|
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 December 08 2016 01:56 Incognoto wrote:
How does one give up on banks or give up on the media? Stop consuming their products? No more loans and live under a rock?
I don't get it
This is off the top of my head. I am not an expert in the field nor am I a thinktank on my own. I am sure there are plenty of reasons that prevent this from working at first glance, but maybe the government could have just played a strong hand in the following way back in 2008:
The massive banks failed. They acted in neglect, knowing that what they were doing was wrong on a general principle, and on top of that there was the whole LIBOR thing. These are gross violations as far as I'm concerned, and those banks should no longer be allowed to exist within society. They should have been executed (not the people working there, but the corporate entities) and all wealth should have been taken away from them. Jobs would be have been lost, sure, and that would have been terrible, but...
The money that was given to those banks should have been spread amongst the smaller, local & hopefully slightly less-fraudulent banks. The government should have taken the customer databases of the failed entities, find out which regions were affected and how and spread the money proportionally amongst the smaller banks in those regions so that the people living there would be able to keep their homes and whatever else the banks did for them, instead of keeping the fraudulent criminal organizations alive with taxpayer money. I know it would probably require some sort of exceptional law or whatever to get it done, but I think the government should have taken this strong stance and there is just absolutely no reason why it couldn't have been done that way. Instead, the government made what the banks did legal and gave them money to compensate for their losses.
And I'm sure there's all sorts of laws and rules of economics you can point at, but people said the same shit about nationalizing the banks in the decades before 2008 happened, and then suddenly we can do it? Economics is like maths, you just have to find the right equation to get your plan to work. I'm sure the subsidized wealth of the failed banks could have been distributed fairly instead of giving the fuckers whatever they wanted.
It's not like the houses would have disappeared from the face of the earth, and if there's no bank to reclaim it from people/foreclose it or leech away their money through a mortgage, then what's the problem?
But nope. They got the money, they kept their scams going and even made them legal. Or at least, to tell the full scope of what I think happened: At first it wasn't against the law because it was obviously such a self-destructive move, so why make it illegal, right? And now they've essentially legalized what should have been or -- I mean it's just so incredibly retarded on every possible level -- at least I think should have been a criminal move. I'm not sure if there's been actual legislation to make whatever the specific thing the bank did (I mean I honestly have no clue any more, I'd have to look it up, I just know that everything I'm saying in this paragraph is essentially correct) legal now, or whether the legalization of that particular move essentially comes through the application of the bailout. Either way, there are just no words for this.
Fucking hell man. You're making me so angry just by reliving all this shit.
And with regards to the media: just try to look for anything "alternative", I mean... I've seen that list that the Washington Post put up regarding Russian propaganda. It's just ridiculous. Ron Paul's website is up there amongst others. I mean, really? And in at least one of the graphs I've seen regarding the amount of fake news that was supposedly out there, I believe they only considered news from about 19 websites as "real news". I'm fairly sure there's more than 19 websites with legitimate news on it out there. Just read anything else and decide for yourself whether you believe it or not. A lot of it is utterly pointless anyway, when it really comes down to it. Also, I don't own a TV.
On December 08 2016 02:24 chocorush wrote:
Panics, recessions, and bank runs used to be very common in the US, eventually leading to the Great Depression. We've since reduced the frequency and scale of these events significantly, largely in part because of the general security that people have that the government is keeping the system afloat.
I think most people would say that the conditions we are in now are preferable to the state of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Not to say that there's no room for improvement, but letting things simply fail isn't really something that can be predictably or easily controlled.
Can I introduce you to life?
|
Panics, recessions, and bank runs used to be very common in the US, eventually leading to the Great Depression. We've since reduced the frequency and scale of these events significantly, largely in part because of the general security that people have that the government is keeping the system afloat.
I think most people would say that the conditions we are in now are preferable to the state of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Not to say that there's no room for improvement, but letting things simply fail isn't really something that can be predictably or easily controlled.
|
On December 08 2016 01:55 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 01:04 Mohdoo wrote:
What a complete shitshow. This is not how the media should operate. This is just so, so sad to see in numbers. The presidency is so important. And this is what the media feeds us.
gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Or: this what you choose to consume. Everyone always complains about what is on the telly/in the paper, but everyone still watches/reads the same shit. And now these media people are saying "don't watch/read anything other than us, they're fake". Yeah, right. At a certain point, you've just got to give up on them. We should have given up on the banks in 2008, and now in 2016 we should give up on the media. I doubt we will, however, because people will say "no, they are essential, we can't live without them or try to replace them with something better. We have to save them." Let them crash and burn this time, please. Oh well, one can only hope this is gradually happening anyway, but it's just not come to a conclusion yet in the pages of history. On both accounts.
This is unrealistic and does not take into consideration societal momentum. The media plays an enormous role in national perceptions. The media chasing emotional responses for the sake of profits is undeniably having a negative impact on American culture and cohesion.
I am not making a statement as to what needs to be done, but I don't think there is a fair argument to say the media and its place in American society is in a good place.
|
On December 08 2016 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 01:55 a_flayer wrote:On December 08 2016 01:04 Mohdoo wrote:
What a complete shitshow. This is not how the media should operate. This is just so, so sad to see in numbers. The presidency is so important. And this is what the media feeds us.
gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Or: this what you choose to consume. Everyone always complains about what is on the telly/in the paper, but everyone still watches/reads the same shit. And now these media people are saying "don't watch/read anything other than us, they're fake". Yeah, right. At a certain point, you've just got to give up on them. We should have given up on the banks in 2008, and now in 2016 we should give up on the media. I doubt we will, however, because people will say "no, they are essential, we can't live without them or try to replace them with something better. We have to save them." Let them crash and burn this time, please. Oh well, one can only hope this is gradually happening anyway, but it's just not come to a conclusion yet in the pages of history. On both accounts. This is unrealistic and does not take into consideration societal momentum. The media plays an enormous role in national perceptions. The media chasing emotional responses for the sake of profits is undeniably having a negative impact on American culture and cohesion. I am not making a statement as to what needs to be done, but I don't think there is a fair argument to say the media and its place in American society is in a good place.
Just stop watching it yourself unless they do a better job. Tell others to do the same, if you like. Meanwhile, look for other things to get news or just live a care-free life free of lies and bias since you don't really need like 80-90% of what's being reported on (I'm basing that on the graphics mentioned in this thread just now, btw).
Any change of magnitude in this regard is only going to happen at a gradual pace, unless something exceptionally catastrophic happens. History is always unfolding...
|
On December 08 2016 00:54 xDaunt wrote:These graphs are rather telling: + Show Spoiler +
If by this you're recognizing the validity of the graphs that you just separated from their context, I suppose you're implicitly recognizing the validity of the rest of the analysis, which shows (among other things) that:
1. Trump received more positive coverage than Clinton overall during the entire election season, soundly disproving, according to the study, the claim that "the media" acted as cheerleaders for Clinton
2. Trump received a higher share of the overall coverage both before and during the general election period.
2. Much of the positive coverage of Clinton stemmed from horse race coverage (her leading in polls), which is unhelpful in helping voters decide between the two candidates
3. The tone of news reports on the economy, immigration and health policy was overwhelmingly negative, thus favoring the idea that a change in direction was needed on these issues
4. The two were virtually tied in the tone of the coverage on their respective "controversies", thus supporting the validity of the "false equivalence" argument as described in the study (and by myself and others here)
5. There was proportionally almost no coverage of the category in which the tone of the coverage most significantly favored Clinton over Trump (except for horse race coverage which I mentioned earlier), namely "leadership/experience"
6. In the final week of the election, Trump benefited from more positive coverage than Clinton
In any case, I invite people interested to read the entire analysis and not selected snippets.
|
On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while.
i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive.
@above
see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context.
|
On December 08 2016 02:45 kwizach wrote:If by this you're recognizing the validity of the graphs that you just separated from their context, I suppose you're implicitly recognizing the validity of the rest of the analysis, which shows that: 1. Trump received more positive coverage than Clinton overall during the entire election season, soundly disproving, according to the study, the claim that "the media" acted as cheerleaders for Clinton 2. Trump received a higher share of the overall coverage both before and during the general election period. 2. Much of the positive coverage of Clinton stemmed from horse race coverage (her leading in polls), which is unhelpful in helping voters decide between the two candidates 3. The tone of news reports on the economy, immigration and health policy was overwhelmingly negative, thus favoring the idea that a change in direction was needed on these issues 4. The two were virtually tied in the tone of the coverage on their respective "controversies", thus supporting the validity of the "false equivalence" argument as described in the study (and by myself and others here) 5. There was proportionally almost no coverage of the category in which the tone of the coverage most significantly favored Clinton over Trump (except for horse race coverage which I mentioned earlier), namely "leadership/experience" 6. In the final week of the election, Trump benefited from more positive coverage than Clinton Anyway, I invite people interested to read the entire analysis and not selected snippets.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I haven't digged into the methodology, so I'm not really prepared to comment on the overall validity of the findings. However, I do think that including "horse race" reporting (whatever that really means and includes) into the commentary is somewhat problematic. This becomes very obvious when looking at your point number 1 above. And even if we're to accept the validity of the study on the point that Trump received more favorable coverage overall during the entire election (ie including the primaries), I think your reliance on that for showing a lack of media bias is badly misplaced and that the data showing that Clinton received far more positive coverage during the general election is more informative.
|
On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context.
I think it's more what Obama represents in terms of neoliberalism, which really does seem at least a bit divisive to me.
|
On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context.
I'm not even sure what context that he's referring to. I just picked the graphs showing the respective coverages of the candidates by major media outlets. I think they largely speak for themselves unless I'm missing something.
|
Its the rules of economics. The reason the media can do what they're doing is people are wiling to pay them to do it. If people didn't actually want the product (as opposed are simply unhappy with the product) then they will die out.
The problem is that people spend more time complaining about news media than they are paying journalists. If people actually used their resources to keep journalists paid, then they wouldn't have a bad media. But people don't actually want that either.
What people *actually* want is a bad guy to blame. Think League of Legends, but nationally. There is catharsis to having an ally you can blame for the problems of the world, and hence you're willing to pay for that pariah in an attempt to feel better about yourself.
|
On December 08 2016 01:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 23:45 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 12:32 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems. ah; I understand the needs/image distinction, I just didn't realize you were focusing on the image one. I focus on the needs one by default. I'm still not sure the difference and change is a result of what you say it is. I'd say my case that one of the big changes is simply the decline in union membership; as I previously cited it's gone down by some 10% of the total population; and the dems got a lot of their support from the unions. So less union membership = less dem trend. I'm not saying "do we really have to?" in the way wherein a whiny child does so on their toothbrushing or osmesuch (i'm not sure which inflection you're saying it with); I am aiming for an "is it actually necessary?" some things are in fact fine and are being worked on. There's representing what constituent want you to be working on, then there's actually solving the real problems they have. Also, maybe you have it the other way around, maybe some people stopped being democrat constitutents, so the dems don't cater to them as much. How do you know which way it is? Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities. It sorta feels to me like what the claims are is shifting, though that's probably from me not being clear on what you were driving it initially. Also, I'm not a dem, i'm a strongly democrat leaning independent. Why do you think union membership is down? People just got tired of having too much negotiating power and decided to work for less money and fewer benefits? Your causality is all messed up. And I'd like to know what you meant by unions are a sometimes "necessary evil." I think union membership is down due to structural changes in the economy. Certain sectors of the economy are much more likely to have unions than others. In particular, manufacturing stuff in factories tend to have unions a lot. The economy has shifted from a manufacturing one to a service one; and automation has greatly reduced the number of people working in factories. Thus union membership is down. By necessary evil here's what I mean (might not apply outside America): unions are a monopoly on the supply of labor. They use that monopoly power to get more stuff. Monopolies can cause problems, which is why there are things like anti-trust laws. monopolies are in general a bad thing. In practice however, the unions, especially in the past, served as a counterweight to the power of management/owners, and helped improve standards. They can also ensure the wealth is spread around reasonably rather than all going to owners. I said might not apply outside america because in america the relation of unions to owners has been historically and continues to be very adversarial. I have heard that in some countries the relationship is much more cooperative. The structure of the economy is shaped by human political forces. There's nothing "natural" about the evolution of our economy towards flexibilized precarious employment in the service sector. You are, probably unconsciously, importing naturalizing norms into your assessment of the forces that have moved our economy from centralized factories to a decentralized service economy. But in doing so you are ignoring the real decisions made by employers and politicians to drive down the price of labor. What do you think people are referring to when they use the phrase "neoliberalism"? It is used quite often in relation to the ideologically driven policies that have broken up unions and reduced job security across all sectors.
it's shaped by many things other than political forces; like technology.
I find your claim that there's nothing natural about it inadequately founded. the economy is changing how it is changing; we don't have enough alternate worlds to look at to tell what natural evolution of an economy looks like.
At any rate, I was answering your question and provided clear answers.
You speak in a jargon I have trouble understanding so I don't intend to get into this more.
|
|
|
But that was just a politically driven conclusion.
President-elect Donald Trump is doubling down on his repudiation of the intelligence agencies he will soon lead, telling Time magazine he still believes the unified U.S. government assessment that Russia sought to interfere in the presidential election was not only wrong, but politicized.
"I don't believe it. I don't believe they interfered," Trump told Time in an interview for the current issue, which names him "person of the year." Asked if he thought the conclusion of America's spies was politically driven, Trump said, "I think so." He did not elaborate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-again-rejects-u-s-spies-conclusion-russia-hacked-election-n693141
|
On December 08 2016 03:30 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:But that was just a politically driven conclusion. Show nested quote +President-elect Donald Trump is doubling down on his repudiation of the intelligence agencies he will soon lead, telling Time magazine he still believes the unified U.S. government assessment that Russia sought to interfere in the presidential election was not only wrong, but politicized.
"I don't believe it. I don't believe they interfered," Trump told Time in an interview for the current issue, which names him "person of the year." Asked if he thought the conclusion of America's spies was politically driven, Trump said, "I think so." He did not elaborate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-again-rejects-u-s-spies-conclusion-russia-hacked-election-n693141
Graham is being ridiculous here, especially towards the end where he goes something along the lines of "Russia is now breaking apart the EU". Yeah, okey. I'm pretty sure we're entirely responsible for that ourselves. We don't need help in breaking apart at all. Even if Russia is funding right-wing groups that want to break the EU apart, it is basically just wasted money. Besides that, I read in an interview with one of the peeps who left Geert Wilders' party that they received the most money from the US (through corporations). So maybe the US is also trying to break apart the EU? All that is just as ridiculous as the suggestion that Russia was responsible for Brexit.
Wasn't the suggestion that there was a problem with the machine votes dismissed by looking at the stats in those regions from previous years and finding a more-or-less match in terms of discrepancy with regards to non-machine vote regions?
|
|
|
More details on the Carrier deal. Looks like a lipstick on a pig, but don't take my word for it, take the word of the union guy in charge there.
The Secret Service agents told the Carrier workers to stay put, so Chuck Jones sat in the factory conference room for nearly three hours, waiting for president-elect Donald Trump. He’d grown used to this suspense.
Seven months earlier, at a campaign rally in Indianapolis, Trump had pledged to save the plant’s jobs, most of which were slated to move to Mexico. Then the businessman won the election, and the 1,350 workers whose paychecks were on the line wondered if he’d keep his promise.
Jones, president of the United Steelworkers 1999, which represents Carrier employees, felt optimistic when Trump announced last week that he’d reached a deal with the factory’s parent company, United Technologies, to preserve 1,100 of the Indianapolis jobs — until the union leader heard from Carrier that only 730 of the production jobs would stay and 550 of his members would lose their livelihoods, after all.
Source
Oh and that $16m investment? It's to automate the factory, so many of those 800 jobs that were saved are really only getting a temporary reprieve.
The result of keeping the plant in Indiana open is a $16 million investment to drive down the cost of production, so as to reduce the cost gap with operating in Mexico.
What does that mean? Automation. What does that mean? Fewer jobs, Hayes acknowledged.
From the transcript (emphasis added):
GREG HAYES: Right. Well, and again, if you think about what we talked about last week, we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. Now is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with lower cost of labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital investments there.
JIM CRAMER: Right.
GREG HAYES: But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Foreign nations have always given support to parties in other countries that help them. The only difference now is that populists are on the rise and a scapegoat is needed.
|
On December 08 2016 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
Foreign nations have always given support to parties in other countries that help them. The only difference now is that populists are on the rise and a scapegoat is needed.
I personally am not scapegoating anyone just annoyed that the president-elect refuses to accept what's basically an agreed upon fact in the intelligence community. If Russia does do something seriously problematic Internationally is he going to accept that they did that or start coming up with reasons to not blame them?
as for the rest of the argument I am uninformed about so I'll leave it alone
|
On December 08 2016 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
Foreign nations have always given support to parties in other countries that help them. The only difference now is that populists are on the rise and a scapegoat is needed.
No, this is not an accurate assessment of the situation at all. There have been over the last few years a growing number of reports about Russia making moves to influence the politics of various European countries, and, more recently, of the US. This notably takes the form of providing support to far-right parties and of propagating stories undermining ruling governments and non-extreme parties, in particular on social media. This is a phenomenon that goes beyond what was previously the case over the last twenty years (Russia mainly seeking to influence the states in its immediate vicinity), and it is apparently linked to a desire to undermine NATO and EU unity, in particular with regards to their stances towards Russia, and weakening domestically the governments that oppose Russia internationally (especially with regards to Ukraine). Arguing that nothing has changed in this respect is clearly not true.
|
On December 08 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 03:30 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:But that was just a politically driven conclusion. President-elect Donald Trump is doubling down on his repudiation of the intelligence agencies he will soon lead, telling Time magazine he still believes the unified U.S. government assessment that Russia sought to interfere in the presidential election was not only wrong, but politicized.
"I don't believe it. I don't believe they interfered," Trump told Time in an interview for the current issue, which names him "person of the year." Asked if he thought the conclusion of America's spies was politically driven, Trump said, "I think so." He did not elaborate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-again-rejects-u-s-spies-conclusion-russia-hacked-election-n693141 Graham is being ridiculous here, especially towards the end where he goes something along the lines of "Russia is now breaking apart the EU". Yeah, okey. I'm pretty sure we're entirely responsible for that ourselves. We don't need help in breaking apart at all. Even if Russia is funding right-wing groups that want to break the EU apart, it is basically just wasted money. Besides that, I read in an interview with one of the peeps who left Geert Wilders' party that they received the most money from the US (through corporations). So maybe the US is also trying to break apart the EU? All that is just as ridiculous as the suggestion that Russia was responsible for Brexit. Wasn't the suggestion that there was a problem with the machine votes dismissed by looking at the stats in those regions from previous years and finding a more-or-less match in terms of discrepancy with regards to non-machine vote regions?
While I agree that it's wrong to blame Russia for these results, that comparison is really stretching it. One is done as a matter of government policy and applies pressure in a single direction, the other is done at private level without a unified cause. You'll often find US groups funding both pro and anti civil liberties causes in the same country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-9-general-election-768x390.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-10-general-election-768x380.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-11-general-election-768x316.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-13-general-election-768x389.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-14-general-election-768x392.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-16-general-election-768x329.png)
