess money to the creators of HB2 (even if it was a respectable general idea) to this wikileaks/RT shady business. It feels like when you play someone in Fantasy and they score negative points. (And of course all the previous being totally eclipsed by the Trumppocolypse slow motion train wreck that's unfolding). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But most rural areas cannot just add more public housings if demand increases for a 5 year period, so they are useful there. But there needs to be more active oversight of the vouchers system in general. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32743 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:03 Dan HH wrote: https://twitter.com/FT/status/787968740927369216 Could be why Trump is focusing more on blasting the media than on his own plans these days I guess it's nice having Trump TV either way. Either you win and get your own propaganda arm, or lose and broadcast your ideas 24/7 and stir the pot more. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:17 PhoenixVoid wrote: I guess it's nice having Trump TV either way. Either you win and get your own propaganda arm, or lose and broadcast your ideas 24/7 and stir the pot more. It could actually be a somewhat good thing by splitting Fox News' audience and hopefully reducing the ability for the Republican Party to so tightly control narratives amongst their base. Though on the flip side some portion of the US is going to be constantly blasted with an even more ridiculous and out there message constantly. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18125 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:17 PhoenixVoid wrote: I guess it's nice having Trump TV either way. Either you win and get your own propaganda arm, or lose and broadcast your ideas 24/7 and stir the pot more. Fairly certain Breitbart+Infowars TV is not something anybody sane should desire. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 17 2016 21:49 farvacola wrote: Given that Oliver writes and produces the show in addition to hosting it, I'm not sure that makes any sense. That's actually really impressive. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:03 Dan HH wrote: https://twitter.com/FT/status/787968740927369216 Could be why Trump is focusing more on blasting the media than on his own plans these days So literally a state-run media outlet if he were to win. I guess they wanted to give people who are thinking and fully using their brains one more reason not to vote for him. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:26 Acrofales wrote: Fairly certain Breitbart+Infowars TV is not something anybody sane should desire. I would prefer them out in the open and being discussed, to be honest. Everyone is operating in their own little silo and that is sort of how we got here in the first place. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28712 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:20 Logo wrote: It could actually be a somewhat good thing by splitting Fox News' audience and hopefully reducing the ability for the Republican Party to so tightly control narratives amongst their base. Though on the flip side some portion of the US is going to be constantly blasted with an even more ridiculous and out there message constantly. Making a day-time infowars reaching out to the 30%ish of americans who genuinely like trump and have already bought into his narrative.. that's fucking scary to me. Trump is peddling a doomsday narrative (granted, Trump is also considered a doomsday scenario), beliefs in doomsday narratives make people respond in unpredictable and potentially dangerous ways.. It's one thing to have it during the election, people get that some degree of smear-campaigning and exaggerations is part of the process and people can move past that after the election is over, but if this narrative continues beyond the election and just goes on and on and on, people who buy into it really will become 'irredeemable'. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:39 TheTenthDoc wrote: I really hope one of the lines of questioning at the debate is asking Trump why he seems to outright contradict Pence like twice a week lately. Because Trump's BS narrative isn't very consistent with the Republican mainstream BS narrative. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28712 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:32 Doodsmack wrote: So literally a state-run media outlet if he were to win. I guess they wanted to give people who are thinking and fully using their brains one more reason not to vote for him. Don't diss state-run media. Aren't PBS and NPR basically your best outlets in terms of facticity? ;p Same story for most functional democracies that have state-run media imo, NRK is best in Norway, BBC in Britain, SVT in sweden. Then when regimes are less democratic and transparent, they end up being disasters, but there's nothing intrinsically problematic about state-run media as long as proper precautions are taken and strong ethical standards are maintained. I'd argue that the clickbait/sensationalism tendencies are more ubiquitous with for-profit media than the 'wants to paint sitting government in positive light' tendency is of state-run media. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:42 LegalLord wrote: Because Trump's BS narrative isn't very consistent with the Republican mainstream BS narrative. Which always makes it funny when he reels off the standard Republican mainstream BS narrative on things like healthcare insurance crossing state lines when he clearly doesn't really believe or understand it | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21959 Posts
On October 18 2016 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: Don't diss state-run media. Aren't PBS and NPR basically your best outlets in terms of facticity? ;p Same story for most functional democracies that have state-run media imo, NRK is best in Norway, BBC in Britain, SVT in sweden. Then when regimes are less democratic and transparent, they end up being disasters, but there's nothing intrinsically problematic about state-run media as long as proper precautions are taken and strong ethical standards are maintained. Entirely correct. But we are talking Trump here. Lets not pretend this channel would offer anything in the terms of ethical standards or objective journalism. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
If there is nothing but state-run media, though, then that's a problem. | ||
| ||
