| 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. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
Compared to other areas of american society they were quiet early with accepting people of color though that off course still doesn't make it right. Media in Europe (specially continental Europe) is biased in favor of democrats and in disfavor of the republicans. Its not a new thing that started with trump or even bush,it was like that already when Reagan was president. I am not sure where this is coming from,it can not be policy alone. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 15 2018 10:33 mierin wrote: Seriously, it's an embarrassment and there's nothing any citizen of the US can say to deflect that point. On the bright side, it makes American exceptionalism that much more funny to peddle. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 15 2018 10:49 pmh wrote: NBA used to be all white,learn something new everyday. Had to look it up but it seems to be true,the nba was all white from its foundation in 1947 up to 1950. Compared to other areas of american society they were quiet early with accepting people of color though that off course still doesn't make it right. Media in Europe (specially continental Europe) is biased in favor of democrats and in disfavor of the republicans. Its not a new thing that started with trump or even bush,it was like that already when Reagan was president. I am not sure where this is coming from,it can not be policy alone. why can' tit be policy alone? or at any rate, what % of it would policy account for? I wouldn't be surprised if it was like that when reagan was president, that sounds very believable, but do there happen to be any sources to more rigorously document that? do they say when this bias first appeared? also, given the claims that american media is also biased in favor of democrats, couldn't the source be something innate to media itself (or the way it tends to be structured)? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44364 Posts
On January 15 2018 11:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/952720622689320962 Why does it matter? Unless Trump is referring to the bigliest of shitholehouses? | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35152 Posts
On January 15 2018 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Why does it matter? Unless Trump is referring to the bigliest of shitholehouses? It's a stupid thing to bring up to deny it anyway, since I've never heard the term "shithouse" used outside of "X is built like a brick shithouse" and doesn't really change anything. | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
On January 15 2018 06:36 Gorsameth wrote: Out of curiosity, why do you doubt your media's reporting on Republicans? Because I haven't read a single bad thing about Obama except for the Snowden affair, which was downplayed and for which the media mostly held Bush responsible, despite Obama having a large influence. In the meantime pretty much every article I read in Spiegel, Focus, Welt, FAZ mentioning republicans portrays them as homophobic, racist, nationalists who are conservative enough to work for the Vatican City State. Before I started watching the original speeches I thought Hillary was a decent candidate, afterwards I deemed the crisis the democratic party is in as larger than the one our SPD is in. And our political party correlation tester tells me I should vote liberal>social>>conservative>national. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
she has a technocratic style which iirc fits more with how things are in europe. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
It probably didn't start with Reagan either,i can imagine Nixon also not being seen favorable by European press. Maybe it is also cultural. I do feel that republicans are more like what we see here as "typical americans" which overhere kinda means pretty much like cowboys,shoot first and ask questions later. Not to subtle and not to well thought out,to put it bluntly. Policy also plays a role and democrats are more similar in policy to Europeans then republicans. Still I find it remarkable how big and persistent the bias is. Obama could not do anything wrong and trump/bush can not do anything right, where in the end their foreign policys did not differ all that much. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 15 2018 12:10 pmh wrote: I do remember a little bit of the presidency of Reagan but not to much,i don't have documentation though I could look it up I guess. What struck with me most was that he was seen/portraid as "some moviestar", a show man who won the presidency because he did well on tv. But there where also policy isues,most importantly the deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe against which there was a lot of resistance. It probably didn't start with Reagan either,i can imagine Nixon also not being seen favorable by European press. Maybe it is also cultural. I do feel that republicans are more like what we see here as "typical americans" which overhere kinda means pretty much like cowboys,shoot first and ask questions later. Not to subtle and not to well thought out,to put it bluntly. Policy also plays a role and democrats are more similar in policy to Europeans then republicans. Still I find it remarkable how big and persistent the bias is. Obama could not do anything wrong and trump/bush can not do anything right, where in the end their foreign policys did not differ all that much. are you going off your own memory of the matter, the collective memory of the people you know, or some other source? reagan was a moviestar; and his showmanship/charisma certainly helped him win. persistence should be expected; if america is consistently to the right of europe, then the bias of preferring people closer to you should consistently apply. the bias may not be as big as you think it is; it's easy to misestimate the amount of bias based on personal experiences, given the numerous known biases that affect cognition. also trump and bush jr were notably bad at foreign policy, so it wouldn't be that surprising to read such. there also tends to be a narrative that forms around each president, that shapes how they're perceived and portrayed, sometimes a president ends up with a better or worse narrative. republicans also have an extremeness of religion which is very outside european norms. I wouldn't be surprised if american expectations for leaders are also rather different than european; but I don't have much info on that. | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
Ofc since our populace or at least the part reading daily newspaper is a bit more to the left than the average US-citizen that fits mostly just fine. After all people don't question sources which confirm their bias. On January 15 2018 12:07 zlefin wrote: on hillary as a candidate: it depends what you mean; she's terrible at being a candidate (the electioneering part), she's decent at doing the actual job if she gets in (opinions vary of course, especially due to the decades long smear campaign against her, there's a lot of hatedom toward her); she is a policy wonk, when you're getting into the weeds of actual policy detail she really knows what she's doing. she has a technocratic style which iirc fits more with how things are in europe. I could imagine her being good at the diplomatic table or even as an administrator. Probably at networking, she became prime candidate after all. But as a speaker she's terrible and the impression she leaves is terrible as well, which means she has no actual chance at winning an election that's all about impressions (except for making it close against Donald Trump I guess). | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
I think that one reason is that the media in the US is deeply partisan, to the point where it is barely "news" and just opinion. Fox is obviously the worst at this, but CNN is really not much better. Compare this to the BBC, who was criticized for being TOO impartial during the Brexit debates (and hence giving an impression of validity to some of the crazier Leave arguments (like how all the money could be spend on the NHS)). Overseas media is a bit more neutral on Obama, although it is true that the reports are generally more positive than negative. I think a few things really help: - Obama, as a person, comes across as a much nice person than Trump or Bush. He's erudite but also down to earth, and always talks (and shows!) how much he loves his wife and kids. Trump... well. Bush is a bit of a straight talker and so sometimes comes across as a lot stupider than he really is. He ain't that bad looking too. Like it or not, these features are the same sort of biases that you apply to people in your daily life, so it's not surprising that the media also gives Obama a more forgiving time - he's just a nice person to deal with. - Fox (et all) also set up the perfect conditions for everyone else to be more favorably disposed to Obama. By raising this huge stink about non-existent fake crap like the birth certificate issue, Fox created an environment where it was a lot easier to be sympathetic to Obama, and a lot more difficult to be critical of Obama (because who wants to be associated with Fox (lol)). - Finally my personal view is that Obama really understood the point of the position of POTUS. He realized that it's more important as a symbol rather than a policy making tool (while that is, of course still very important). So Obama was careful to invest a lot more effort into up-keeping the symbolism of his office, and then seeing to the policy in a less high-profile way. - This is probably why Clinton was never really able to ride on Obama's success that much. She's great at the policy stuff, but she can't really harness the symbolism of the POTUS position. Trump was more astute on this point - he knew that even though he knew shit about ruling the country, this didn't really matter. It was what people wanted POTUS to symbolize, and so he went all in with his symbolic messaging of making america great again. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 15 2018 12:36 Archeon wrote: I have no ability to judge how good she is at her job, I could imagine her being good at the diplomatic table or even as an administrator. Probably at networking, she became prime candidate after all. But as a speaker she's terrible and the impression she leaves is terrible as well, which means she has no actual chance at winning an election that's all about impressions (except for making it close against Donald Trump I guess). she does have a real chance at winning an election. there's a lot of other factors that affect whether someone wins or not, and even competency does matter a little. saying she has no chance is inaccurate and overblown. a poor chance, sure; but no chance is excessive. | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
But damn, she lost against Trump, that basically says everything you need to know. Ofc there are factors like providing/gathering funding, image creation, tour planning and execution etc. I get that my post above was oversimplifying the matter a lot. But generally leaving a bad impression is something that makes winning an election very hard. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
EDIT: As a thought exercise, picture a theoretical HRC vs Trump general election in 2008 after the GWB presidency. | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
But come on, she lost a presidential election against a living meme. If she doesn't win vs Trump no matter the backstory, whom is she supposed to win against? Imagine she'd run a public election without the "we need to stop the meme from becoming president" backwind. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 15 2018 13:09 Archeon wrote: Yeah and the USA had an economic crisis during Obama's presidency which wasn't the easiest anyways and it was close etc. But come on, she lost a presidential election against a living meme. To be clear, I'm not contending that Clinton was (personally speaking) an amazing campaigner and inspirational figure or something, because I don't think that. I just don't think that "she lost to Trump in 2016" makes her incredibly bad. I'd leave it at "below average". Whoever the Republicans nominated was always going to have a significant environmental advantage and despite Trump's boorishness and unfitness to govern from my perspective there are plenty of people in the United States to whom he is appealing. Just because Trump should not have been able to win in a sane world does not mean he was an utterly trivial opponent in the world in which we in fact live. EDIT: I think you're both still selling short on both the environmental factors and the Republicans' advantage of knowing years in advance they needed to sling mud at Clinton. As long as all we are doing is throwing contradictory opinions at one another though, I don't see much purpose to further discussion, no matter how many times LegalLord insists everybody must agree with him and that he possesses absolute knowledge and truth on this subject. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On January 15 2018 12:02 Archeon wrote: Because I haven't read a single bad thing about Obama except for the Snowden affair, which was downplayed and for which the media mostly held Bush responsible, despite Obama having a large influence. In the meantime pretty much every article I read in Spiegel, Focus, Welt, FAZ mentioning republicans portrays them as homophobic, racist, nationalists who are conservative enough to work for the Vatican City State. Before I started watching the original speeches I thought Hillary was a decent candidate, afterwards I deemed the crisis the democratic party is in as larger than the one our SPD is in. And our political party correlation tester tells me I should vote liberal>social>>conservative>national. The Vatican and Catholic voters are actually generally viewed in America as more aligned with the Democratic party in general. All elections in the USA happen on a fixed schedule. Presidential is every 4 years of course. All 435 members of the House of Representatives are up for reelection every 2 years. All 100 senators are up for election every 6 years. But the Senate elections are staggered, so 32 or 34 senators are up for reelection every 2 years, and each senator serves for 6 years. Interestingly, this feature of Senate elections means that the Senate can occasionally have a very distorted representation of popular sentiment relative to the House, depending on which party has more seats in play in each 2 year cycle. This is going on right now, actually, because the Republicans had a ton of seats up for reelection in 2016, which they all won, plus I think they picked up a Democratic seat or two. They also won majority in the House and won the presidency. Now popular sentiment has shifted against Trump, so the Democrats will likely retake the House. But the Senate seats that are up for reelection in 2018 are mostly Democratic (26 out of 34!), so they will have a very tough time winning a majority in the Senate. This is the reason Doug Jones's win in Alabama was such a huge deal. Even 1 more Senate seat for the Democrats right now means a lot, since the 2018 map for them is so bad. If you want to learn more about this, Nate Silver has a great article about it: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-democrats-senate-chances-overrated/ | ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
On January 15 2018 13:16 Aquanim wrote: To be clear, I'm not contending that Clinton was (personally speaking) an amazing campaigner and inspirational figure or something, because I don't think that. I just don't think that "she lost to Trump in 2016" makes her incredibly bad. I'd leave it at "below average". Whoever the Republicans nominated was always going to have a significant environmental advantage and despite Trump's boorishness and unfitness to govern from my perspective there are plenty of people in the United States to whom he is appealing. Just because Trump should not have been able to win in a sane world does not mean he was an utterly trivial opponent in the world in which we in fact live. EDIT: I think you're both still selling short on both the environmental factors and the Republicans' advantage of knowing years in advance they needed to sling mud at Clinton. As long as all we are doing is throwing contradictory opinions at one another though, I don't see much purpose to further discussion, no matter how many times LegalLord insists everybody must agree with him and that he possesses absolute knowledge and truth on this subject. I can understand that standpoint, but I think the average US-citizen is made out less sane than he actually is. I can't count how often I've read "can't I vote for a different candidate?" as a top comment on youtube on related videos. Non-major parties overall roughly tripled the amount of votes they got compared to the three elections before. And I get that the race was very tight and after GWB Hillary might have won the exact same race. But winning vs Trump isn't that great of an achievement. On January 15 2018 13:24 TheLordofAwesome wrote: The Vatican and Catholic voters are actually generally viewed in America as more aligned with the Democratic party in general. All elections in the USA happen on a fixed schedule. Presidential is every 4 years of course. All 435 members of the House of Representatives are up for reelection every 2 years. All 100 senators are up for election every 6 years. But the Senate elections are staggered, so 32 or 34 senators are up for reelection every 2 years, and each senator serves for 6 years. Interestingly, this feature of Senate elections means that the Senate can occasionally have a very distorted representation of popular sentiment relative to the House, depending on which party has more seats in play in each 2 year cycle. This is going on right now, actually, because the Republicans had a ton of seats up for reelection in 2016, which they all won, plus I think they picked up a Democratic seat or two. They also won majority in the House and won the presidency. Now popular sentiment has shifted against Trump, so the Democrats will likely retake the House. But the Senate seats that are up for reelection in 2018 are mostly Democratic (26 out of 34!), so they will have a very tough time winning a majority in the Senate. This is the reason Doug Jones's win in Alabama was such a huge deal. Even 1 more Senate seat for the Democrats right now means a lot, since the 2018 map for them is so bad. If you want to learn more about this, Nate Silver has a great article about it: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-democrats-senate-chances-overrated/ Thank you, very informative  Interesting article as well, although not sure how related^^ Didn't know about the details of the senatorial elections, the more I read about the US-system the more I feel like it's designed to pick up slow on change. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
RSL Revival
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
