EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6199
| 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. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
On November 12 2016 04:09 Reivax wrote: http://www.yescalifornia.org/ Americans, this can't possibly get any traction, right? Re the Hillary photo op: Reading the BBC article about the Hillary photo op it seems that both photos originates from the woman's Facebook feed and that she did note that she had met Hillary at a fundraiser with her mom previously so it seems that there was no lie here. I wonder... I was born in California, but moved to a different state. What would happen to my citizenship in both countries if they were to separate? Besides that, Trump seems to getting people to recognize just how much they sucked to let him beat them. Sadly, it looks like our environment is going to take the biggest blow from this presidency. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 12 2016 03:46 zlefin wrote: Jimmy -> I don't think anyone disputes clinton did a poor job of campaigning. they mostly claim that she would've done a good/acceptable job in office. she's one of those people who're decent at theri job, but terrible at being likeable/campaigning. I'm kind of similar, i'm smart and good at doing my jobs, but i'm terrible at salesmanship/getting people to give me a job. In public office it's worse if you can't convince the country you'd actually do the better job, compared to private sector jobs and sales. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On November 12 2016 04:09 Reivax wrote: http://www.yescalifornia.org/ Americans, this can't possibly get any traction, right? Re the Hillary photo op: Reading the BBC article about the Hillary photo op it seems that both photos originates from the woman's Facebook feed and that she did note that she had met Hillary at a fundraiser with her mom previously so it seems that there was no lie here. I doubt it will get any traction (though with a billionaire pushing hard for this, who knows, billionaires have a knack for manipulating masses, it seems). Though maybe it is not too bad an idea, seeing as the liberal west and east coast drift culturally further and further away from the south, rust belt and "fly over" country, so a west coast state of WA, OR, CA, a New England state and the rest? The rest could then go full blown religious, anti choice, poison their water etc. Wouldn't everybody be happier then? I'm obviously joking, this is neither realistic nor would it be good for anyone, but I do believe there is a tendency of different "living realities" of the urban and rural parts of the country, and it will become harder and harder to reconcile these 'worlds', especially with how radicalized politics have become. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8255 Posts
CGPGrey just updated one of his older Electoral College videos with things I didn't even know about that seems absolutely absurd. No matter if you like the idea of EC or not, the way it's implemented is ridiculous. Even if you "win" the election in November, it can be taken away from you in December if the small number of people representing the votes of their States decides otherwise (Which are chosen by political parties, and not the people). Now I have absolutely no idea if this has ever happened before (probably not, I would imagine there would be an enormous backlash), but just the fact that the system allows for it is maddening. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
As if a terror strike has hit America. I blame the media for this,painting trump to be some sort of neo Nazi monster. Now "everyone" (without a brain) thinks the world is going to end and that we will die 40 years earlier because of global warming. The media did such an incredible bad job in the usa,instead of educating the people and make them wiser and open to the pro,s and cons of everything they paint everything like it is black and white to the extreme,according to their own agenda. It has such tremendous backlash though. When people no longer can trust the media to do objective reporting,then people start thinking for themselves as the media is all crap. And all the crap is being sold as truth, so the crap in everyones head can be just as true as well. It realy is the media,s fault tbh. By reporting so one sided about trump they made it so much easier for him. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
Christie in trouble again? | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 12 2016 04:37 Excludos wrote: + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM CGPGrey just updated one of his older Electoral College videos with things I didn't even know about that seems absolutely absurd. No matter if you like the idea of EC or not, the way it's implemented is ridiculous. Even if you "win" the election in November, it can be taken away from you in December if the small number of people representing the votes of their States decides otherwise (Which are chosen by political parties, and not the people). Now I have absolutely no idea if this has ever happened before (probably not, I would imagine there would be an enormous backlash), but just the fact that the system allows for it is maddening. Faithless electors are extremely rare, and as far as I know have never impacted an election. If you want a full summary, read http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors. Some of the stories are neat. But yes, an odd system. Also, at the risk of beating a dead horse re: the electoral college, I don't quite understand how people think it empowers rural areas particularly. There are two other main "weird" components of the electoral college that allow it to diverge from the popular vote: 1) every state gets electors added based on Senate representation and 2) most states' electors are winner-take-all. 1) Helps small states, but it helps Vermont and Rhode Island and Delaware as much as Montana and Wyoming-and those are almost never campaigned in. Rurality doesn't enter the equation. 2) Is what actually impacts the campaign, in that the only states worth campaigning in are close ones. Getting 55% and getting 90% of New York/California are identical. This empowers people in swing states regardless of where they live. Personally, rather than the current system, I'd like to see the Democratic Primary system for electors (absent superdelegates of course), but non-district based; Trump deserves 40% or whatever of California electors. We can keep the bonus senatorial ones, too, to preserve the importance of low-population states. And just do decimals (learn your fractions America) and avoid making actual electors do anything. + Show Spoiler + And for the record, the Democratic Primary system being the way it is while the national system is the way it is is a terrible decision by the Dems, even if I think it's fairer | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 04:37 Excludos wrote: + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM CGPGrey just updated one of his older Electoral College videos with things I didn't even know about that seems absolutely absurd. No matter if you like the idea of EC or not, the way it's implemented is ridiculous. Even if you "win" the election in November, it can be taken away from you in December if the small number of people representing the votes of their States decides otherwise (Which are chosen by political parties, and not the people). Now I have absolutely no idea if this has ever happened before (probably not, I would imagine there would be an enormous backlash), but just the fact that the system allows for it is maddening. It hasn't happened before. This is probably the second most likely time for it to happen considering the electoral victor is facing a set of legal challenges among a wave of outrage (especially if Trump's cabinet expected appointments scare off a bunch of people and expose him as a fraud) on top of a split popular/electoral outcome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876#Electoral_disputes was probably the most likely time. @pmh are you still blaming the media for replaying clips of Trump saying things? I figured people would give up that horribly ridiculous line of lies once Trump won the election. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 12 2016 04:40 pmh wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/subway-therapy-commuters-stick-post-172100902.html As if a terror strike has hit America. I blame the media for this,painting trump to be some sort of neo Nazi monster. Now "everyone" (without a brain) thinks the world is going to end and that we will die 40 years earlier because of global warming. The media did such an incredible bad job in the usa,instead of educating the people and make them wiser and open to the pro,s and cons of everything they paint everything like it is black and white to the extreme,according to their own agenda. It has such tremendous backlash though. When people no longer can trust the media to do objective reporting,then people start thinking for themselves as the media is all crap. And all the crap is being sold as truth, so the crap in everyones head can be just as true as well. It realy is the media,s fault tbh. By reporting so one sided about trump they made it so much easier for him. that's a rather old canard. can it not instead be said that the media reported the truth, and people chose not to believe the truth? and which media, there are a great many after all, many decent, some not so. there are many different possible biases. Most media weren't painting him as a neonazi monster, while some do make the comparison, the media itself largely does not, except for the fringe media. Mostly that's a political tactic used to make his supporters feel under attack so they rally to him, rather than representing reality. Another part of the issue is that certain media, especially conservative media, specifically chose to sell crap and say it was the truth, and enough people bought into that. and people usually use the small sample error; they are shown a few instances of media screwups, and are shown the most egregious examples, without considering what the average cases look like overall. So they end up thinking the media coverage is less accurate than it is. Mostly though, the problem is in the people themselves; the people themselves don't wnat truth. Truth doesn't sell, they don't want to watch the truth, they don't want to watch actual careful thoughtful analysis. If they did there would have been FAR more policy coverage. There was not, because people DONT watch serious debates about policy, so the news does not cover them. That is a failing of the people, not the media. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
The media are so one sided that I think the people simply don't buy it anymore and stop caring about what they say. Its a bit like propaganda during wars,the media in the usa is doing exactly that. Selective reporting all the good things they support and all the bad things about the things they disagree with. It has nothing to do with journalism,if Watergate would happen now then there is absolutely no way that the media will find out about it and report about it. They have become the lapdog of lobbyists and political powerhouses. And when the media dare to report objective news,like wikileaks,they get labeled as "guerilla media", just one step away from "terrorist media" ,ready to be deported to Guantanamo bay lol. It saddens me and it makes me scared how easily people are buying all this and don't see this as a thread to democracy at all,this is one key element of fascism. Off course there is free press,but the big media all share the same agenda and it is very difficult these days to find objective reporting without bias,so difficult that most people probably don't take the effort to go look for it which in effect gives the big mainstream media a monopoly on the news that people get to see. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17501 Posts
On November 12 2016 04:21 Danglars wrote: In public office it's worse if you can't convince the country you'd actually do the better job, compared to private sector jobs and sales. one of Canada's best ever Prime Ministers did not consider you for a cabinet position without 5+ years as an MP and at least 2 successful elections. he did not care how many PHDs you had or what theories you knew. without a proven track record of getting yourself elected he considered you useless. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
that you claim it was extremely biased doesn't make it so. People claim biases all the time, often they are wrong. if you think current media wouldn't report on watergate, then I question your understanding of the media. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 05:49 zlefin wrote: pmh -> do you have proof of that? or merely your claims and allegations? that you claim it was extremely biased doesn't make it so. People claim biases all the time, often they are wrong. if you think current media wouldn't report on watergate, then I question your understanding of the media. Well someone did say this recently which would certainly help shut down possible Watergate-like scandals in the future: One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected And I heard they've become very influential in Washington recently. Though it is also hilarious how much pmh wraps up two things (the media being awful) and (people think of Donald Trump is a horrible person) and think they go hand in hand. Both happen to be true, but they're unrelated to each other. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 12 2016 05:45 pmh wrote: The media reported very one sided and where all in favor of Clinton, The media are so one sided that I think the people simply don't buy it anymore and stop caring about what they say. Its a bit like propaganda during wars,the media in the usa is doing exactly that. Selective reporting all the good things they support and all the bad things about the things they disagree with. It has nothing to do with journalism,if Watergate would happen now then there is absolutely no way that the media will find out about it and report about it. They have become the lapdog of lobbyists and political powerhouses. And when the media dare to report objective news,like wikileaks,they get labeled as "guerilla media", just one step away from "terrorist media" ,ready to be deported to Guantanamo bay lol. It saddens me and it makes me scared how easily people are buying all this and don't see this as a thread to democracy at all,this is one key element of fascism. Off course there is free press,but the big media all share the same agenda and it is very difficult these days to find objective reporting without bias,so difficult that most people probably don't take the effort to go look for it which in effect gives the big mainstream media a monopoly on the news that people get to see. I'm interested: how would you distinguish a situation where the media is reporting that a person is awful, and they actually are awful, from a situation where the media is reporting a person is awful and all their coverage is biased and the person is fine? Surely not just by how bad they say the person is? Normally, I would look at how factual the stories reported by the media are. And most of the big-time stories that broke about the Trump campaign involved his quotes at his rallies, or research into his taxes, or his foundation. None of them seemed fabricated. I'm sure the media would have reported on experts that supported Trump's plans...but there weren't any anywhere. (oh, and Wikileaks is not a media group; they rely on media to research their leaks) | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm interested: how would you distinguish a situation where the media is reporting that a person is awful, and they actually are awful, from a situation where the media is reporting a person is awful and all their coverage is biased and the person is fine? Surely not just by how bad they say the person is? Normally, I would look at how factual the stories reported by the media are. And most of the big-time stories that broke about the Trump campaign involved his quotes at his rallies, or research into his taxes, or his foundation. None of them seemed fabricated. I'm sure the media would have reported on experts that supported Trump's plans...but there weren't any anywhere. (oh, and Wikileaks is not a media group; they rely on media to research their leaks) Yeah I'm curious about this too. The media underreporting certain things or not reporting certain things (like say wikileaks) is certainly a subjective matter and there's room for disagreement there, but none of that has to do with the reporting on Trump, but would rather be about the relative difference between Trump and Clinton at best which is irrelevant to how terrible Trump is. | ||
| ||
