|
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 January 22 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:To the extent that Trump uses outright lies to promote his assault on the press or any other aspect of his agenda, I'm not in favor that. Is there a point where it would it be frequent or egregious enough to be disqualifying? Where roughly would that threshold be for you? I'd have to think about that one, but I will say that I don't think that Trump is there yet. Most of Trump's lies fall into the puffery category. When he starts defrauding the American people on material issues, then I'll be upset.
Do you think it would be appropriate for you to be surprised if he did?
|
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias.
|
On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias.
Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar.
I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law.
|
It just makes you wonder how a country with 319 (or more) million people could only choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Best democracy? Yeah, right. In the meantime, many EU countries have several parties.
|
On January 22 2017 10:34 Shield wrote:
It just makes you wonder how a country with 319 (or more) million people could only choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Best democracy? Yeah, right. In the meantime, many EU countries have several parties.
And how many of those parties realistically have a chance at getting enough leverage in a coalition in order to get their person as PM?
At least in our democracy we have a choice at who we're electing as sovereign.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 22 2017 10:34 Shield wrote:
It just makes you wonder how a country with 319 (or more) million people could only choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Best democracy? Yeah, right. In the meantime, many EU countries have several parties.
The same kind of thing is happening in Europe as in the US: the rise of right-wing populism. The oddities of our system gave us Clinton vs Trump but it was the deeply ingrained dissatisfaction with the status quo that made the Republican primary voters toss aside the establishment choices in favor of a clown. In the Democratic case, the rebellion against the establishment didn't stop their candidate of choice but it did cause a defection strong enough to influence the results.
As in Europe, the problem is a bipartisan consensus amongst party elite not shared by the people. When they aren't given a choice they can be reasonably happy with, they do some very aggressive and risky moves.
We have the same problem as most of Europe.
|
Norway28561 Posts
ye fact of the matter is the previous Norwegian parliamentary election really only had two candidates for prime minister as well. If the leftist coalition won the labor party candidate would be prime minister, if the right coalition won the conservative party leader would be prime minister. There have been elections where you had 3 somewhat viable candidates pre-election, but I don't think there's ever been more.
|
On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law.
I doubt that Trump knows as much about debt as you seem to be giving him credit for given he keeps complaining about how the debt went up during Obama's term as though that was an indicator of anything.
Do I really need to go find all the shitty stuff he's personally done all the various groups of people? Attacking Gold Star parents? Saying Jeb is a serial killer? Bragging about being able to touch/assault women inappropriately? Saying he'll personally get a prosecutor to come after Hillary? Absolutely useless 3 debates? Lying about everything under the sun? Climate change is a Chinese hoax? Not releasing his tax forms (I'm fine with kinda)? Not paying people he's contracted? Not showing up in court? His failed casinos and tens of businesses? The list is absurd, I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. It's kind of a moot point now.
Most stuff the media pushed was basically his own words. The media problem has nothing to do with fake news. Fake news was coined for some clowns who posted completely wrong, viral content on Facebook about the election.
A concern about partisan media (besides getting rid of obvious idiocy like whoever said don't read Wikileaks just trust us or daytime yelling contests) would be around pushing one position by presenting more articles about it which gives the perception one candidate is worse than the other, by the nature of how coverage works. I'm trying to think of how people can fight against the "MSM are all bold faced liars" shit some people keep pulling.
|
I will say that I think Obama was more qualified than Trump in that I have complete and total faith Obama could get a 4 or better on an AP Government exam while I'm not sure Trump could crack a 2. Even with time to study.
|
On January 22 2017 10:52 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law. Do I really need to go find all the shitty stuff he's personally done all the various groups of people? Attacking Gold Star parents? Saying Jeb is a serial killer? Bragging about being able to touch/assault women inappropriately? Saying he'll personally get a prosecutor to come after Hillary? Absolutely useless 3 debates? Lying about everything under the sun? Climate change is a Chinese hoax? The list is absurd, I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. Most stuff the media pushed was basically his own words. The media problem has nothing to do with fake news. Fake news was coined for some clowns who posted completely wrong, viral content on Facebook about the election. A concern about partisan media (besides getting rid of obvious idiocy like whoever said don't read Wikileaks just trust us or daytime yelling contests) would be around pushing one position by presenting more articles about it which gives the perception one candidate is worse than the other, by the nature of how coverage works. I also doubt that Trump knows as much about debt as you seem to be giving him credit for given he keeps complaining about how the debt went up during Obama's term as though that was an indicator of anything.
So hes a shitty person that doesn't change his qualifications when applying for a job. Saying all the things that support your side of an argument and ending it with "I really don't want to get into an argument because I already won" is pretty close minded. Nothing you say after that is anything more of "I don't agree with his political strategy.
|
On January 22 2017 09:27 biology]major wrote:
btw, this obsession with crowd size via the press secretary and comments at CIA talk reveal a deep insecurity inside trump's head. Pretty laughable, but I do hate how petty he can be. That sean spicer briefing was a joke.
Agreed. The global anti-Trump protests were a success in the sense that Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, spent his first news conference lying about how popular Trump's inauguration was, pretending that everyone loves Trump, and shaming news organizations for covering the worldwide anti-Trump phenomenon. It looks like Sean Spicer is going to be the human version of Trump's Twitter, reifying our president's extremely thin skin.
But knowing how delusional our president is, he should find a way to take credit for the worldwide phenomenon that happened today. Only a man like Donald Trump could draw crowds of millions of people! Not yesterday during his inauguration to support him, mind you, but today all across the country and the world, in protests and marches against our rapist-in-chief. It would be the ultimate irony if Trump actually does manage to unify the nation and the world... over a mutual hatred of him. Millions and millions of people united today in support of America and humans rights. Let it be known that despite our giant leap backwards, the world has not turned its back on the United States. This is awesome: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/21/world/womens-march-pictures.html?_r=0
I heard Fox provided very minimal coverage of the protesting, which wouldn't surprise me at all since it's Fox, but I haven't really followed up on that claim.
|
On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law.
Trump's understanding of debt is actually really, really dangerous. During his campaign, he said that as president, he would just default on all the national debt (in other words, simply declare bankruptcy like he does with his businesses) and economists were like "Uhh.... no? Don't do that? Are you kidding?" Running the country is not the same as running his businesses.
|
On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law.
everyone knows debt can mena nothing; they're also aware of what the constitution says and of the risks of default.
and trump doesn't understand it properly.
and i'd say most of the presidents have been qualified to be president.
I'll agree that some might not have.
but trumps' qualifications are quite thin, especially considering his starting point.
and on generals, it'd depend which general.
there's also qualifications on paper, resume-style vs qualities as a person. stuff like honesty, ethics, wisdom, sense. trump fares very poorly in some of those.
|
On January 22 2017 11:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 10:52 Blisse wrote:On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law. Do I really need to go find all the shitty stuff he's personally done all the various groups of people? Attacking Gold Star parents? Saying Jeb is a serial killer? Bragging about being able to touch/assault women inappropriately? Saying he'll personally get a prosecutor to come after Hillary? Absolutely useless 3 debates? Lying about everything under the sun? Climate change is a Chinese hoax? The list is absurd, I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. Most stuff the media pushed was basically his own words. The media problem has nothing to do with fake news. Fake news was coined for some clowns who posted completely wrong, viral content on Facebook about the election. A concern about partisan media (besides getting rid of obvious idiocy like whoever said don't read Wikileaks just trust us or daytime yelling contests) would be around pushing one position by presenting more articles about it which gives the perception one candidate is worse than the other, by the nature of how coverage works. I also doubt that Trump knows as much about debt as you seem to be giving him credit for given he keeps complaining about how the debt went up during Obama's term as though that was an indicator of anything. So hes a shitty person that doesn't change his qualifications when applying for a job. Saying all the things that support your side of an argument and ending it with "I really don't want to get into an argument because I already won" is pretty close minded. Nothing you say after that is anything more of "I don't agree with his political strategy.
I believe he doesn't pass a basic decent human being test. I disagree with almost all his policy and ideological positions but that does not affect my decision as to whether he's qualified or not. He's disqualified in my eyes because he continues to be a shitty person. Even if I supported his policies he'd still be a shitty person.
I did not in any way say "I really don't want to get into an argument because I already won". I said I don't want to talk about it because it's not why I made the post. I was talking about the "perceived" media bias.
zlefin replied better than me above about "qualified"
|
On January 22 2017 10:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 10:34 Shield wrote:
It just makes you wonder how a country with 319 (or more) million people could only choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Best democracy? Yeah, right. In the meantime, many EU countries have several parties. And how many of those parties realistically have a chance at getting enough leverage in a coalition in order to get their person as PM? At least in our democracy we have a choice at who we're electing as sovereign.
it's not at all clear that direct elections lead to better results.
it might well yield better results to have indirect elections.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Democracy only "doesn't work" when it yields the "wrong" choice, according to people who are unhappy in the aftermath of an "illogical" choice being made.
One theory I've heard, that I see some validity in, is that people are rebelling against "no choice politics" made of a consensus at the top, by electing the only people who really listen to them. Even if that choice is horrifying.
|
On January 22 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law. everyone knows debt can mena nothing; they're also aware of what the constitution says and of the risks of default. and trump doesn't understand it properly. and i'd say most of the presidents have been qualified to be president. I'll agree that some might not have. but trumps' qualifications are quite thin, especially considering his starting point. and on generals, it'd depend which general. there's also qualifications on paper, resume-style vs qualities as a person. stuff like honesty, ethics, wisdom, sense. trump fares very poorly in some of those.
Yeah but most people don't know when new government debt can be free money and when its just a number. The petrodollar means that the debt realistically won't default (and if it does there are bigger problems) I don't think most presidents have been remotely qualified. George Washington didn't have any qualifications outside of "he can unite the country" Lincoln had less qualifications then Obama if nothing else. Lets not get into whatever the hell Reagan was.
If anything Trump has shown he can bullshit enough people in order to get to the next day better and brighter. If you don't think he passes a basic human being test then you should far more then ignore a lot of our presidents in the past for their culpability in mass slavery and holocaust. Truth is that we don't want a guy whos honest or ethical we want a guy who'll fight for and represent us, thats at least what the election showed.
Blisse and I quote
I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. It's kind of a moot point now.
I was watching fox when eating lunch at an applebees and they had fox on there was protest coverage the whole time.
I don't know if its just me but I don't get where people get off expecting great things from society and their fellow man. There has never been a point where things have been better yet people complain even more. There was what 20k or so protesting Bush in 2000 when he won the election almost by the decision of the supreme court but after a series of clear recounts people in other countries feel the need to protest the decision in our country?
|
On January 22 2017 11:19 LegalLord wrote:
Democracy only "doesn't work" when it yields the "wrong" choice, according to people who are unhappy in the aftermath of an "illogical" choice being made.
One theory I've heard, that I see some validity in, is that people are rebelling against "no choice politics" made of a consensus at the top, by electing the only people who really listen to them. Even if that choice is horrifying.
democracy doesn't work when it selects really bad choices. it's not always easy to see that a choice is bad at the time.
with distance, it can become easier.
it also doesn't work in a numbre of other ways, like it doesn't select that much based on policy, competence, or doing better at managing the economy overall.
adding quotes to things doesn't raelly change the validity of the points, i'll assume it's just your way of alleging that hte points may not be true; but if you're going to allege the claims are false, you should address the premises that lead ot those claims, rather than simply asserting them wrong.
people rebel against all sorts of things, and it would be good to provide them with options that make them feel more listened to.
but they shoudl also habve the sense to vote not just on being listened to but on whether something's a good idea or not. and to recognize con men when they appear (regardless of whether you think this is a conman instance).
it's also well documented that crowd-sourced decision-making only works in some contexts, and fails in some others; that much is clear even if the field of crowd-source analysis isn't as developed as some others yet.
|
On January 22 2017 11:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:On January 22 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 22 2017 10:12 Blisse wrote:
re: news sites being bad. I personally don't think there's a problem with the majority of them because it should be pretty obvious Trump is unqualified in basically every way, and I believe there's a false equivalence about news agencies showing more anti-Trump content than anti-Hillary content implying the agencies have a political bias versus an anti-clown bias.
But assuming people believe there's a significant problem, if during election coverage the main page was basically split straight down the middle with one party on the left, another on the right, and however they want to organize smaller candidates, assuming the number of articles shown were essentially equal (headline size and number wise), how would that affect your ideas of the coverage provided by the agency? Obviously finding some way to account for left-right reading bias. Thats a little meh. How many presidents have really been qualified to be president of the united states? If nothing else Trump understands how debt can mean nothing which is at least a qualification for a nation that has the petrodollar. I don't see the qualifications that the generals we've elected to president had any more then a guy who four years before becoming president was teaching law. everyone knows debt can mena nothing; they're also aware of what the constitution says and of the risks of default. and trump doesn't understand it properly. and i'd say most of the presidents have been qualified to be president. I'll agree that some might not have. but trumps' qualifications are quite thin, especially considering his starting point. and on generals, it'd depend which general. there's also qualifications on paper, resume-style vs qualities as a person. stuff like honesty, ethics, wisdom, sense. trump fares very poorly in some of those. Yeah but most people don't know when new government debt can be free money and when its just a number. The petrodollar means that the debt realistically won't default (and if it does there are bigger problems) I don't think most presidents have been remotely qualified. George Washington didn't have any qualifications outside of "he can unite the country" Lincoln had less qualifications then Obama if nothing else. Lets not get into whatever the hell Reagan was. If anything Trump has shown he can bullshit enough people in order to get to the next day better and brighter. If you don't think he passes a basic human being test then you should far more then ignore a lot of our presidents in the past for their culpability in mass slavery and holocaust. Truth is that we don't want a guy whos honest or ethical we want a guy who'll fight for and represent us, thats at least what the election showed. Blisse and I quote Show nested quote + I really don't want to get into an argument about how many dumb things he says and how it balances with his supposed positives. It's kind of a moot point now.
I was watching fox when eating lunch at an applebees and they had fox on there was protest coverage the whole time. I don't know if its just me but I don't get where people get off expecting great things from society and their fellow man. There has never been a point where things have been better yet people complain even more. There was what 20k or so protesting Bush in 2000 when he won the election almost by the decision of the supreme court but after a series of clear recounts people in other countries feel the need to protest the decision in our country?
It's a moot point because he's already won so talking about his positives and negatives are pointless because they're not in relation to anything. It's all just baggage now given he's been elected and now we await his actions as president. You're completely intentionally misrepresenting me so I'm going to stop responding to you now about this.
And I'm sorry I expect presidents to not be dicks and I want everyone to not be shit? What point are you even trying to make man. If I was alive for Washington and Lincoln and knew what they did and had my current views I wouldn't like them either. At the very least I've read Lies My Teacher Told Me about how American history is rewritten. It doesn't mean I can't be critical of Trump.
|
I know David Kim reads the SC2 threads on here and i know that Trump read this thread on here. Please, Mr. Trump , sir.
please make the US Economy better so Canada can go back to do what it does best which is sell everything it can to the US of By God "A".
i hope the US pulls out of NAFTA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
