EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3543
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On March 12 2022 01:33 farvacola wrote: The Washington Examiner is not a reliable source for anything other than far-right partisanry. Do you have any non-partisan sources to support your view? Byron York is a well known reporter on things GOP, he's well sourced in thr party. In fact I think I've linked that exact piece before. He's exactly the type of person you would expect to go looking around. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2939 Posts
On March 12 2022 04:57 Introvert wrote: Byron York is a well known reporter on things GOP, he's well sourced in thr party. In fact I think I've linked that exact piece before. He's exactly the type of person you would expect to go looking around. Right, but the piece starts with: The original draft of the platform — it has never been released publicly, but an insider shared the relevant passages with me Which just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Sorry | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27355 Posts
In a wider sense when assessing Trump’s foreign policy, I am curious as to what he directs and what happens essentially around him, or indeed despite him. Or his governance in general for that matter. It would seem eminently plausible to me that the wider administration, as well as the constants in military and intelligence were pursuing certain courses of action, and Trump being hellbent on making something stick to Biden threw a spanner in the works as to the overall direction. Which would absolutely be unlike him. Likewise, while not universally so the withdrawal from Syria was somewhat popular, there was certain buy-in there and what messes there were seem to coincide rather neatly with Trump’s personal interjections. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2939 Posts
On March 12 2022 05:50 WombaT wrote: In fairness, that’s relatively common journalistic practice. I don’t know this fellow but I assume Introvert has a better grasp of who’s a reliable inside source for GOP things than most of us. Sure but it's effectively unverified information that can't be verified. If that's your theshold for accepting something as a fact... To be frank, I disregard this type of hogwash (referring to the use of unverifiable information) when it originates from left-leaning news sources as well. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27355 Posts
On March 12 2022 08:58 EnDeR_ wrote: Sure but it's effectively unverified information that can't be verified. If that's your theshold for accepting something as a fact... To be frank, I disregard this type of hogwash (referring to the use of unverifiable information) when it originates from left-leaning news sources as well. I don’t think it’s necessarily hogwash. Basically anything the GOP says is utter hogwash IMO As to what the GOP actually thinks internally and whatever is going on there in terms of internal power dynamics, well I have no real idea. If Introvert thinks this is a generally reliable source of info on internal GOP dynamics, then I’ll take him for his word on this. He may be wrong. I have zero idea who would be a reliable source in this regard. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
Treat it more skeptically if you want, but, again, he's exactly the person who would be interested in finding the backstory and someone delegates would trust enough to talk to. Not every bit of information can come from a few supposedly non-partisan sources (I contend the media generally has a very distinct lean so if I took a more stringent approach I would believe basically no one). Maybe instead of thinking of this story or things York reports as true or false, think of it as "more likely true than false." Or add it to your list of things to consider when trying to figure out what is accurate, even if you weight it down a little bit. edit: these type of hybrid, unapologetic reporter/pundit types exist everywhere at least in this country and of course publications that support a certain side are almost as old as politics in this country itself. If you don't consider that part of the information ecosystem you just cutting off a huge source of potential information. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2939 Posts
On March 12 2022 12:37 Introvert wrote: York is a conservative leaning reporter/pundit at a right-leaning publication. He's been around quite a long time, is well connected in the GOP, and is trusted generally. He has biases, but they are out in the open. He's exactly the type of person who would go looking into something like this and he's a person the people involved would trust. That doesn't mean people didn't lie to him, but he's not a fabricator. Treat it more skeptically if you want, but, again, he's exactly the person who would be interested in finding the backstory and someone delegates would trust enough to talk to. Not every bit of information can come from a few supposedly non-partisan sources (I contend the media generally has a very distinct lean so if I took a more stringent approach I would believe basically no one). Maybe instead of thinking of this story or things York reports as true or false, think of it as "more likely true than false." Or add it to your list of things to consider when trying to figure out what is accurate, even if you weight it down a little bit. edit: these type of hybrid, unapologetic reporter/pundit types exist everywhere at least in this country and of course publications that support a certain side are almost as old as politics in this country itself. If you don't consider that part of the information ecosystem you just cutting off a huge source of potential information. I get what you're saying but in the current climate most things get twisted almost out of recognition by the publication's bias (both left and right) to the point that it looks like misinformation. In my view, unless it gets picked up by at least another reputable outlet, I think a very healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. I'd argue that you can't take any political pundit at their word so I don't really feel that it's a major loss in terms of potential information. If the story is verifiable, it generally gets picked up by the more conventional journalists. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
https://www.latimes.com/world/la-na-pol-ukraine-gop-20160720-snap-story.html At the time, democratic policy was not to send lethal assistance to Ukraine. So it stands to reason that the people who changed the RNC platform language felt it was simply good policy. In any case, the platform still allowed for "appropriate assistance," and the Trump admin ended up sending lethal assistance. Truly a nothingburger, and likely a knowingly flimsy story designed for narrative building. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4241 Posts
Not to mention that weird story Trump was concerned about Poland was going to invade Belarus....which is a weird Russian psy op. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2939 Posts
On March 13 2022 04:53 JimmiC wrote: Only associated with the american left, because the US right is so out there, especially since Trump changed the values to more or less just be the opposite of what ever dems say. It just represents the target audience. One is more interested in facts, the other in feelings. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On March 12 2022 12:37 Introvert wrote: York is a conservative leaning reporter/pundit at a right-leaning publication. He's been around quite a long time, is well connected in the GOP, and is trusted generally. He has biases, but they are out in the open. He's exactly the type of person who would go looking into something like this and he's a person the people involved would trust. That doesn't mean people didn't lie to him, but he's not a fabricator. By this description he seems like more of a useful idiot than a journalist. He's not a fabricator, but he will print the lies so he can keep his access. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 14 2022 03:37 lestye wrote: I don't know how you can say that after we spent two years of conservatives spreading so much misinformation on COVID and democracy. He's been posting low effort trolling nonsense with no coherence or basis in reality for several pages now. We should stop feeding it. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On March 14 2022 04:35 NewSunshine wrote: He's been posting low effort trolling nonsense with no coherence or basis in reality for several pages now. We should stop feeding it. Such overreactions from some on this site. It's a generally true statement and the response was not even a slam dunk response. He pointed out a difference between conservatives and liberals, but even if that's an exception to the general rule, it can still be worth pointing out the general rule. To respond "there are exceptions though" does not transform the original statement into "trolling nonsense." You're just overreacting to a statement you disagree with. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On March 12 2022 00:15 WombaT wrote: There are two arguments on this issue that are routinely used to fan the females by the malicious. The tenor of any wider conversation on the issue is framed by these two, largely bullshit issues. So, fairly or not some of us will jump at hearing those two particular topics invoked, especially right after a trans person has expressed concern at real issues. And solutions that actually amplify the problems they’re meant to solve. ‘People should use the bathroom that corresponds with their birth gender’ being a neat example. Great so now you’ve got passing trans dudes and dudettes going to the bathrooms that don’t correspond with how they look, which won’t be exactly the supposed problem in the first place. It is very much worth considering how to get the ignorant on board, but you can only lead a horse to water. If they don’t want to drink well, are they any functionally different from the malicious at that point? They’re certainly difficult to differentiate. If someone came to me wanting the discussion, it would largely go like this: 1. The sports question - Tricky with no great answers IMO. 2. The bathroom question - Mostly bullshit because x, y, z IMO 3, 4, 5 etc. Actual issues that trans people face, or indeed society at large face, let’s have a look at those while we’re at it. Incidentally there are times I feel the envelope can be pushed too far and is ultimately counter-productive no matter how well-meaning or how it’s framed. ‘If you wouldn’t be in a relationship with a trans person you’re a bigot’ would be one of those. As somebody with a mental health disorder, it seems a difficult sell that this doesn’t also qualify. Similarly I’ve seen moves to classify autism in similar ways. I’ve heard good arguments for both, which I broadly agree with, I.e intersection with cultural norms and the environment with neurodivergent brains is the cause of distress. Which, broadly yes I agree, but, well we live in this environment and it’s not wholly changing anytime soon. Whereas ‘this causes trans people distress and for many transitioning is the best treatment’, yeah skeptics can be won over by their basic compassion there. For #2 I see a trend in some places going towards unisex toilets. At least now no one can complain about the wrong sex using the toilet! | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2939 Posts
On March 14 2022 11:53 Doc.Rivers wrote: Such overreactions from some on this site. It's a generally true statement and the response was not even a slam dunk response. He pointed out a difference between conservatives and liberals, but even if that's an exception to the general rule, it can still be worth pointing out the general rule. To respond "there are exceptions though" does not transform the original statement into "trolling nonsense." You're just overreacting to a statement you disagree with. Your reply to the first post was: By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor. You could have easily listed (and sourced) the measures and discussed their implications and why they were relevant and supported your conclusion. That would have been a good, high quality post. Instead you went for a dismissive dig: "Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor". That's low-quality shit-posting. It's not that hard: source your claims, discuss why they're relevant and support your conclusion and stop deflecting into whataboutism. I guarantee you will get a much better response if you do that. | ||
| ||
