EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6253
| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On November 17 2016 11:42 Sent. wrote: I'm more interested in Trump's promise to sue them "after the election". He should go after every woman that slandered him and after the people who likely payed them, at the very least. Not him personally obviously, but someone from his team. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 17 2016 11:01 a_flayer wrote: I wish I could argue without bringing in specific examples that are easily debunked with pointless sayings such as "a broken clock..." The "Trump poised to win" thing is just one example where I can imagine that'd be the sort of "alternative news headline" that wouldn't make the cut in mainstream media headlines, despite the fact there might be accurate reporting within such an article (maybe they're basing it on their observations of enthusiasm at rallies instead of broken polls?). Please don't bother coming up with specific mainstream media examples where they happen to have used that headline, that is really besides the point. I simply don't think it is fair nor accurate to put something as oblique as "mainstream news" against something equally oblique in what essentially boils down to "alternative news" and then label the latter as "fake" because it is not mainstream. I'm assuming here that "mainstream news" in that graphic is filtered almost directly from headlines matching with those on a limited number of (mainstream approved) websites, and then the rest is classified as "fake". I just have so many questions regarding where those numbers are coming from, and what is considered as real or fake. Would a headline from breitbart or infowars always be classified as non-mainstream (and thus fake?) in this listing regardless of the accuracy of the report within? Maybe the people who came up with that graph do have some advanced algorithm for determining the fakeness or reality of an individual report, but if I believed in conspiracies it could just as easily be some mainstream organization simply trying to debunk others for their own profit. I do not believe that last claim, by the way, and I absolutely do think there is a serious problem with the spreading of bullshit news in social media, but also in other media such as the billboards and TV ads I've seen in the United States that suggest global warming is a hoax or that there's a god and Jesus was his son. I feel I should also point out that I don't read either infowars or breitbrat beyond the occasional scanning of headlines in general disbelief. I'm pretty sure they mean literal fake news that were total hoaxes-like the Macedonian articles that were completely fabricated purely to generate revenue. Some infowars stories definitely fall in this zone because their standards are total shit, but not all. E.g. Obama and Clinton are literal demons and smell like sulphur. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
The economic argument that bankers and their corrupt politicians are to blame for the working class woes is all well and good. The cultural loss stuff is very abstract in its reasoning (probably just based in racial anxiety deep down since they can't think of concrete reasoning) and intolerant in its practice. His media strategy kind of discredits the "halo around the head" posture as well. He baits the racial wing and employs a lower standard of truth than the MSM. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 17 2016 11:55 Doodsmack wrote: I don't believe Bernie supporters would accept Bannon's Judeo Christian superiority argument and Bill O'Reilly culture war stance. All very intolerant and tribal. You don't need to overreact to terror attacks and say "all-consuming Islamic fascism vs Christianity global war". He's even using terror attacks as part of his argument that capitalism is in crisis. The economic argument that bankers and their corrupt politicians are to blame for the working class woes is all well and good. The cultural loss stuff is very abstract in its reasoning (probably just based in racial anxiety deep down since they can't think of concrete reasoning) and intolerant in its practice. His media strategy kind of discredits the "halo around the head" posture as well. He baits the racial wing and employs a lower standard of truth than the MSM. Why does the reasoning matter more than the bottom line? I highly doubt that Bernie supporters will care about the motivations if Trump gives them what they want. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 17 2016 12:04 xDaunt wrote: Why does the reasoning matter more than the bottom line? I highly doubt that Bernie supporters will care about the motivations if Trump gives them what they want. Yeah for the economic part, there could be similarity there. However Trump's trickle down plan starts to cause confusion here. My question is what actual policies the Judeo-Christian culture argument actually calls for. All the immigration stuff I presume. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 17 2016 12:08 Doodsmack wrote: Yeah for the economic part, there could be similarity there. However Trump's trickle down plan starts to cause confusion here. My question is what actual policies the Judeo-Christian culture argument actually calls for. All the immigration stuff I presume. I'm only focusing on the banking regulations. Bannon clearly has a lot of the same ideas as the Bernie crowd. And let's face it: Trump is better positioned to pass financial reform than any democrat. Thus, for those people who consider reining in the banks to be national priority number one, Trump may end up being a very, very pleasant surprise. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 17 2016 11:01 a_flayer wrote: I wish I could argue without bringing in specific examples that are easily debunked with pointless sayings such as "a broken clock..." The "Trump poised to win" thing is just one example where I can imagine that'd be the sort of "alternative news headline" that wouldn't make the cut in mainstream media headlines, despite the fact there might be accurate reporting within such an article (maybe they're basing it on their observations of enthusiasm at rallies instead of broken polls?). Please don't bother coming up with specific mainstream media examples where they happen to have used that headline, that is really besides the point. I simply don't think it is fair nor accurate to put something as oblique as "mainstream news" against something equally oblique in what essentially boils down to "alternative news" and then label the latter as "fake" because it is not mainstream. I'm assuming here that "mainstream news" in that graphic is filtered almost directly from headlines matching with those on a limited number of (mainstream approved) websites, and then the rest is classified as "fake". I just have so many questions regarding where those numbers are coming from, and what is considered as real or fake. Would a headline from breitbart or infowars always be classified as non-mainstream (and thus fake?) in this listing regardless of the accuracy of the report within? Maybe the people who came up with that graph do have some advanced algorithm for determining the fakeness or reality of an individual report, but if I believed in conspiracies it could just as easily be some mainstream organization simply trying to debunk others for their own profit. I do not believe that last claim, by the way, and I absolutely do think there is a serious problem with the spreading of bullshit news in social media, but also in other media such as the billboards and TV ads I've seen in the United States that suggest global warming is a hoax or that there's a god and Jesus was his son. I feel I should also point out that I don't read either infowars or breitbrat beyond the occasional scanning of headlines in general disbelief. The problem is simply that the average reader does not have the stamina or the knowledge to discern fake from reality based on the underlying facts alone if that were the case we would need no classification of established or "alternative" news at all. The "alternative" news sites are alternative in the same sense that 'alternative medicine' is. They exist to push some obnoxious agenda that isn't finding representatives in 'mainstream media' for a reason. We don't need to ask whether something specific is publish is true because one true article in a pile of bullshit isn't going to salvage it. I'd go further and argue that even engaging in debate with these organisations is dangerous because pulling everybody down into a mud-fight is what they want to accomplish in the first place. It's like starting to argue with creationists, you can't really win even if you try, it just normalises their position. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On November 17 2016 12:15 xDaunt wrote: I'm only focusing on the banking regulations. Bannon clearly has a lot of the same ideas as the Bernie crowd. And let's face it: Trump is better positioned to pass financial reform than any democrat. Thus, for those people who consider reining in the banks to be national priority number one, Trump may end up being a very, very pleasant surprise. Oh please, it's already being speculated that a Goldman Sachs guy might get the treasury. There won't be any bank regulation, and I think that's been pretty clear from his campaign and his lack of policy plans during it already. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On November 17 2016 13:03 Nyxisto wrote: The problem is simply that the average reader does not have the stamina or the knowledge to discern fake from reality based on the underlying facts alone if that were the case we would need no classification of established or "alternative" news at all. The "alternative" news sites are alternative in the same sense that 'alternative medicine' is. They exist to push some obnoxious agenda that isn't finding representatives in 'mainstream media' for a reason. We don't need to ask whether something specific is publish is true because one true article in a pile of bullshit isn't going to salvage it. I'd go further and argue that even engaging in debate with these organisations is dangerous because pulling everybody down into a mud-fight is what they want to accomplish in the first place. It's like starting to argue with creationists, you can't really win even if you try, it just normalises their position. I definitely see the problem with regards to allowing certain amounts of nonsense into the discussion and that resulting in diluting said discussion, but I'm also looking at it from the following perspective: I've always been thoroughly annoyed by corporations (banks, wallstreet, whatever) and their influence on government policies. However, until quite recently, I felt like that dislike was constantly pushed aside and often dismissed as "too alternative" or even "obnoxious" by the mainstream. Now, however, there's people like Bernie basically railing against the same thing that I've disliked so much for so long. As a consequence, this makes me apprehensive of people dismissing anything "alternative" as fake, bad or inaccurate because the mainstream perception of both these things can in fact change. Comparing my viewpoints regarding banks and corporations with some alternative medicine bullshit was something that would have been easily done before 2008, but since then things seem to have changed somewhat. Of course, overwhelming evidence will obviously sway more people to the point where it becomes mainstream, but things regarding the accuracy of news are still more complex than what was said in that tweet and the graphic attached to it (which culminated into mainstream vs fake). In skimming over the article, I couldn't find a comprehensive description of how they got to that graphic (I only saw they used "19 websites" to denote the mainstream?), and thus my previous comments. There were a lot of links in the article that I didn't click on, so it's possible there's a lot more information there. None of it, however, was added to the post in the thread. It was just the tweet and graphic, which I then commented on. I also see a certain (minor, not literal) equivalence between only allowing mainstream opinions in the media and only allowing state opinions in the media that could be boiled down to censorship. And now I am supposed to trust Facebook and Google to filter out "fake news" when they are unlikely to ever release the algorithms or software being used to for that system of filtration? That's not going to make it easier to form my own opinion, and seems like it might even be more prone to manufacturing it. In this case, I've skipped the step where one might investigate an individual article, but I think that's irrelevant when we're talking about the accurate aggregation of "real news". | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 17 2016 14:06 ACrow wrote: Oh please, it's already being speculated that a Goldman Sachs guy might get the treasury. There won't be any bank regulation, and I think that's been pretty clear from his campaign and his lack of policy plans during it already. This post is what we call being unfair. First, speculation is just that -- speculation. That guy hasn't been picked for anything yet. Second, Bannon has already been appointed to a cabinet position -- a very important one. He's in; that other guy isn't. Third, Bannon is also a former Goldman Sachs guy, so don't damn everyone that comes out of that place as automatically being in the tank for the banks. And fourth, it's almost a certainty that advocacy for Glass-Steagall came from Trump's camp, so writing off Trump's appetite for going after the banks is way, way premature. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
Is this what we are to expect for his entire presidency haha. I literally saw an article saying he didn't show transparency the other night because he didn't notify the media he was going out to dinner with his family and how that's a dangerous indicator of things to come...the fear mongering continues. At least my social media outlets have chilled out, the past week was a bit obnoxious, I realized a great many of my friends were woefully uneducated when it came to the electoral college. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On November 17 2016 14:25 xDaunt wrote: This post is what we call being unfair. First, speculation is just that -- speculation. That guy hasn't been picked for anything yet. Second, Bannon has already been appointed to a cabinet position -- a very important one. He's in; that other guy isn't. Third, Bannon is also a former Goldman Sachs guy, so don't damn everyone that comes out of that place as automatically being in the tank for the banks. And fourth, it's almost a certainty that advocacy for Glass-Steagall came from Trump's camp, so writing off Trump's appetite for going after the banks is way, way premature. I don't know who this "we" (going pluralis majestatis, ey?) is that calls it unfair, it's just my opinion. I don't think it is necessary to preclude statements here as "in my opinion" as they clearly are; after all, I'd call a lot of your opinion pieces as highly unfair as well, but take them for what they are, and don't feel the need to point this out all the time. My opinion is entirely based on what I saw so far from the Trump camp, starting with his ridiculous platitude ridden campaign, over his transition efforts thus far and based on his history as being a business man that is very heavily entangled with banks. And yes, anyone who's worked for Goldmann Sachs will be assumed to be very pro-Bank in the public eye until proven otherwise. The only thing Bannon's proven so far, is that he gives white nationalists a platform. But, you are right, all of this is speculation; it's up to Trump to prove he means it. He has a stronger position to make changes there than any president had in a while, with both chambers of congress firmly in his hands, and public opinion seemingly in favor of banking regulation. So we will see, no excuses in case he should fail. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 17 2016 14:53 LuckyFool wrote: I can't believe how hard the media is scrutinizing the Trump transition. (Or maybe I can...) Is this what we are to expect for his entire presidency haha. I literally saw an article saying he didn't show transparency the other night because he didn't notify the media he was going out to dinner with his family and how that's a dangerous indicator of things to come...the fear mongering continues. At least my social media outlets have chilled out, the past week was a bit obnoxious, I realized a great many of my friends were woefully uneducated when it came to the electoral college. The usual outlets are doing their usual schtick, but this time Americans know they've been exposed and the majority (including Bernie folks) doesn't trust them. The rocky transition coverage has been narrative-driven and it's obvious. Nobody cares, except for beltway pundits, about the (overblown) transition minutiae, everybody cares who ends up where. He is full of inconsistencies and will take deserved hammering for it in time. It's only Trump that can make errors hurting Trump; the media has much time and work to go in order to narrow the credibility gap. | ||
|
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
| ||
|
KT_Elwood
724 Posts
On November 17 2016 06:29 xDaunt wrote: You guys are missing the larger genius of Trump's Twitter usage. Twitter lets Trump speak directly to the American people without being filtered by a biased press. Or he can tell lies, directly, without being questioned. He can bloat out statements that never get put into the greater picture, never get analyzed. If he does not like a statement, he deletes the tweet, and calls everybody "crooked-screenshoting-criminals". That's what has made him president. The "biased Press" actually thought anybody in the right mind, seeing tweets and campaign speech outburst would come to the conclusion that trump is nothing more than a lout irritating person, that has no clue how to run an administration. | ||
|
jellyjello
Korea (South)664 Posts
On November 17 2016 15:17 CatharsisUT wrote: He's being scrutinized because he has zero government experience and it provides an early look at how effectively he might be able to govern. Seems like a reasonable coverage area, and honestly what other follow-up stories from the election are there right now? I fully expected the media to go all berserk on the coverage of what kind of pets the Trump family may adapt, if any, or new decorations that Mrs. Trump is bringing into the WH. Why not? That's what they did for Obama, so let's treat the man fair. If there is still any doubt as to existence of the biased reporting of the mainstream media, you really have to be blinded (and deaf) literally. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
724 Posts
With "Whistle Blowers" jailed across the globe, and any "uncovering story" being borderline criminal...it's hard. The guys that uncover that Luxembourg helps international Corps to dodge taxes...in jail. The guy that showed US military is killing civilians (and does not give a fuack) = Jailed. People have giving up on journalism when it came "for Free" from the internet, and all its doing there is creating content you can put advertisement in. It's even the written down purpose of most newspapers today, to create content somebody clicks and sell the advertisement spaces. Also having access to the internet gives you the illusion that you hav access to EVERY bit of information. But as soon as you get to wikileaks, and have to go through 1500 pages of original info, you give up. Journalists have to dig up sources, have to understand them, and present a easy to comprehend conclusion. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
NPR podcast guy also interviewed a Breitbart editor for more info about Bannon. Never heard the NPR guy get mad before. The editor makes some good points about Breitbart necessity but he sounds a bit delusional at times trying to cover for Bannon's remarks and misleading articles, but I can't blame him. At least he believes in what he's standing for in Breitbart. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On November 17 2016 16:15 KT_Elwood wrote: Or he can tell lies, directly, without being questioned. He can bloat out statements that never get put into the greater picture, never get analyzed. If he does not like a statement, he deletes the tweet, and calls everybody "crooked-screenshoting-criminals". That's what has made him president. The "biased Press" actually thought anybody in the right mind, seeing tweets and campaign speech outburst would come to the conclusion that trump is nothing more than a lout irritating person, that has no clue how to run an administration. At the same time, I do wonder if Bernie could have won the DNC primary (in spite of the artificial construct opposing him from within) if he had 15 million followers like Trump, and he overflowed it with messages that were more suited for your own personal perception of the world (and yet still wouldn't be covered fairly by the mainstream because even back then they were already sold on Hillary's upcoming win of the primary). You can complain about the accuracy of twitter messages, but nobody is expecting 100% accuracy from a tweet (at least I hope not). I would, however, expect more accuracy from the mainstream media, which I didn't get. Instead I got faulty polls and flawed/biased/extremist opinions from talking heads that compared Trump to Hitler amongst other things. Edit: Twitter can be used by candidate to talk to their supporters in their own words, however twisted those may appear to someone outside their circle. For an extreme example, sometimes people send bomb threats by accident because they are communicating in jest within their own circle of friends. Those on the receiving end of the threat also see that twitter post but simply don't perceive it as a jest and thus alert the authorities. This is the same kind of thing that I feel is happening between Trump and his followers, and the people outside that particular group, except on a much more massive scale. | ||
| ||
