logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Has a left leaning media benefited Democrats?, Media bias and it's effect on the public. (Trump, protest, electio
net2007
post Dec 8 2016, 08:00 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,220
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



This thread will surround what this election has meant for what many have seen as a predominately left-wing media. I'll also touch some on how a slanted media can lead to misconception or at worst incite violence.

For years left-wing media bias has been viewed, by some, as a conspiracy theory pushed by conservatives who don't like their ideas challenged. Back in the Bush and Obama years this lead me to seek some form of reliable substantiation for this in polling data, such as with this PewResearch Poll from 2013...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/ami...ole-stands-out/

QUOTE
Overall, about seven-in-ten (72%) see news organizations in ideological terms. A 46%-plurality says news organizations are best described as liberal, another 26% say they are conservative. Just 19% say news organizations are best described as neither liberal nor conservative.

Most Republicans See a Liberal News MediaThe balance of opinion on this question has changed little in recent years, with a plurality consistently describing news organizations as liberal, and about a quarter saying they are conservative.

Not surprisingly, there are wide partisan divides in perceptions of news organizations’ ideology. By a 65%-17% margin, more Republicans say news organizations are liberal than conservative. By contrast, Democrats are divided: about as many say the press is liberal (36%) as conservative (37%). By about two-to-one (47%-23%), more independents say news organizations are better described as liberal than conservative.


If you deduct the often fixed opinions of the far right and left, you can see here that it was often those undecided independents who held this opinion.

With this election I feel liberal media bias has been exposed to the point that it's an argument that's difficult to counter, this due largely to the media siding with Hillary Clinton and other Democratic nominees all while Donald Trump remained persistent in calling them out in a way that hasn't been done before. In retrospect what good did it do liberals to have a media that speaks to the strength of one candidate so much? According to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, it gave a false sense of confidence that lead to some Democrats staying home on election night, comfortable with their belief that Hillary Clinton was far ahead.

In his words.... (edited for length)

QUOTE
“The Clinton campaign believed until 9 o'clock that they had a lock on this, that they were going to win. The fault of that, actually, lies with the media. There is some self-reflection, Jim Rutenberg today writes a fascinating article where the New York Times editor and others basically come to terms with the fact that they stopped being journalists for the past month, and began being cheerleaders, and began being people who had a conclusion that they reached, and then searched for facts that Hillary was a 92, 93, 99.999 percent chance winner of this campaign...............It was there the entire time, they didn’t want to hear it, they didn’t want to see it........You were trying to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump because you thought Donald Trump would be such a malignant cancer on our Constitutional Republic. It was much easier for you to stay in Manhattan and say “they're all voting for Trump because they're racists and bigots." If you really do believe that then you believe that over 50 million people are racists and bigots.......The first thing you did was you put liberals and Democrats and independents who thought like you – you put them in a position where they were complacent, where they really did believe not only in New York but across America and the world – that Hillary Clinton had a 98.99% of being elected president."


If interested watch the full video here....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-8EPmM8Ijk

You also had Michael Moore, who isn't conservative by any stretch, lay out a four-point post-election plan where he's suggesting, more or less, not to trust the media because they weren't acknowledging conservatives and what was really going on. He hasn't turned conservative, my guess is that he's saying this because he thinks the best way to keep the Democratic party strong is for them to acknowledge their opponents and what they really want, he was suggesting that they felt neglected which has been true for the better part of the last 8 years.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-12/l...onest-reporting

For some it may seem redundant to suggest the media is generally left leaning but there are those who don't believe this is accurate so I want to bring it up in the debate questions regardless. The larger purpose of the thread is to talk about what effect this is having. I've mentioned above that I believe it's lead to overconfidence in politicians who are underperforming but I think it goes beyond that. If someone genuinely believes what their news source is telling them, and that news source is telling them that their opponents are racist simpletons, what effect would this have?

For me, it means that someone such as this would be more prone to developing issues of their own. Take the liberal protesting machine, when I look at it, it seems obvious that acts of violence or discrimination are amplified when compared to conservative protest. This will likely be hotly debated because the consensus among Democrats has been the opposite, where for many conservatism is seen as a warning sign for bigotry or problems surrounding racism. To be up front I don't think a political affiliation will define a persons temperament, but when I look at trends, as it stands right now I think Democrats and liberals have a problem they need to address fast.

When I look at this election and the protest that resulted from it I just don't see the same degree of proactive arrogance from the right that I see from the left. I've seen left-wing extremist block up traffic for miles by protesting in the middle of the street, I saw a man sprint at Donald Trump during one of his rallies, he jumped over a barricade and tried to get on stage, bodyguards had to tackle him to stop him. I saw protesters rioting in cities after the election, destroying public property. Then there was this, here you have several people team up on an old man, and this wasn't even at a rally...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9snWgbVt5w

They kick in and punch him in the head while screaming at him for voting for Trump. While I don't think this is a fair representation of all liberals or Democrats, I think this kind of thing is a problem that goes unacknowledged by many. What does all of this have to do with the media? I think discrimination often starts from the top down, you do have these ridiculous things that conservatives say, so there are racist conservatives who don't care. However when you have media pundits who concentrate on this without revealing that this is an issue shared by liberals, and when they fail to reveal the good characteristics of those who think differently then naturally you'll have some who develop a warped view without perspective. I think it starts with our politicians and the media, it then filters down onto parents and college professors who teach a younger generation what others have taught them.

This would be true of conservatives as well, you have media pundits who teach their listeners to distrust or despise their opponents but what I'm looking at here are numbers and percentages. When you have polls coming out that suggest the media is largely left leaning and you have liberal columnist and news organizations acknowledging that it's a problem, the question for me becomes will more people catch on?

So that's my take on it. Regardless of who's at fault more, I see this as an issue that liberals will need to take seriously to move forward. When talking about equality, living by example is the best way to promote that and this election has had a drastic change on how effective it is for prominent Democrats to promote equality if they can't take responsibility for things happening within their own party.

Questions for debate...

1. Does the media favor liberals?
2. What effect do you believe media bias can have on its viewers?
3. Why do you believe Donald Trump was able to win despite the claims of racism and bigotry against him?

Bonus..

4. Share, what you believe to be the worst thing demonstrated by either the Republicans or Democrats (the one you oppose the most), and share something you feel was an act that promotes unity.


This post has been edited by net2007: Dec 8 2016, 08:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
net2007
post Dec 19 2016, 11:51 PM
Post #41


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,220
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 19 2016, 12:37 PM) *
The Washington Post has created a Chrome plug-in that does immediate fact checking of Trump's tweets, according to PC (as in 'puters and not politics) Magazine:

http://www.pcmag.com/news/350425/this-chro...k-trumps-tweets

The only comment on the article when I checked it was from some kid or childish adult laughing at the Post. Yeah, well they're all over the place now, kids and childish adults.

Two points:

1) Trump is our first PE who's addicted to social media, which tells me a lot about what makes him tick, and:

2) Some Chrome plug-ins are entirely unnecessary. There are not and have never been any facts to check in Trump's social media yammerings. He just creates stuff in his own mind and lets it all excrete into electronic ink. Some of his excrement is more odoriferous than usual, but it all stinks.

I guess this will be his version of fireside chats and weekend updates.

On the plus side, SNL is coming through with lots of enjoyable satire regarding our vainglorious leader. Trump gets upset over it, which is better than the satire because his weak little ego can't help but take control of his thumbs.


Right, SNL always hits conservatives hard, Holywood is even more liberal than CNN or MSNBC. It's not that liberal politicians don't offer good material to work with or don't have corrupt politicians, celebrities have the motive and the will to give a slanted view of things to influence their audience. Worst part is that many of these individuals have a great deal of talent. For example, I actually enjoy watching Stephen Colbert from time to time but I haven't been a regular watcher of either of his shows because he's too biased. He's likely cut his audience in half with the approach he takes, but hey it makes conservatives cry right?

Have you ever considered that Trump and his followers could be reacting to a liberal base who's treated them unfairly? I think it's funny that Alec Baldwin said he'll stop with the impersonations if Trump releases his tax returns. It's a joke, he's been mocking conservatives, (particularly withing the Republican party), for years and will just move on to the next person if he actually did stick to his deal. I'm not saying everything Trump says is good or acceptable but I think the reason he was elected is because conservatives stood up and revolted. That much I can appreciate though I think the criticisms should be directed only at those causing problems and not entire groups. Regardless, I think this part of the reason for Trump being elected. Thoughts?

This post has been edited by net2007: Dec 20 2016, 04:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 20 2016, 01:52 PM
Post #42


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



I do wish Trump would stop twittering (tweeting? chirping?) angry messages at two AM.
I'm hoping they nip that in the bud because it's not very presidential.
But I think he is doing better.
He did well, in my opinion, with the Chinese stolen drone caper.
"We don't want it! They can keep it!"
That's not bad.
Seriously...what were we going to do? Thank them for handing it back after they stole it?
I think this Trump handled it fine.
(and I thought the official claim this is a nature observational drone in the China Sea was pretty funny...yep, just out here to watch whales mating...)
The old campaigning Trump would have twertered a picture of himself spitting on the drone with the caption,
"I nut rubbed it, too! And we have big league drones now…that’s an old one, it’s not big league.”

QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 19 2016, 01:20 AM) *
I think this misses the point of Masha Gessen's article. Maybe we'll be better off with a thoroughly armed populace, and will be able to fend off any attempts at authoritarian government, but I think the bigger point is that it's hard to tell that these things are coming, and often times, people make decisions to 'work with (or within)' systems they don't agree with because there's not much else they can do. She cites her grandfather's experience of compiling lists of Jews to be taken away, even though he initially took the position to help his people.


Was there really any doubt her grandfather understood he was living under an authoritarian government? People were rounded up, their property confiscated en masse, and they were throw into ghettos. The powers that be weren't exactly coy.
I'm not educated on the matter enough to know actual survival rates per ghetto, but we do know the alternative to NOT compromising...because history has made it pretty clear that death was the alternative (and even if people might be willing to sacrifice themselves they typically aren't as cavalier with their families).

QUOTE
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 16 2016, 08:25 AM) *
I remember the day my world view changed very much. It was the day I was hit full-force with just what a lying sham the election process is, and the media coverage surrounding it. I was very young, and the political candidate who won the presidency that year was campaigning at my campus! I was excited to ask questions and raised my hand as the cameras rolled. Silly me, I found out later all of the questions and questioners were prescripted. The media made it look as though he was taking random questions from students in the crowd. Perhaps before news became entertainment things were different, but it has been a long long time since any political candidate DIDN'T "lie his/her way in to power" (also see the leaked DNC details).


Can you elaborate a bit more on this? Is having prescreened questions the same as lying? Additionally, is there truly no difference between Trump and, say, Bill Clinton or George W Bush in terms of lying (though, that war in Iraq lie was a doozy!)?


Is there really any point in elaborating on this? Do we need to go into the numerous lies politicians tell on a daily basis or can we just agree it's obvious.
Politician says, 'I will not raise taxes to pay for my programs" and three months into the job says, "I'm going to have to raise taxes to pay for these programs".
Ad nauseum ect.
Press conference with students:
"Hey, you son over there...no, not you, guy in the blue hat..."
(blue hat asks question)
"Well, that's a good one. I'm going to have to think about that for a minute..."

At what point do you call it a lie? If you don't want to call the above lying that's fine but please use a consistent metric.
Politicians lie. It's what they do. From my perspective saying, "I'll get rid of Obamacare" and changing it to "We won't get rid of Obamacare in its entirety, we will keep the better aspects but change what doesn't work" isn't terribly problematic.
It's actually a relief. I'm hoping he lied about more (perhaps folks in the business would call it hyperbole).
He has already moderated his view on the wall and (to pre-empt a portion of my response below) he changed his mind about prosecuting Hillary. So there are two more changes I think are wise.

QUOTE
Violence not withstanding (there seems to have been violence on both sides, and I am not well-versed enough to provide much of an opinion, except I am annoyed that it's so hard to parse 'the truth', here), I'm surprised that you don't think that Trump has embraced racist discourse. Perhaps we have different definitions of racist.

Do you think his embrace of birtherism is not racist?


Correct. I do not understand why calling Obama's birthplace into question is racist.
It's not unique. Folks called McCain into question for his birthplace.
Trump also said Cruz is a Canadian. Is that racist?

FWIW, no, I don't think Obama was born in Kenya. But that doesn't make the assertion racist.
(pretty sure we had a topic back in the day were I disputed the assertion his birth cert wasn't real, using my own marriage certificate, from Hawaii)
NEXT:

QUOTE


This was addressed in my link earlier. I believe the author is correct in his analysis.
QUOTE
Trump’s quote:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I’m serious. It’s anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here. It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people – but those generally aren’t the ones who are coming illegally.

Compare to eg Bill Clinton’s 1996 platform (all emphasis mine):
We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away.

Or John McCain in 2008:
Border security is essential to national security. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people.

Trump’s platform contains similar language – and, like all past platforms, also contains language praising legal immigrants:
Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.

We are particularly grateful to the thousands of new legal immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces and among first responders. Their patriotism should encourage all to embrace the newcomers legally among us, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid isolation from the mainstream of society. We are also thankful for the many legal immigrants who continue to contribute to American society.

When Democrats and Republicans alike over the last twenty years say that we are a nation of immigrants but that illegal immigrants threaten our security, or may be criminals or drug pushers, they’re met with yawns. When Trump says exactly the same thing, he’s Literally the KKK.


I lived about thirty minutes from the Mexican border for three years, and I knew quite a few people working as border patrol agents then. I haven’t lived there in about five years, but from what they told me then, they would seem to agree with Trump’s statement.
Most of them are Mexican-American.
NEXT:

QUOTE


Yes, and I disagree with Trump. There should NOT be a registry for Muslims. But Islam isn’t a race.
From the article:
QUOTE
But why do he (and his supporters) want to ban/vet Muslims, and not Hindus or Kenyans, even though most Muslims are white(ish) and most Hindus and Kenyans aren’t? Trump and his supporters are concerned about terrorism, probably since the San Bernardino shooting and Pulse nightclub massacre dominated headlines this election season.
You can argue that he and his supporters are biased for caring more about terrorism than about furniture-related injuries, which kill several times more Americans than terrorists do each year. But do you see how there’s a difference between “cognitive bias that makes you unreasonably afraid” versus “white supremacy”?
I agree that this is getting into murky territory and that a better answer here would be to deconstruct the word “racism” into a lot of very heterogenous parts, one of which means exactly this sort of thing. But as I pointed out in Part 4, a lot of these accusations shy away from the word “racism” precisely because it’s an ambiguous thing with many heterogenous parts, some of which are understandable and resemble the sort of thing normal-but-flawed human beings might think. Now they say “KKK white nationalism” or “overt white supremacy”. These terms are powerful exactly because they do not permit the gradations of meaning which this subject demands.
Let me say this for the millionth time. I’m not saying Trump doesn’t have some racist attitudes and policies. I am saying that talk of “entire campaign built around white supremacy” and “the white power candidate” is deliberate and dangerous exaggeration. Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from “ISIS is scary” to “I am scared of all Muslims”. This needs to be called out and fought, but it needs to be done in an understanding way, not with cries of “KKK WHITE SUPREMACY!”



QUOTE
I don't want to turn this into a Hillary-is-worse debate, because she's no longer in the running, but how many criminal investigations do there need to be about these emails before people will be satisfied? Additionally, my friends with strong interests in national security (many working in DC as analysts for this purpose, and many of them self-proclaimed conservatives) disagree that Hillary deserves the attention she has got for this.


“Strong interests in national security” is an extremely vague description. Don't ALL of us have strong interests in our own national security?
Do they work in intelligence fields requiring a high level of security clearance? I know many, many of these folks and to a person they do not believe this is overblown outrage.
I know a person who is very liberal and hates Trump, and has never voted Republican. She sat out this election because as a former Intelligence officer she could not vote for Hillary for this very reason. And THAT is what I think killed Hillary's chances. It isn't that people voted for Trump, it's that they couldn't vote for her so they stayed home.


QUOTE
This seems like a fundamentally different view of acceptability. To me, this is very much reminiscent of authoritarian rhetoric. Would it have been OK for Hillary to tell Trump she was going to go after him for bribing the AG of Florida? I'm just trying to gauge where the line gets drawn.


I find it unacceptable for the head of the State department (for perspective, this is the approving arm for military technology transfers to foreign governments, this is an Original Classification Authority) to exercise a level of negligence with state secrets that is so gobsmacking the head of the FBI admitted he didn’t think it possible until the investigation (he stated this clearly in front of Congress and we had a discussion about it on another recent thread).
If there is some high order security risk via either neglect or malice, involving a person who is placed in a position of public trust, that should be taken very very seriously. The other is an article of innuendo.

That said, if there is actual evidence Trump violated the law that should be investigated too, shouldn’t it? huh.gif
I don’t see what is so hard to understand or why that is an "authoritarian" viewpoint. The alternative is placing people in power positions above the law.
And Comey publicly stated that a person doing precisely what Hillary did would likely receive disciplinary action, but that wasn’t what was decided in her case.
This makes it look very much like they are placing her above the law.
Now, let’s look at Petraeus who DID get punished (though in my estimation not nearly enough).
The (ostensible) difference was intent. Hillary was just inept and stupid (hard to claim ignorance when she had given a briefing on security), whereas Petraeus knew what he was doing.
By that measure, the only thing Petraeus did wrong was hiding it. If he'd left the secrets in plain sight for anyone to come across and then pled ignorance it would've all been square. I think it should be pretty obvious that makes no sense but we turn it around and insert Hillary as the offender and everything is square.

Now consider the reason for the classification system and why we want to keep that information safe. Hillary’s actions, by that measure (and by the look of things she let her maid, who had no clearance, walk around the SCIF and collect and copy documents) were far worse than hiding information and showing classified notes to his side piece (who had a clearance). People who work with state secrets know they would lose their job, at the very least, for doing less. Some of them HAVE personally disciplined and/or fired people for less.

Wow, this is taking me a long time to write. I'm running out of time and will try to get back to it later, but I'll sum some up quickly here:
Again, the tape reflected poorly on Trump. But I don't think it told anyone anything they didn't already know.

I think the bit about formal norms/ informal norms is correct (whether referring to politics or any other social convention...our social norms have changed a great, great deal in the past 20 years for this reason).

I'll post this now, and tackle the last bit when I get chance.

QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 19 2016, 01:20 AM) *
(PS, true to form, this took me forever to write, and I am sure that I left some things out, AND there's still other points that I want to touch upon, but for 'brevity's' sake did not bring up. Also, just want to say that it's been a real pleasure hearing your view Mrs P. I appreciate your genuine engagement with me on the topic.)

Likewise. flowers.gif
Hope you’re having a great holiday season.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 20 2016, 02:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kimpossible
post Dec 20 2016, 03:29 PM
Post #43


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 698
Member No.: 245
Joined: November-8-02

From: on top of spaghetti
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 20 2016, 07:52 AM) *
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 19 2016, 01:20 AM) *
I think this misses the point of Masha Gessen's article. Maybe we'll be better off with a thoroughly armed populace, and will be able to fend off any attempts at authoritarian government, but I think the bigger point is that it's hard to tell that these things are coming, and often times, people make decisions to 'work with (or within)' systems they don't agree with because there's not much else they can do. She cites her grandfather's experience of compiling lists of Jews to be taken away, even though he initially took the position to help his people.


Was there really no doubt her grandfather understood he was living under an authoritarian government? People were rounded up, their property confiscated en masse, and they were throw into ghettos. The powers that be weren't exactly coy. I'm not educated on the matter enough to know actual survival rates per ghetto, but we do know the alternative to NOT compromising...because history has made it pretty clear that death was the alternative (and even if people might be willing to sacrifice themselves they typically aren't as cavalier with their families).


I dunno, were we living under an authoritarian government when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and confiscated their property?

QUOTE
Is there really any point in elaborating on this? Do we need to go into the numerous lies politicians tell on a daily basis or can we just agree it's obvious.
Politician says, 'I will not raise taxes to pay for my programs" and three months into the job says, "I'm going to have to raise taxes to pay for these programs".
Ad nauseum ect.
Press conference with students:
"Hey, you son over there...no, not you, guy in the blue hat..."
(blue hat asks question)
"Well, that's a good one. I'm going to have to think about that for a minute..."

At what point do you call it a lie? If you don't want to call the above lying that's fine but please use a consistent metric.
Politicians lie. It's what they do. From my perspective saying, "I'll get rid of Obamacare" and changing it to "We won't get rid of Obamacare in its entirety, we will keep the better aspects but change what doesn't work" isn't terribly problematic.
It's actually a relief. I'm hoping he lied about more (perhaps folks in the business would call it hyperbole).
He has already moderated his view on the wall and (to pre-empt a portion of my response below) he changed his mind about prosecuting Hillary. So there are two more changes I think are wise.


I agree that people lie, and sure, politicians lie more. I guess some of this comes from my perception that it's not always a 'lie', just because someone changed their mind. Running a country is complex, and saying something on based on one's knowledge of the issue, and then realizing there are more contingencies and changing one's mind, does not seem like a malicious lie. So, to use Trump's Obamacare example (or George HW Bush), I don't necessarily think that's a lie (though I do think it's a sign of his fundamental misunderstanding of a very complicated system).

The lies I'm more concerned with are the ones that are demonstrably false or to me, outright absurd (voter fraud, landslide victory, not supporting Iraq, the NYT losing subscriptions, saying he never mocked a disabled person, possibly lying about his net worth, etc). Even before he ever ran for office, Donald Trump has been called out as a liar.

QUOTE
Alair Townsend, a former deputy mayor in the Koch administration, once quipped, “I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized.”


QUOTE
Correct. I do not understand why calling Obama's birthplace into question is racist.
It's not unique. Folks called McCain into question for his birthplace.
Trump also said Cruz is a Canadian. Is that racist?

FWIW, no, I don't think Obama was born in Kenya. But that doesn't make the assertion racist.
(pretty sure we had a topic back in the day were I disputed the assertion his birth cert wasn't real, using my own marriage certificate, from Hawaii)


I suppose all of this comes to a matter of degree. I had never even heard anything about McCain's birthplace being disputed (and didn't know that he had been born outside the US!), though I had heard about Cruz. So maybe this is an issue of perception, but the fact that the birther assumptions dogged Obama for 8 years, and continues to be an issue even now does seem racist to me (with 41% of Republicans disagreeing that Obama was born in the US, and another 31% expressing doubt that he was a US citizen).

I guess we will never truly know if Obama would be having these issues if he was white, or if McCain (or Cruz) would continue to be plagued with these issues if he had been elected president, but it seems like it would be less of an issue (and the fact that there had been some calls to overturn the citizenship requirement so that Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president, points to a certain level of hypocrisy).


QUOTE

This was addressed in my link earlier. I believe the author is correct in his analysis.
QUOTE
Trump’s quote:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I’m serious. It’s anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here. It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people – but those generally aren’t the ones who are coming illegally.

Compare to eg Bill Clinton’s 1996 platform (all emphasis mine):
We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away.

Or John McCain in 2008:
Border security is essential to national security. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people.

Trump’s platform contains similar language – and, like all past platforms, also contains language praising legal immigrants:
Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.

...

When Democrats and Republicans alike over the last twenty years say that we are a nation of immigrants but that illegal immigrants threaten our security, or may be criminals or drug pushers, they’re met with yawns. When Trump says exactly the same thing, he’s Literally the KKK.


To be fair, I think Clinton and McCain's reference are also racist (too bad I'm not making policy, right?? wink.gif ). While I have no doubt that criminals (ie, drug dealers and rapists, not just those crossing illegally) come through the border, I am hard pressed to believe that its even the majority of people crossing the border. I used to work with migrant day laborers in college at a non-profit day laborer center, many of them here illegally, and the vast majority of them were victims of crimes, rather than outright criminals themselves.

I suppose for my liberal sensibilities, I would have preferred language that stressed the need for border security (which is hard to argue against), without characterizing groups of people as criminals.


QUOTE
QUOTE


Yes, and I disagree with Trump. There should NOT be a registry for Muslims. But Islam isn’t a race.
From the article:
QUOTE
But why do he (and his supporters) want to ban/vet Muslims, and not Hindus or Kenyans, even though most Muslims are white(ish) and most Hindus and Kenyans aren’t? Trump and his supporters are concerned about terrorism, probably since the San Bernardino shooting and Pulse nightclub massacre dominated headlines this election season.
You can argue that he and his supporters are biased for caring more about terrorism than about furniture-related injuries, which kill several times more Americans than terrorists do each year. But do you see how there’s a difference between “cognitive bias that makes you unreasonably afraid” versus “white supremacy”?
I agree that this is getting into murky territory and that a better answer here would be to deconstruct the word “racism” into a lot of very heterogenous parts, one of which means exactly this sort of thing. But as I pointed out in Part 4, a lot of these accusations shy away from the word “racism” precisely because it’s an ambiguous thing with many heterogenous parts, some of which are understandable and resemble the sort of thing normal-but-flawed human beings might think. Now they say “KKK white nationalism” or “overt white supremacy”. These terms are powerful exactly because they do not permit the gradations of meaning which this subject demands.
Let me say this for the millionth time. I’m not saying Trump doesn’t have some racist attitudes and policies. I am saying that talk of “entire campaign built around white supremacy” and “the white power candidate” is deliberate and dangerous exaggeration. Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from “ISIS is scary” to “I am scared of all Muslims”. This needs to be called out and fought, but it needs to be done in an understanding way, not with cries of “KKK WHITE SUPREMACY!”


While there arent calls to ban/vet Hindus or others, I have a feeling that should they be lumped together with a purported Muslim registry, there wouldn't be too many people crying foul. And while Islam isn't a race, a lot of its practitioners are pretty dark-skinned (and yes, I am aware of the white Muslims [a practicing friend of mine from Turkey is blonde with blue eyes]), and mental heuristics often cause us to lump people together based on very broad features, and I suspect that blond Muslims aren't the ones currently getting harassed at airports/on the street (however, my Indian friends are).

Though I don't think that calling Trump a candidate for white supremacy is an exaggeration (when white supremacists are literally celebrating his winning the election), I would agree that dismissing all of his supporters as racist is an exaggeration. It's something I've been thinking of how to address, on a more general level. It seems like the biggest hurdle here is that we (and more broadly, US society) have different definitions of racism, with mine being much broader than yours. For me, racism encompasses both isolated racist actions, but also refers to a larger system that exploits people's tribal tendencies to group 'others' together (see discussion of brown people and Muslim registry).

QUOTE
I don't want to turn this into a Hillary-is-worse debate, because she's no longer in the running, but how many criminal investigations do there need to be about these emails before people will be satisfied? Additionally, my friends with strong interests in national security (many working in DC as analysts for this purpose, and many of them self-proclaimed conservatives) disagree that Hillary deserves the attention she has got for this.


QUOTE
“Strong interests in national security” is an extremely vague description. Don't ALL of us have strong interests in our own national security?
Do they work in intelligence fields requiring a high level of security clearance? I know many, many of these folks and to a person they do not believe this is overblown outrage.
I know a person who is very liberal and hates Trump, and has never voted Republican. She sat out this election because as a former Intelligence officer she could not vote for Hillary for this very reason. And THAT is what I think killed Hillary's chances. It isn't that people voted for Trump, it's that they couldn't vote for her so they stayed home.


Yes, some of them do have security clearances, but no, I don't know precisely at what level. And while I have an 'interest' in national security, I mostly think that we're pretty secure as a nation, and it's not my top priority as a political concern (though it might become one, as I grow ever more fearful of Trump's parade of horrifically underqualified cabinet members).


QUOTE
That said, if there is actual evidence Trump violated the law that should be investigated too, shouldn’t it? huh.gif I don’t see what is so hard to understand or why that is an "authoritarian" viewpoint. The alternative is placing people in power positions above the law.
And Comey publicly stated that a person doing precisely what Hillary did would likely receive disciplinary action, but that wasn’t what was decided in her case.
This makes it look very much like they are placing her above the law.


Absolutely, if Trump appeared to have broken the law he should be investigated; however, the issue is that Hillary was investigated and they decided not to more forward with any punishments, AND that Trump stated that she should be thrown in jail, regardless of these investigations. In addition to that, he had said that he would re-open the investigation with the sole purpose of going after his political opponent. To me, this seems highly authoritarian. It seems that we're hinging on whether or not these investigations are legitimate, with me thinking they were and the issue should be closed, and you thinking they were not.

QUOTE
Wow, this is taking me a long time to write. I'm running out of time and will try to get back to it later


The curse strikes again! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Dec 20 2016, 05:37 PM
Post #44


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 20 2016, 10:29 AM) *
... [Trump] had said that he would re-open the investigation with the sole purpose of going after his political opponent. ...
...

That's a mighty serious claim, there. One that requires you to provide incontrovertible (note: 'Well, that's how it came across to me' simply won't do, I'm afraid) substantiation for it. Please provide it, lest you run the risk of being guilty of precisely what you've accusing Trump of: not just exaggerating, but actually ... lying.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kimpossible
post Dec 20 2016, 07:33 PM
Post #45


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 698
Member No.: 245
Joined: November-8-02

From: on top of spaghetti
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Dec 20 2016, 11:37 AM) *
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 20 2016, 10:29 AM) *
... [Trump] had said that he would re-open the investigation with the sole purpose of going after his political opponent. ...
...

That's a mighty serious claim, there. One that requires you to provide incontrovertible (note: 'Well, that's how it came across to me' simply won't do, I'm afraid) substantiation for it. Please provide it, lest you run the risk of being guilty of precisely what you've accusing Trump of: not just exaggerating, but actually ... lying.


Good thing I hold no position of power. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Dec 20 2016, 07:58 PM
Post #46


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 20 2016, 02:33 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Dec 20 2016, 11:37 AM) *
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 20 2016, 10:29 AM) *
... [Trump] had said that he would re-open the investigation with the sole purpose of going after his political opponent. ...
...

That's a mighty serious claim, there. One that requires you to provide incontrovertible (note: 'Well, that's how it came across to me' simply won't do, I'm afraid) substantiation for it. Please provide it, lest you run the risk of being guilty of precisely what you've accusing Trump of: not just exaggerating, but actually ... lying.


Good thing I hold no position of power. rolleyes.gif

Aah, so he didn't say what you claimed he said.

Pray tell us, "kimpossible":

How far removed from power does one need to be in order for one's utter lack of intellectual integrity to cease being a bad thing?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 24 2016, 04:16 PM
Post #47


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 20 2016, 11:29 AM) *
The lies I'm more concerned with are the ones that are demonstrably false or to me, outright absurd (voter fraud, landslide victory, not supporting Iraq, the NYT losing subscriptions, saying he never mocked a disabled person, possibly lying about his net worth, etc). Even before he ever ran for office, Donald Trump has been called out as a liar.


Is the voter fraud suspicion truly so "demonstrably false" or "absurd"? The recent vote recount in Detroit lends support to the voter fraud suspicion.
Per "Landslide victory"...well, in 1992 they called a win with 43 percent of the overall vote a "mandate".
Don't know about the NYT losing or gaining subscriptions... This seems like really small stuff. Does the article in 1997 tell us anything we don't already know?

Trump stands up and says, "I know more about national security than the generals, believe me!"
Is that a lie? Or blowhard hyperbole? I read it as the latter. Maybe because in politics Congresspeople who know absolutely nothing routinely come across like they believe they know more than the sum total of a roomful of experienced military officers. And they seem to care nothing for national security (or only so far as it directly affects their districts, or more precisely, the opinions of the electorates in their districts).

QUOTE
I suppose all of this comes to a matter of degree. I had never even heard anything about McCain's birthplace being disputed (and didn't know that he had been born outside the US!), though I had heard about Cruz. So maybe this is an issue of perception, but the fact that the birther assumptions dogged Obama for 8 years, and continues to be an issue even now does seem racist to me (with 41% of Republicans disagreeing that Obama was born in the US, and another 31% expressing doubt that he was a US citizen).


Again, I'm not sure why it's racist to question a person's birthplace. If one wants to believe something (as I mentioned before), cog dissonance sets in and the person accepts information that supports his or her desire. Once you "buy it" (as I also mentioned before) it takes a lot to shake that paradigm. It's pretty much an irrelevancy at this point, the poll does not support the claim it "continues to be an issue" it is in fact a non-issue. Not wanting Obama to be president is not ipso facto racist. And not wanting Hillary to be president is not ipso facto sexist. These are overused pejoratives. At one point they were powerful claims but they have been made so often and so frivolously that are now losing the left supporters.

Interestingly enough, I just found out we actually DO have a Muslim registry, of sorts...at least we did until yesterday.

Summing this all up...
People think in comparisons. I'll give an example (from 'Blink' if memory serves, or maybe it was 'Tipping Point'): Bread machines. When they first came out, few people were buying. There was no market for the bread machine. So, the company made a (very few) much more expensive models to put next to the standard one. And they started selling like hot cakes (pun dat). Once people saw the price comparison, they figured the price for the less expensive model (with a list of similar attributes) was a pretty good price. Some of the more successful Real Estate companies do this, too. They keep a couple of more expensive, but less "nice", properties on hand. They'll show those properties to the clients first and by the time they get to the nicer, less expensive house it seems like a good deal (or a better one than it would otherwise).
I can guarantee Trump is aware of these tactics, and he uses them. He is a celebrity and salesman. The political right is aware of these tactics and they use them.
Hillary, who has spent a lifetime in politics, is just as aware of these tactics and she uses them as does the political left. So the tobacco company example, while relevant, is just as relevant when analyzing left sided politics. Case in point, see the end (just yesterday) of the Muslim registry. What do you think the left will say if and when Trump attempts to restart the registry they just had under Obama? This even seems....planned.

A professor's thoughts regarding the Trump university settlement.

QUOTE
Before going further, I want to mention a small issue. Many use this settlement as proof that Trump is a scammer. Perhaps so, but I think the best you can take from this is if Trump does wrong, he’ll actually be taken to court…a scammer he may be, but unlike the last half dozen presidents, he’ll actually have to face consequences for his illegal actions. Trump says he settled just so this case, already in its 6th year, can finally go away; I’ll accept this as face value, because we all know how issues that are resolved with incessant denials despite mountains of evidence never seem to go away (hi Hillary!).

(snip)And so I rejoice: we now have precedent for taking many of our so-called “universities” to court and charging them with the same level of fraud that Trump University settled for—I do note that part of the settlement requires no admission of wrongdoing (of course)…but the precedent is now clear. If all it takes to be part of a lawsuit is for the education not to pay off, the implications here are staggering.

We have around 20,000,000 college students. Half of college graduates (and that’s just the graduates!) are working in jobs where the degree is worthless. So, let’s do the math. 10,000,000 ripped off customers, bigger than the lawsuit. $100,000 per degree, again more than Trump’s lawsuit. So, $1,000,000,000,000, a trillion dollar lawsuit can be filed against higher education. That’s just for this year’s students. This fraud has been going for twenty years at the least, so we’re talking $20 trillion worth of lawsuits.

(snip)
The key meta-issue the last election was the sheer hypocrisy of hyper-criticism of every splinter in Trump’s eye (and there are plenty, I grant) while ignoring a veritable redwood forest of logs elsewhere. If Trump’s piffling 6,000 students and nine million dollars merit a multi-year lawsuit, then, absolutely, ten million students, for a trillion dollars, would as well. I’m not holding my breath, I know it won’t go country wide, but what happens when a typical university, with 25,000 students or more, suddenly finds itself being slapped with mega-lawsuits wanting that tuition money back. It’s a crack pipe dream to suspect the thieving administration will be forced to give back the money, I know, but just to see the immense frauds end will still be good enough.


The same professor's thoughts regarding microaggressions.
QUOTE
I grant that, in times past, professors (and other people) said some outright offensive things, but nowadays, the only offensive racists I’ve seen and heard on campus were multiculturalists and diversity professors.

With all the overt racism removed, we’ve now moved on to the concept of “microaggression,” where students take offense at the most ridiculous thing, cry “racism,” and spineless administration supports the student, even when the aggression is literally so small that it can’t be seen (hence the name). That’s ok, because that’s the point of micro aggression.
(snip)

[The professor, Rust] had changed a student’s capitalization of the word “indigenous” in her dissertation proposal to the lowercase, thus allegedly showing disrespect for the student’s ideological point of view. Tensions arose over Rust’s insistence that students use the more academic Chicago Manual of Style for citation format…

That’s right, folks, we’re now at the point that professors need to fear student protests over issues of capitalization and citation style. I totally respect the students’ right to protest, but this is pretty micro, eh?


This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 24 2016, 08:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Dec 26 2016, 09:04 PM
Post #48


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,220
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 24 2016, 11:16 AM) *
QUOTE
I suppose all of this comes to a matter of degree. I had never even heard anything about McCain's birthplace being disputed (and didn't know that he had been born outside the US!), though I had heard about Cruz. So maybe this is an issue of perception, but the fact that the birther assumptions dogged Obama for 8 years, and continues to be an issue even now does seem racist to me (with 41% of Republicans disagreeing that Obama was born in the US, and another 31% expressing doubt that he was a US citizen).


Again, I'm not sure why it's racist to question a person's birthplace. If one wants to believe something (as I mentioned before), cog dissonance sets in and the person accepts information that supports his or her desire. Once you "buy it" (as I also mentioned before) it takes a lot to shake that paradigm. It's pretty much an irrelevancy at this point, the poll does not support the claim it "continues to be an issue" it is in fact a non-issue. Not wanting Obama to be president is not ipso facto racist. And not wanting Hillary to be president is not ipso facto sexist. These are overused pejoratives. At one point they were powerful claims but they have been made so often and so frivolously that are now losing the left supporters.


Right, personally I'm not a birther and generally look at these types of things as conspiracy theories. That kind of distrust could very well be based in racism for some, but to assume that is not smart. There are many reasons people come up with wild ideas on their opponents, and it happens regardless of race. All presidents have to deal with this so playing the race card seems premature or at worst an intentional attempt to delegitimize a political opponent that someone doesn't like. Giving someone the label of racist is more damaging than to say they're wrong and don't have proof for the claim they're making.

So good argument although at times I'm skeptical that this will lose the left support. It should but I also consider that they've thrived on this type of thing for a long time and this was only one election out of many that conservatives have lost in the past so my optimism is mixed in with some pessimism tongue.gif The tide has turned for now but is this only a temporary shift we're seeing? It may be that for long lasting change, there has to be a shift in how educators, the media, and politicians behave. Educators are indoctrinating their students, the media often gives a slanted view, and politicians play the race card to secure the minority vote.

It's all good to point out problems with racism where they exist, it's a nasty thing when it happens but a point I often make is that racism knows no political bounds. That's a truth that some on the left either don't want to hear or dismiss intentionally for the benefit of groups they want to see thrive. Eventually, it'll have to catch up with them. I hope that time is now despite my distaste for Trump. At the very least he's brought these types of things into the spotlight in a big way. Perhaps exposure is part of the reason some are afraid of him?

Dingo and AuthorMusician bailed when I presented substantiation for why the left plays a role when it comes to discriminating against other groups. They have made good arguments in the past and are certainly capable but they couldn't address it.

This post has been edited by net2007: Dec 26 2016, 09:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 27 2016, 01:29 PM
Post #49


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Dec 26 2016, 05:04 PM) *
So good argument although at times I'm skeptical that this will lose the left support. It should but I also consider that they've thrived on this type of thing for a long time and this was only one election out of many that conservatives have lost in the past so my optimism is mixed in with some pessimism tongue.gif The tide has turned for now but is this only a temporary shift we're seeing? It may be that for long lasting change, there has to be a shift in how educators, the media, and politicians behave. Educators are indoctrinating their students, the media often gives a slanted view, and politicians play the race card to secure the minority vote.

It's all good to point out problems with racism where they exist, it's a nasty thing when it happens but a point I often make is that racism knows no political bounds. That's a truth that some on the left either don't want to hear or dismiss intentionally for the benefit of groups they want to see thrive. Eventually, it'll have to catch up with them. I hope that time is now despite my distaste for Trump. At the very least he's brought these types of things into the spotlight in a big way. Perhaps exposure is part of the reason some are afraid of him?


This blogger calls the phenomenon the PETA principle. It's a good writeup, I think. He not only explains the phenomenon, he applies it to his own work as an example.

QUOTE
The less useful, and more controversial, a post here is, the more likely it is to get me lots of page views. For people who agree with me, my angry rants on identity politics are a form of ego defense, saying “You’re okay, your in-group was in the right the whole time.” Linking to it both raises their status as an in-group members, and acts as a potential assault on out-group members who are now faced with strong arguments telling them they’re wrong.

As for the people who disagree with me, they’ll sometimes write angry rebuttals on their own blogs, and those rebuttals will link to my own post as often as not. Or they’ll talk about it with their disagreeing friends, and their friends will get mad and want to tell me I’m wrong, and come over here to read the post to get more ammunition for their counterarguments. I have a feature that allows me to see who links to all of my posts, so I can see this all happening in real-time.

I don’t make enough money off the ads on this blog to matter very much. But if I did, and this was my only means of subsistence, which do you think I’d write more of? Posts about charity which only get me 2,000 paying customers? Or posts that turn all of you against one another like a pack of rabid dogs, and get me 16,000? I don’t have a fancy bar graph for them, but I bet this same hierarchy of interestingness applies to the great information currents and media outlets that shape society as a whole. It’s in activists’ interests to destroy their own causes by focusing on the most controversial cases and principles, the ones that muddy the waters and make people oppose them out of spite. And it’s in the media’s interest to help them and egg them on.


*********************

QUOTE
Dingo and AuthorMusician bailed when I presented substantiation for why the left plays a role when it comes to discriminating against other groups. They have made good arguments in the past and are certainly capable but they couldn't address it.


Well, it is the holidays and time is a factor. And Trump's election has been dispiriting in the extreme for many. There's only so much to say....I've written and re-written a response to Kimpossible about four different times but the response was long and so ridden with quotes it was confusing to read, so I settled on the shortest (but not comprehensive) response. I didn't address all of her remarks in my response either, probably only half of them.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 27 2016, 01:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Dec 27 2016, 05:15 PM
Post #50


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,220
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 27 2016, 08:29 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Dec 26 2016, 05:04 PM) *
So good argument although at times I'm skeptical that this will lose the left support. It should but I also consider that they've thrived on this type of thing for a long time and this was only one election out of many that conservatives have lost in the past so my optimism is mixed in with some pessimism tongue.gif The tide has turned for now but is this only a temporary shift we're seeing? It may be that for long lasting change, there has to be a shift in how educators, the media, and politicians behave. Educators are indoctrinating their students, the media often gives a slanted view, and politicians play the race card to secure the minority vote.

It's all good to point out problems with racism where they exist, it's a nasty thing when it happens but a point I often make is that racism knows no political bounds. That's a truth that some on the left either don't want to hear or dismiss intentionally for the benefit of groups they want to see thrive. Eventually, it'll have to catch up with them. I hope that time is now despite my distaste for Trump. At the very least he's brought these types of things into the spotlight in a big way. Perhaps exposure is part of the reason some are afraid of him?


This blogger calls the phenomenon the PETA principle. It's a good writeup, I think. He not only explains the phenomenon, he applies it to his own work as an example.

QUOTE
The less useful, and more controversial, a post here is, the more likely it is to get me lots of page views. For people who agree with me, my angry rants on identity politics are a form of ego defense, saying re okay, your in-group was in the right the whole time.ť Linking to it both raises their status as an in-group members, and acts as a potential assault on out-group members who are now faced with strong arguments telling them they’re wrong.

As for the people who disagree with me, theyll sometimes write angry rebuttals on their own blogs, and those rebuttals will link to my own post as often as not. Or theyll talk about it with their disagreeing friends, and their friends will get mad and want to tell me Im wrong, and come over here to read the post to get more ammunition for their counterarguments. I have a feature that allows me to see who links to all of my posts, so I can see this all happening in real-time.

I dont make enough money off the ads on this blog to matter very much. But if I did, and this was my only means of subsistence, which do you think Id write more of? Posts about charity which only get me 2,000 paying customers? Or posts that turn all of you against one another like a pack of rabid dogs, and get me 16,000? I dont have a fancy bar graph for them, but I bet this same hierarchy of interestingness applies to the great information currents and media outlets that shape society as a whole. Its in activists interests to destroy their own causes by focusing on the most controversial cases and principles, the ones that muddy the waters and make people oppose them out of spite. And it’s in the media’s interest to help them and egg them on.


Many good points here, sounds like he has a good understanding of the psychological aspects of debating and what the media is doing. I think he's right, in large part when someone takes an extreme approach with their listeners or another debater it's to attract attention, but is it the right kind of attention? Another aspect of this is in regards to those who genuinely believe that their opponents need to be taken down by all means necessary. When I watch The Young Turks, that's the impression I get. They make conservatives out to be disgusting animals, and they'll say anything to push that viewpoint. Their ratings are falling though as they've gotten worse so I believe many libs are seeing through it. All of this creates serious problems and two parties who have contempt for those who think differently.

Speaking of blogging and the cost associated with it, I had a blog/debate website in the works. Cost got to me because I'm insistent on having my own domain for it. Advertising cost wouldn't cover it and my finances aren't good enough (yet)....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5mo5z6k0payl572/B...201%29.png?dl=0
(you don't have to sign in to view)

For the time being, I'm focusing on a book which will address the same issue, I think things can be better than what they are. Humans are indeed tribal, and the U.S. is unique in the sense that we have a large mix of cultures here with varied beliefs. The problem of back and forth bickering or discrimination will never be solved completely, but from my recollection things can be better as they were in the 80's and 90's. There's been a spike in hate crimes and division in recent years, from what I can tell resembling the 60's.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Dingo and AuthorMusician bailed when I presented substantiation for why the left plays a role when it comes to discriminating against other groups. They have made good arguments in the past and are certainly capable but they couldn't address it.


Well, it is the holidays and time is a factor. And Trump's election has been dispiriting in the extreme for many. There's only so much to say....I've written and re-written a response to Kimpossible about four different times but the response was long and so ridden with quotes it was confusing to read, so I settled on the shortest (but not comprehensive) response. I didn't address all of her remarks in my response either, probably only half of them.


True, life happens, though my reply to Dingo was on Dec 14. As far as thorough responses go I sometimes do the same with the complicated post, where I'll shorten if things get too elaborate. I try to get to the main points if there's a lot to address and I'm pushed for time. If there's nothing left to say then it's the end of the exchange and hopefully, nobody comes out of it bitter. I read your exchange with kimpossible, you two are opposite on a lot of things, yet it's a civil discussion.

___________________________

By the way, merry belated Christmas AD debaters! I hope everyone had a good one.

This post has been edited by net2007: Dec 27 2016, 05:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Dec 27 2016, 08:42 PM
Post #51


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 20 2016, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 19 2016, 01:20 AM) I think this misses the point of Masha Gessen's article. Maybe we'll be better off with a thoroughly armed populace, and will be able to fend off any attempts at authoritarian government, but I think the bigger point is that it's hard to tell that these things are coming, and often times, people make decisions to 'work with (or within)' systems they don't agree with because there's not much else they can do. She cites her grandfather's experience of compiling lists of Jews to be taken away, even though he initially took the position to help his people.

Was there really no doubt her grandfather understood he was living under an authoritarian government? People were rounded up, their property confiscated en masse, and they were throw into ghettos. The powers that be weren't exactly coy. I'm not educated on the matter enough to know actual survival rates per ghetto, but we do know the alternative to NOT compromising...because history has made it pretty clear that death was the alternative (and even if people might be willing to sacrifice themselves they typically aren't as cavalier with their families).

I dunno, were we living under an authoritarian government when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and confiscated their property?

Tsk tsk Mrs P. And I lurked so long waiting for the response to Kimpossible's statement. Nothing wrong with a little avoidance. It's actually quite illustrative of some themes missed in this debate.
1. Does the media favor liberals?Liberal are only slightly left. Democratic politicians are not always left or liberal. And "the left" in some ways is hard to define. We can muddle through what it is but I have no doubt it will cause confusion to many who define themselves as conservatives as we go forward.

"The left" and "the right" are both psyche we all exhibit depending on what we talk about. I think the issue determines whether we are "to the left" or to "the right". The sum of where we find ourselves on the myriad of issues is how we will define ourselves as left or right. I might consider myself very liberal, but I'm sure I hold conservative views here and there. But, enough of this seemingly off topic context lets get into it.

First, what is the purpose of the media? Is it to be loyal to a faction? Should the media be loyal to the nation... to the troops... to the politicians? Should the media be handled like any other business and be loyal to the almighty dollar? What do conservatives want from the media?

For me the "media" is way too broad of a concept. There is "the media" that is the press/news. There is "the media" that is entertainment. Media is a means be which we gather information.

News by its nature is liberal in my opinion. Journalist who are called to this profession out of a desire to inform the populace are going to be of a liberal psyche. However, I'm sure there are journalists that find themselves of a conservative nature a.) from the start or b.) they become more career orientated, self indulged worried more about paying bills then informing.

That being said... I acknowledge that journalism is a liberal art with more liberals, but it does not favor liberals. When facts are given in its most unfiltered nature it favors us all. Facts are not bias, but opinions are.


2. What effect do you believe media bias can have on its viewers?

Media bias or this concept of media bias exists because the conservatives of this nation were tired of how facts portrayed them. For instance what does it say about Mrs P that she doesn't recognize the authoritative nature of America when we rounded up Japanese Americans, but somehow she expects that the populace of Germany could see the authoritative nature of their government.
See its about the psyche. The bias exists when we, the consumer of information, seek to hear information filtered to reinforce our current perspectives. But understand this when we get into media that is bias we begin to think like a business. Now it is about supply and demand. It is the demand of people to hear their news in a particular way and it is the business's job to give it to them in that way. Enter the right-wing media. There are a few left leaning news outlets. I think MSNBC is one. However this is in response to the success of right-wing media. However, do you remember Air-America radio the left wing answer to the Rush and Hannity and all those type. Yeah a big failure. There is a reason why there is much less demand on the left to have their facts filtered. We just want the facts, as many as we can get. We don't want the facts to make us look good or bad. The right wing will no doubt spin this to say the "mainstream media" is "left" Now what do we do with this enigma when the main stream is actually considered by many Americans as "left stream" media. Well this it what explains alt-media. Its an alternate to the concept of media that informs you and is instead a media that misinforms you. And its bigger consumer are people who identify themselves as conservatives.
3. Why do you believe Donald Trump was able to win despite the claims of racism and bigotry against him?

Why would racism or bigotry prevent a right wing candidate from winning. His racism and bigotry energized the conservative base, much in the same way that Obama's talk of hope, change, and we work better together energized the base of the left.
Racism and bigotry is at the core of why the working class White man votes Republican even though the Republican platform offers very little for the working class. What is Donald Trumps signature phrase. Make America great again. What greatness does the America need to achieve that it lost? Is it greatness or dominance that the right hopes to gain under Trump presidency? What's the difference to the right, personally I don't think there is.
Racism of TRump words sparked enthusiasm in the right. And the rest of the "right" have always been comfortable with racism if it leads them to victory. I'm not calling every person on the right a racist, I'm just saying that the few non-racist of the right are willing to be complicit in having a racist platform to put Republicans in office.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 27 2016, 09:30 PM
Post #52


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 27 2016, 04:42 PM) *
QUOTE

I dunno, were we living under an authoritarian government when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and confiscated their property?

Tsk tsk Mrs P. And I lurked so long waiting for the response to Kimpossible's statement. Nothing wrong with a little avoidance. It's actually quite illustrative of some themes missed in this debate.


The answer is yes.
Not only were people rounded up and put into camps during WWII, there was no freedom of the press and mail was censored.
Yet here we are.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 27 2016, 04:42 PM) *
For instance what does it say about Mrs P that she doesn't recognize the authoritative nature of America when we rounded up Japanese Americans, but somehow she expects that the populace of Germany could see the authoritative nature of their government.


LOL Funny....I hadn't read this yet when I responded. Germany knew full well that it was living under authoritarian government.
But the article in question referred to a ghetto in Poland, not Germany. And even if some Germans were (hypothetically) in denial, the Poles (having just been invaded, occupied, and then sent to concentration camps and "work" camps) certainly knew they were living under an authoritarian government.**

FWIW, one of the most authoritarian leaders on the planet is the current president of the Philippines, Duterte.
He praises Hilter, and within 4 months of taking office was responsible for around 2000 extrajudicial killings (suspected drug pushers and users). He took office at the end of June.

**Looking at things with 2016 glasses people seem to believe everyone associated authoritarianism with "evil" back then, as we do. That's far from from the case. Back in 1939...democracy was really new in Germany (and by the results, from their view it probably appeared to be a bad social experiment). "Vive le roi!" the cry in Belgium (when they had the freedom to chant it again, of course....people willing to fight and die to keep kings in power was not unusual).

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 28 2016, 12:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Dec 28 2016, 12:06 AM
Post #53


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 27 2016, 04:30 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 27 2016, 04:42 PM) *
QUOTE

I dunno, were we living under an authoritarian government when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and confiscated their property?

Tsk tsk Mrs P. And I lurked so long waiting for the response to Kimpossible's statement. Nothing wrong with a little avoidance. It's actually quite illustrative of some themes missed in this debate.
The answer is yes.
Not only were people rounded up and put into camps during WWII, there was no freedom of the press and mail was censored.
Yet here we are.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 27 2016, 04:42 PM) *
For instance what does it say about Mrs P that she doesn't recognize the authoritative nature of America when we rounded up Japanese Americans, but somehow she expects that the populace of Germany could see the authoritative nature of their government.
The answer is yes... to what? Americans knew their government had turned into an authoritarian government? I've never read in any history book this acknowledgement by the government or the majority or even a significant percentage of the populace. If, as you say, it did turn into an authoritarian government when did it stop or has it?
QUOTE
...I hadn't read this yet when I responded. Germany knew full well that it was living under authoritarian government. But the article in question referred to a ghetto in Poland, not Germany. And even if some Germans were (hypothetically) in denial, the Poles (having just been invaded, occupied, and then sent to concentration camps) knew they were living under an authoritarian government.
My fault. I didn't know that ghetto was located in Poland. And no I don't think that the German populace at that time thought they were living under an authoritarian government any more than I think we did.

But maybe I'm wrong. In the same vein of thinking...let me ask, do you believe that Americans thought it was forming an authoritarian government when it continued to enslave Blacks after its inception?

And what plays the biggest part in us understanding we live or don't live in an authoritarian government. Simple. unfiltered facts. But if I remember correctly you place a high value in American security via secrecy.

QUOTE
FWIW, one of the most authoritarian leaders on the planet is the current president of the Philippines, Duterte.
He praises Hilter, and within 4 months of taking office was responsible for around 2000 extrajudicial killings (suspected drug pushers and users). He took office at the end of June.


Well he was elected, correct... just like our president. Him praising Hitler wasn't actually a praise from what I read. He wants to slaughter drug dealers and addicts which is sad because they are humans. But many on the right seem to talk in a positive manner at the idea of slaughtering human beings too, don't they? In fact, our current President-elect said "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

Trump talked about killing the families of human beings. Not to mention our own laws are draconian when it comes to drugs and the right wing has often been on the side of law enforcement when they kill citizens while performing their duties. Our LEO can kill men, women, even children and the right-wing stands right by their side, do they not?

You know what make Duterte one of the biggest authoritarians? He talks like he doesn't respect Western dominance. He may have to learn the lesson of so many other elected "dictators".

This post has been edited by droop224: Dec 28 2016, 01:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 28 2016, 02:32 PM
Post #54


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 27 2016, 08:06 PM) *
The answer is yes... to what? Americans knew their government had turned into an authoritarian government? I've never read in any history book this acknowledgement by the government or the majority or even a significant percentage of the populace.


Again (see above) people view things relatively. They were fully aware in WWII that the population was living with more restricted freedoms than usual. It was a full-scale war economy. By comparison to the rest of the world at war, things were still pretty free...and in the context of the times (where the option might be wholesale totalitarian state takeover if they didn't restrict personal freedoms, or ration goods, or have conscription), things weren't so bad. When did it end? For us, it ended when the war ended.

QUOTE
But maybe I'm wrong. In the same vein of thinking...let me ask, do you believe that Americans thought it was forming an authoritarian government when it continued to enslave Blacks after its inception?


I'm sure they didn't. Then again, at that time things were also different for women, who had very limited freedoms. What about the Asians?
Everything was relative then, too (relative to the rest of the world).

QUOTE
And what plays the biggest part in us understanding we live or don't live in an authoritarian government. Simple. unfiltered facts. But if I remember correctly you place a high value in American security via secrecy.


We had a thread on that one a while back, and I stated my position clearly there.
My opinion hasn't changed (also see Vermillion's commentary on the subject, he said it best).

QUOTE
Well he was elected, correct... just like our president.

Yep, and the general population seems to really like Duterte.

QUOTE
Him praising Hitler wasn't actually a praise from what I read. He wants to slaughter drug dealers and addicts which is sad because they are humans. But many on the right seem to talk in a positive manner at the idea of slaughtering human beings too, don't they? In fact, our current President-elect said "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"


Is it okay when Obama kills terrorists and their families? I don't see a reason to have a debate on our drone warfare program now, but there are many things Obama changed his mind on when faced with realities (he didn't close Gitmo, for instance, and we went into Pakistan without authorization from the government to take out bin Laden...and those guys had orders to NOT get caught, IOW, shoot their way out....and by the way, THIS is one of the things I like most about Obama*** but from the sound of things you should like him a lot less than I do).

QUOTE
Our LEO can kill men, women, even children and the right-wing stands right by their side, do they not?


It depends on the context of the killing. When exculpatory evidence or extenuating circumstances exonerate the officer or place the situation into understandable context, they are more likely to side with the law. When the evidence points to the opposite fact (officer in the wrong) they side with the victim (example, the Eric Garner case).

Arguing about cops killing is a lot like arguing about rape allegations.
No one wants to side with rape, and anyone mentioning exculpatory/extenuating evidence is shouted down.
"HAH! You are for rape!" or "Hah! You are for cops killing!!"

If we are going by racial motivation, it should be mentioned the evidence would indicate black LEOs are 3.3 times more likely to shoot in similar situations.
From a pdf document, page nine, entitled "Risk Factors Associated with Police Shootings: A Matched Case-Control Study" Department of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.

QUOTE
Officers were 10% times less likely to shoot than similar officers who were 1 year younger than them when recruited (P = 0.03). Years of experience had no association with shooting risk. This suggests that reductions in shooting risk might be obtainable by increasing minimum age requirements or more heavily targeting police recruiting efforts toward older candidates who come to policing later in their working years.
Black officers were 3.3 times more likely to shoot than white officers (P = 0.01). While substantial public concern comes from shootings involving white officers and black victims, this study shows that white officers are more than three times less likely to discharge their firearms compared to black officers on the scene of the same incident. This finding is consistent with previous research showing black officers killed felons at much higher rates than white police officers


There was also a controlled study on implicit racial bias. It determined that black officers are more likely to shoot blacks and white officers are more likely to shoot whites.

***Edited to add:
I'll expand on this one and likely annoy everyone, as is my custom. I cannot overemphasize how awesome this was. I don't think most presidents could have pulled that off, and he not only did so, he didn't make a giant deal out of it. Similar to his move on the pirates (equally awesome). No giant "mission accomplished" PR play.
He just did the job and if anything understated things.
And I think Trump is probably the opposite in that respect, unfortunately. I can easily imagine him twittering something along the lines of, "bin Laden got schlonged!"
Time will tell.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 28 2016, 05:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Dec 28 2016, 11:01 PM
Post #55


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Mrs P.

QUOTE
Again (see above) people view things relatively. They were fully aware in WWII that the population was living with more restricted freedoms than usual. It was a full-scale war economy. By comparison to the rest of the world at war, things were still pretty free...and in the context of the times (where the option might be wholesale totalitarian state takeover if they didn't restrict personal freedoms, or ration goods, or have conscription), things weren't so bad. When did it end? For us, it ended when the war ended.
"Relative"... to what? Feel free to just let the question be rhetorical or answer it. For me there is no disagreement with you that both freedom and authoritarianism are relative concepts.

You know we both did a "bid" in Italy. I have never felt as free in America as I did in Italy(and I was in the southern part around Napoli), I loved it. You know I have gotten the impression that you didn't feel that secure(something that you wrote before, can't remember). What I noticed is that the amount of controls, especially in the form of police presence, I see in America did not exist in Italy.

Did you think the US PATRIOT act was an act of an authoritarianism? Maybe you do maybe you don't... relative huh? What does it matter... it is gone and replaced with the USA Freedom Act. The Freedom Act, a.k.a "PATRIOT Lite"... which are a set of laws that govern how our government can spy on us (what can I say) I can't make this up! LMAO

QUOTE
I'm sure they didn't. Then again, at that time things were also different for women, who had very limited freedoms. What about the Asians?
Everything was relative then, too (relative to the rest of the world).
Oh relative to rest of the world... I get it. (i'll disagree with you later)

Well a couple of things. Things weren't different, mentalities were. Blacks existed then, as did Asians, as did women, so those aren't new things that just popped up. And the mentality that human beings were equal was not a new thought of that era either. It just was not an idea that was held by many or many who did think it did not want to be involved in the changing the status quo.

What was also the same was the struggle between left and right. Those who stood for the way things are in their current reality and those who fought for a reality that did not yet exist. The struggle, whether you understand it or not, we are having right now.

So yeah I get that the struggle was different then from now, do you get that the struggle continues?

QUOTE
We had a thread on that one a while back, and I stated my position clearly there.
My opinion hasn't changed (also see Vermillion's commentary on the subject, he said it best).
Ahhhh the good ol days of ad.gif when you couldn't wait to get into the fray. Man thanks for taking me back!! and yeah we don't need to rehash that debate, but I tell you what he did say that said it best for me..

QUOTE
OK, oddly enough, I have to take the line of the hawks here. Of course a Government needs to have secrets, no state could function without them.
Well two things here 1) He is recognizing that he is taking a conservative position. 2) he pulled out a total straw man in true conservative form. LOL I think you are going to miss the irony, because you are conservative on the fact that he is taking a conservative position that we need to keep secrets from the population and the fact that they have a problem with so called liberal bias?

The conservative position is that they want us more uninformed via State secrets. However they are sick and tired of the Left wing media not being more informative. It is really.... weird.

But then it is not when you understand the conservative psyche.

QUOTE
Yep, and the general population seems to really like Duterte.
They do? Well if they voted him and like him... Then in their relative view they were a free people that elected their President in a free election to carry out a conservative agenda. Like I said, personally, his position lacks humanity but that's typically a liberal concern, not a conservative one.

That being said the information provided does not seem to support your view he is "one of the most authoritarian leaders on the planet".

QUOTE
Is it okay when Obama kills terrorists and their families? I don't see a reason to have a debate on our drone warfare program now, but there are many things Obama changed his mind on when faced with realities (he didn't close Gitmo, for instance, and we went into Pakistan without authorization from the government to take out bin Laden...and those guys had orders to NOT get caught, IOW, shoot their way out....and by the way, THIS is one of the things I like most about Obama but from the sound of things you should like him a lot less than I do).
I would guess.... it's relative, right?? Well lets break this down.

Trump talks about targeting women and children. Obama has never talked in a manner to suggest he supports targeting women and children. Conservative by in large supported and elected a human being who said we should target the family of our enemies. Their wives, husbands, parents, siblings... their children... their families. Not just target, "Take them out". The left was appalled, the right was energized. Which again goes back to the psyche of left and right with in any group/nation/country. I have said I was a military member on this board, I have a family. You are the wife of a military member you have said on this board. You have family. Are our children valid targets?? Is that another relative question?

Well here is the issue, yes and no, depending on our psyche. See for my psyche, if I say yeah family member are valid then when if I say its ok to kill your family then yeah its ok for you to kill my family... its almost a "golden Rule" philosophy. For the more conservative thinking it doesn't seem that way, it seems like if I kill your family well I'm just trying to protect my family or its just bad thing that happens in war, but if you kill my family... YOUR EVIL!! So, its not like a golden rule but more of a "do as I say not as I do" rule set.

And this is not a dig at just the American conservative as a political thinking, but more a dig at people who have a "right wing"(for lack of a better word psyche). For instance a human who can give praise to their God in a crowded market and then blow themselves up seconds later. Where my mentality will have a great issue with electing a man saying lets target the families, because I have a family. The more conservative mindset does not even deal with this moral dilemma, because targeting families is only alright when doing it to other human beings

But... if I get what you are trying to say it is that Trump has only talked about taking families out, but under the Obama administration families have been killed. Now, I still draw a bright line distinction between targeting family members and family members being killed in a strike of a combatant target. There is a grey line for me between proceeding with a strike on a combatant with the knowledge that non-combatants will be killed.

Casualties of war, or in more humane terms, innocent human being killed due to military action is common. It did not change when Obama took office from Bush and it will not change when Trump takes office from Obama. I do very much enjoy the presidency of Obama, much like you, but obviously not cause his willingness to take human life. I'm a liberal, after all. hehehehe

QUOTE
It depends on the context of the killing. When exculpatory evidence or extenuating circumstances exonerate the officer or place the situation into understandable context, they are more likely to side with the law. When the evidence points to the opposite fact (officer in the wrong) they side with the victim (example, the Eric Garner case).


Come now. Same thing said a different way. The line for "exculpatory evidence or extenuating circumstances exonerate the officer or place the situation into understandable context" is broader for conservatives. And the outrage from the right has come only at seeing extremely outrageous video footage. When that footage doesn't exist (Freddie Gray) and sometimes when it does (tamir rice) the Right generally stands with the brutalizer over the brutalized. Its just part of your law and order psyche.

In fact Pat Mccrory just made body cam footage off limits in July.

QUOTE
Arguing about cops killing is a lot like arguing about rape allegations.
No one wants to side with rape, and anyone mentioning exculpatory/extenuating evidence is shouted down.
"HAH! You are for rape!" or "Hah! You are for cops killing!!"


I get what you are saying... but no...it is sooooooooooooooooooooo not. And the fact that you think it is...GAAAAAAHHH!! Darn that intelligent conservative mindset of yours.

First in rape case we are often dealing with a he say/she say, where the benefit of the doubt goes to the accuser. She could have no bruises, no scars, no nothing, just a claim she was raped. Contrast this to say a case where a man is taken into custody of police, healthy when he woke up, but dead with a spinal chord injury and a bunch of cops looking like (that design kimpossible) made \_(")_/ There is no rape case when the accuser has scratch marks on his neck, she is bruised, coochie bloodied, and clothes ripped open where any significant portion of society feels "wait a second lets make sure it was rape"

The brutality cases that make the news are some of the most egregious cases. But even with a video when dealing with conservatives its like..."maybe the cop did have to drive up on the grass and kill the kid a split second after getting out the car... you don't know?!?!" "The report says that he broke his back while riding in a van... what it could happen..... you don't know?!?!" LOL its not funny, but it is. Its absurdly funny.

QUOTE
If we are going by racial motivation, it should be mentioned the evidence would indicate black LEOs are 3.3 times more likely to shoot in similar situations.
From a pdf document, page nine, entitled "Risk Factors Associated with Police Shootings: A Matched Case-Control Study" Department of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.
We aren't going by racial motivation, IMO. But I love when conservatives put race statisitics out there because I get to ask: What are you trying to imply with these statistics?

I'm not even arguing them. White cops are more likely to kill Whites... Black cops are more likely to kill Blacks... Blacks cops are more likely to kill than Whites cops.

That's great information. That's facts. Is there something else you are trying to say or just giving me information.

See I want the facts. I don't run from facts. I want that body cam on every cop and I want that footage made public. I want if that body cam goes off and there is a claim of brutalization, I want that cop fired. I don't care what color the cop I don't care what color the victim.

Tying that to the debate. What is the conservative position on the media when it comes to police. More often than not, it is some rhetorical question of why the media doesn't showing them doing more good things.

This post has been edited by droop224: Dec 28 2016, 11:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 30 2016, 04:40 PM
Post #56


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Wow, have I written a book this morning. This will probably be my last post on the topic. I don't have enough time...but I wanted to address some of this.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Dec 28 2016, 07:01 PM) *
You know we both did a "bid" in Italy. I have never felt as free in America as I did in Italy (and I was in the southern part around Napoli), I loved it. You know I have gotten the impression that you didn't feel that secure(something that you wrote before, can't remember). What I noticed is that the amount of controls, especially in the form of police presence, I see in America did not exist in Italy.


I lived in Northern Italy (near Venice). I’ve been told the north and south are very different.
In the north (and I think south as well) the Carabinieri were (I don't know the current laws, but I doubt they have changed) actually permitted to shoot any car that didn't stop when they raised their little lolly-pop looking sign indicating they wanted them to stop. But the closest I ever saw to this employed was a cycling race. A woman was in the lead...and I only know it was a woman because when the carabinieri raised the 'lollypop' as a little joke when she flew by, she spoke (a stream of expletives about his relationship with his mother). Obviously it's not a hard, fast law. But it is a law. Financial police have more power than just about any other entity in Italy. It's a really deep seated bureaucracy and there is a lot of law breaking and rampant nepotism. The economy would collapse without the economia submersa (under-the-table, outside-taxes-and-legislation, “shadow” economy) and it's the fourth largest economy in Europe so this fact is significant.

I did like living in Italy (half of my family is there). The people are nice (outside the cities, inside they are terrible as is true of most large cities), the environment and landscape amazing, and I like that relaxed way of life (simple living, a refined regard for aesthetics, and so forth). What I did not like is the rampant theft and inability to protect my own home environment. No air conditioning, had to keep the Rolladens down on summer nights when it was over 100 degrees in the house or the zingari would steal the watch off your arm (along with everything else of value in the home). I prefer to live in a place I can defend myself legally. Seems a natural human right, in my estimation.

Side note: Italy has changed a lot in the past decade, according to my aunt. It's probably very different now from what you remember. There were no homeless then in Pordenone for example, but now there are so many in front of the stores many are going out of business (or have long gone out of business). They can't handle the mass flood of refugees.
*********

On another note, just to answer more of your post, Droop, without so many quotes because it get confusing I just sort of pieced my response all together here:

There is a concept called “relative deprivation” that I’ve heard applied to education, economy, and job situations but it can apply to a lot of other situations/population groups. It was coined by Samuel Stouffer, a sociologist, during World War II to describe how we measure ourselves against other people (this is actually even pertinent to the topic as it has been said society is built by our wants, and the media plays a large roll in shaping those “wants”). Short version is, we measure ourselves by the standard of others. For example, we live in the most prosperous time in human history (200 years ago the average family spent 70 percent of its income on food alone, and that has been essentially the standard for the ages…in NON-starving, good times). Just a little over 100 years ago almost half of the average family income went to food alone. There is no doubt people in general have never been financially better off. They have more than our forefathers ever thought possible, yet they aren’t necessarily more happy or content, and they want more. Why? Because people measure themselves based on others, and there has never been a time in human history where so many had so much and it’s all on display real-time in social media. It’s that way for most everything.

Opinions are influenced in a similar way. When you mention that some were opposed to slavery back in the day, this is true. But it happened in gradients, and slowly the ideas began to take effect. At first, people who thought that way were outliers. One could write a book about the phenomenon…it’s far too lengthy a subject for the topic here. It is tied into economics as well as social conditioning. And economics are tied to security. Consider that not even the bible condemns slavery, instead it offers some directives on how a master and servant should behave. And most every nation on earth had slavery at that time from the Vikings through what is now known as Europe, and Asia, and Africa. That was often the cost of losing a battle. Over a thousand years after Christ, Ghengis Khan was sacking (and afterwards unifying) most of Asia, building an empire, collecting slaves and leaving a lot of bodies (tens of millions, when the population of the world was a LOT smaller). So now about one in every 200 people on earth is his descendant.

I’m going to try to tie this now in by using a quote, from your post. I am taking your post out of order to make this point, and changing the context but it’s right up there to read for folks interested so as not to misrepresent your argument I’m highlighting the fact.

QUOTE
First in rape case we are often dealing with a he say/she say, where the benefit of the doubt goes to the accuser. She could have no bruises, no scars, no nothing, just a claim she was raped. Contrast this to say a case where a man is taken into custody of police, healthy when he woke up, but dead with a spinal chord injury and a bunch of cops looking like (that design kimpossible) made \_(")_/ There is no rape case when the accuser has scratch marks on his neck, she is bruised, coochie bloodied, and clothes ripped open where any significant portion of society feels "wait a second lets make sure it was rape”

Not currently, no. But not so long ago a woman had to prove she was raped, and part of the proof for court required evidence that she resisted to the best of her ability. That would have been pretty hard to prove in many cases. What if the person had a gun or knife? What if he used a sedative? And so forth. So, it’s a good thing the burden of proof isn’t so high now. That required a society-wide change of mindset. From the perspective of your post (the "liberal" mindset), society has evolved. Now the number of people who believe a woman has to have been beaten senseless and bloodied to have actually been raped are outliers, people who think otherwise are the norm. So, we have more justice for rape victims….which is a good thing. But on the flip side things have gone so far that in some cases the right to presumption of innocence (for the accused) is lost, along with the burden of proof of mens rea.

QUOTE
The brutality cases that make the news are some of the most egregious cases. But even with a video when dealing with conservatives its like..."maybe the cop did have to drive up on the grass and kill the kid a split second after getting out the car... you don't know?!?!" "The report says that he broke his back while riding in a van... what it could happen..... you don't know?!?!" LOL its not funny, but it is. Its absurdly funny.


I’ve never noticed this ostensible flood to justify cop killings and beatings when the evidence clearly points to the police in the wrong. Nighttimer (a long while back) showed a video of a girl being beaten in a jail cell. There was no argument that the police were in the wrong…there was nothing whatsoever to debate, it was obvious. I once showed a video of a war veteran who was shot (or was it beaten? can’t recall now) while on his knees in front of the police. No arguments there.

A police officer is in an unusual situation. He is in a position of public trust, which requires a greater level of responsibility, and also a far higher level risk. When a person calls in and says, “OMG! There’s a guy with a gun in the children’s park! He’s waving it around the threatening people!” and it’s an area where cops have been shot, there is obviously going to be a higher level of perceived risk when entering this situation. Let’s take the statistical evidence provided before (black cop faster on the draw). From your perspective that seems to be a bad thing. From my perspective, it might be bad or very good depending. If the cop gets shot or lets his partner get shot, or some other person in the park is shot because he was slow and/or did nothing, that’s a bad thing. People don’t have perfect knowledge and they have to go by events as they are perceiving them at the time, not hindsight 20/20 when everything is known. BTW, on another note related to risk…unlike the film Zero Dark Thirty would indicate, there was never a ninety-something percent likelihood bin Laden was at that compound. The real number was a little over 60 percent. Very ballsy on a lot of levels. I don’t think most people realize exactly how ballsy this move was.

There is another side the equation that’s important. We don’t only expect LEOs to go into dangerous situations to protect the public, but we need a source of volunteers to do this. People willing to go into law enforcement. And we want GOOD people to volunteer for this. A free society actually depends on it. So when the media threatens to release names and addresses endangering the families of officers, that’s a drawback to service. When there is mass looting and violence after a false (or incomplete, partial-information) story breaks, and they are expected to confront that violence, that’s a drawback to service. The money isn’t good either. And often the people who complain loudest against law enforcement are the same ones demanding loudest out of the other side of their mouths that law enforcement “do something!” when crap hits the fan. Unlike the sex drive, there isn’t as much of a biological need to protect people outside of one’s tribe.

The answer is to socially condition people into wanting to go into service for others (expanding the tribe). Which is why it often runs in families (much like teaching, and other things). Police families raise police families and military raise military. But it's getting less practical as the costs increase with diminishing reward.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 30 2016, 04:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Dec 30 2016, 10:13 PM
Post #57


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,220
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop

QUOTE
1. Does the media favor liberals?Liberal are only slightly left. Democratic politicians are not always left or liberal. And "the left" in some ways is hard to define. We can muddle through what it is but I have no doubt it will cause confusion to many who define themselves as conservatives as we go forward.

"The left" and "the right" are both psyche we all exhibit depending on what we talk about. I think the issue determines whether we are "to the left" or to "the right". The sum of where we find ourselves on the myriad of issues is how we will define ourselves as left or right. I might consider myself very liberal, but I'm sure I hold conservative views here and there. But, enough of this seemingly off topic context lets get into it.

First, what is the purpose of the media? Is it to be loyal to a faction? Should the media be loyal to the nation... to the troops... to the politicians? Should the media be handled like any other business and be loyal to the almighty dollar? What do conservatives want from the media?

For me the "media" is way too broad of a concept. There is "the media" that is the press/news. There is "the media" that is entertainment. Media is a means be which we gather information.

News by its nature is liberal in my opinion. Journalist who are called to this profession out of a desire to inform the populace are going to be of a liberal psyche. However, I'm sure there are journalists that find themselves of a conservative nature a.) from the start or b.) they become more career orientated, self indulged worried more about paying bills then informing.

That being said... I acknowledge that journalism is a liberal art with more liberals, but it does not favor liberals. When facts are given in its most unfiltered nature it favors us all. Facts are not bias, but opinions are.


To get to the guts of all of this, you're saying that the news is full of liberals who are non-biased truth distributers? So you're admitting that liberals hold a news outlet majority, but that's as far as your wanting to go.

From what I can see, yes they do report facts (much of the time) but there are facts, and then there are facts that support ones personal political views. Look at an analogy, let's say a person despises another person, we'll call him (Fred) tongue.gif Then they explain to their friend why they shouldn't hang out with Fred by laying out a number of unsavory characteristics.

Fred has bad breath, he's loud, let's take something serious, he stole 100 dollars from a friend five years ago. Those may be facts but facts are only as good as the person distributing them. Perhaps the distributor, in this case, left out the fact that the 100 dollars was returned a week later and he apologized, or that he only did it because his kids would have been out on the street due to a late rent payment or something. The distributor could have also left out the fact that Fred is a good cook and when things are better he brings food down to a homeless shelter every weekend.

It's easy to make a person look bad while reporting facts if you focus exclusively on unsavory characteristics or events then repeatedly mention them for weeks on end. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt that liberal news pundits are out to inform the populous with facts.

From what I can tell they also exaggerate and flat out lie in some circumstances. Take this exchange between CNNs Brian Stelter and Trump Spokesperson Katrina Pierson...

QUOTE
STELTER: But, if you expect honesty from the press, shouldn't we expect honesty from Mr. Trump, when there are things that are factually inaccurate that he says? He did say thousands cheered on 9/11 in New Jersey, and that's not true.

PIERSON: Well, can you prove that it's not true?

STELTER: Yes, I can prove that it's not true, because there's absolutely no documentation, there's no video, there's no photos, there's no police reports, there's no crime reports. There's no proof.

PIERSON: There are no police reports? There are no police reports? There are no reports at all, Brian? Are you sure about that? Maybe you should fact-check that, and then we will talk about that next time.

STELTER: I would like to see them, the same way that Donald Trump repeated his calls for...

PIERSON: Former FBI -- former FBI agent confirmed, former New York police commissioner that there were reports.

STELTER: One random news report.

PIERSON: That was not random news report. You had the AP. You had "The New York Post." Come on. Seriously? This is why the people don't trust the media, because the information is out there for wide range. It's out there, Brian. That's why people don't trust the media.

STELTER: But the media is the ones that are -- these random stories you are mentioning, like the FBI agent, that's a media report. That came from a local TV station. Now, it doesn't really prove anything. It's just one person's claim. But it was a media report. Would you acknowledge that the media has played a role in Trump's success?

PIERSON: Well, there are reports, are there not reports? I'm confused now. Are there reports?

STELTER: There's a couple of news stories that you all have used to back up a claim that is not true.

PIERSON: Now there's a couple, not just one. But you just said one. Now you say a couple. How many is it?

STELTER: You know, I don't have the exact number. It might be four. It might be five. It doesn't matter...

PIERSON: OK. The's what I thought, OK.

STELTER: ... because there's no evidence in any report that there were thousands that were cheering.

PIERSON: Oh, it matters, it matters. No, it definitely matters.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gla...telter-msm-bias

Ironically the topic of the debate was to challenge the idea that the media is dishonest and he still pulls a number out of his butt to substantiate his argument. I'm not talking about whether or not it's true thousands cheered, I'm talking about the fact that he didn't know how many reports there were but said there were none anyway. Under pressure, he goes on to say there may have been one isolated report, and from there says there may have been a few. So basically he guessed to support his own viewpoint, that doesn't seem like non-biased fact reporting to me.

QUOTE
2. What effect do you believe media bias can have on its viewers?
Media bias or this concept of media bias exists because the conservatives of this nation were tired of how facts portrayed them. For instance what does it say about Mrs P that she doesn't recognize the authoritative nature of America when we rounded up Japanese Americans, but somehow she expects that the populace of Germany could see the authoritative nature of their government.
See its about the psyche. The bias exists when we, the consumer of information, seek to hear information filtered to reinforce our current perspectives. But understand this when we get into media that is bias we begin to think like a business. Now it is about supply and demand. It is the demand of people to hear their news in a particular way and it is the business's job to give it to them in that way. Enter the right-wing media. There are a few left leaning news outlets. I think MSNBC is one. However this is in response to the success of right-wing media. However, do you remember Air-America radio the left wing answer to the Rush and Hannity and all those type. Yeah a big failure. There is a reason why there is much less demand on the left to have their facts filtered. We just want the facts, as many as we can get. We don't want the facts to make us look good or bad. The right wing will no doubt spin this to say the "mainstream media" is "left" Now what do we do with this enigma when the main stream is actually considered by many Americans as "left stream" media. Well this it what explains alt-media. Its an alternate to the concept of media that informs you and is instead a media that misinforms you. And its bigger consumer are people who identify themselves as conservatives.


3. Why do you believe Donald Trump was able to win despite the claims of racism and bigotry against him?

Why would racism or bigotry prevent a right wing candidate from winning. His racism and bigotry energized the conservative base, much in the same way that Obama's talk of hope, change, and we work better together energized the base of the left.
Racism and bigotry is at the core of why the working class White man votes Republican even though the Republican platform offers very little for the working class. What is Donald Trumps signature phrase. Make America great again. What greatness does the America need to achieve that it lost? Is it greatness or dominance that the right hopes to gain under Trump presidency? What's the difference to the right, personally I don't think there is.
Racism of TRump words sparked enthusiasm in the right. And the rest of the "right" have always been comfortable with racism if it leads them to victory. I'm not calling every person on the right a racist, I'm just saying that the few non-racist of the right are willing to be complicit in having a racist platform to put Republicans in office.


Lets take this part...

"The bias exists when we, the consumer of information, seek to hear information filtered to reinforce our current perspectives."

Which is true in some circumstances, and flip it...

Bias exists when the distributor seeks to spread information to reinforce their current perspective.

Reporters, anchors, and celebrities are subject to the same limited sight as those in the public who don't pay attention or have a bias, except they're in a better position to influence others.

I don't have a comment on Mrs. Pigpens view on the authoritative nature of America, I can tell you what I think on it but you'd first need to define in better detail, what you believe that entails.

Your answer for question 3 seems to follow along the same lines as your others, do you not see any middle ground on these things? For Trump, I actually don't think racist is the best word to describe him. It's hard to make that an argument because his comments don't single out other races. He's addressed other races and said some off the wall nonsense but when you consider he's doing the same thing to those who share his views, it reveals to me that he's an equal opportunity insulter. I'm not saying that's good, but I think it's accurate.

This, in particular, caught my attention...

"His racism and bigotry energized the conservative base, much in the same way that Obama's talk of hope, change, and we work better together energized the base of the left."

With that you believe the left is energized by hope and change while conservatives are energized by racism. What I believe is that there was much more to the Trump win than, (what I believe to be), a fringe group of racially motivated conservative voters. He was a hope and change candidate himself and spoke to groups like the working class and Christians, he reminded them that their contributions mattered. If you look at one of his rallies or interviews you realize that the majority of his message is positive reinforcement of these groups, not derogatory in nature. For me, that doesn't justify some of the things he says but it's evidence that what you say is an oversimplification as well as being a generalizing remark on a group of 60+ million voters.

With that said the insults and cheap shots are a problem, but I believe he got away with that because Trump voters were in a position where they were tired of being told how they should behave or who they should support by a liberal base who has individuals with discrimination and racism issues to deal with themselves.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jan 3 2017, 02:46 AM
Post #58


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Mrs P

QUOTE
Wow, have I written a book this morning. This will probably be my last post on the topic. I don't have enough time...but I wanted to address some of this.


Well, you are an author so don't leave me just yet... but thank you the quotes were getting exhausting so I will try to minimize as well.

QUOTE
lived in Northern Italy (near Venice). I've been told the north and south are very different.
In the north (and I think south as well) the Carabinieri were (I don't know the current laws, but I doubt they have changed) actually permitted to shoot any car that didn't stop when they raised their little lolly-pop looking sign indicating they wanted them to stop. But the closest I ever saw to this employed was a cycling race. A woman was in the lead...and I only know it was a woman because when the carabinieri raised the 'lollypop' as a little joke when she flew by, she spoke (a stream of expletives about his relationship with his mother). Obviously it's not a hard, fast law. But it is a law. Financial police have more power than just about any other entity in Italy. It's a really deep seated bureaucracy and there is a lot of law breaking and rampant nepotism. The economy would collapse without the economia submersa (under-the-table, outside-taxes-and-legislation, "shadow" economy) and it's the fourth largest economy in Europe so this fact is significant.

I did like living in Italy (half of my family is there). The people are nice (outside the cities, inside they are terrible as is true of most large cities), the environment and landscape amazing, and I like that relaxed way of life (simple living, a refined regard for aesthetics, and so forth). What I did not like is the rampant theft and inability to protect my own home environment. No air conditioning, had to keep the Rolladens down on summer nights when it was over 100 degrees in the house or the zingari would steal the watch off your arm (along with everything else of value in the home). I prefer to live in a place I can defend myself legally. Seems a natural human right, in my estimation.

Side note: Italy has changed a lot in the past decade, according to my aunt. It's probably very different now from what you remember. There were no homeless then in Pordenone for example, but now there are so many in front of the stores many are going out of business (or have long gone out of business). They can't handle the mass flood of refugees.
*********

On another note, just to answer more of your post, Droop, without so many quotes because it get confusing I just sort of pieced my response all together here:

There is a concept called "relative deprivation" that I've heard applied to education, economy, and job situations but it can apply to a lot of other situations/population groups. It was coined by Samuel Stouffer, a sociologist, during World War II to describe how we measure ourselves against other people (this is actually even pertinent to the topic as it has been said society is built by our wants, and the media plays a large roll in shaping those "wants"). Short version is, we measure ourselves by the standard of others. For example, we live in the most prosperous time in human history (200 years ago the average family spent 70 percent of its income on food alone, and that has been essentially the standard for the ages…in NON-starving, good times). Just a little over 100 years ago almost half of the average family income went to food alone. There is no doubt people in general have never been financially better off. They have more than our forefathers ever thought possible, yet they aren't necessarily more happy or content, and they want more. Why? Because people measure themselves based on others, and there has never been a time in human history where so many had so much and it's all on display real-time in social media. It's that way for most everything.

Opinions are influenced in a similar way. When you mention that some were opposed to slavery back in the day, this is true. But it happened in gradients, and slowly the ideas began to take effect. At first, people who thought that way were outliers. One could write a book about the phenomenon…it's far too lengthy a subject for the topic here. It is tied into economics as well as social conditioning. And economics are tied to security. Consider that not even the bible condemns slavery, instead it offers some directives on how a master and servant should behave. And most every nation on earth had slavery at that time from the Vikings through what is now known as Europe, and Asia, and Africa. That was often the cost of losing a battle. Over a thousand years after Christ, Ghengis Khan was sacking (and afterwards unifying) most of Asia, building an empire, collecting slaves and leaving a lot of bodies (tens of millions, when the population of the world was a LOT smaller). So now about one in every 200 people on earth is his descendant.

I'm going to try to tie this now in by using a quote, from your post. I am taking your post out of order to make this point, and changing the context but it's right up there to read for folks interested so as not to misrepresent your argument I'm highlighting the fact.


So lets see where I can connect with you here. I believe the concept of "relative deprivation" is quite valid. When applied to some things not others, most importantly the concepts of wealth. Because being rich or being poor are based on the wealth differences within community. I'm not saying it can't apply anywhere else, just that for me it becomes more of a stretch to fully accept for me. I also agree with you the social change happen incrementally. You don't go from a country from that enslaves, commits genocide, to some utopia of equality overnight... or over centuries, even when, ironically, people believe themselves purveyors of freedom. This too is very important to understand.

I don't argue that we spend less of our income on food, I argue that the statistic is irrelevant to our financial well being. Why? Well, as you state we measure wealth on what? On the wealth of others. Wealth is a concept based on the concept of capital. What is real. Well two things... Labor and Resources. Capital is a representation of these two real things. In short... money isn't real and yet its very much part of every society. My point is don't worry about the numbers of economics that is a castle built on sand. Yes, I know that may sound crazy, but I promise I'm grounded, even if a bit unconventional in thinking, no need to debate it anyway other than to state, I believe, our financial well being isn't tied to an amount of money earned or how we spend it, but rather the variance between our wealth within a community. So the greater the variance of income inequality the greater the financial stress and societal depression as a nation of people feel less successful. Even if you don't agree with me on my economic beliefs, I hope you can see the logic. Part of the Trump victory deals with the fact that the wealth inequality is being felt by White working class males. Now why they keep thinking its Blacks and Latinos are part of the financial squeeze, that is a media issue, not the liberal media... the corporate one.

This is where we disagree. Those people did disagree with slavery for themselves, they didn't view themselves as slaves and they claimed to fight for freedom. The founding fathers were not practitioners of liberalism, but rather statesmen selling another war to increase their personal wealth. What's important is that the sold it with the concepts of liberalism The ideals of slavery stood in stark contrast to the lip service delivered. As they say, "the proof is in the pudding". And as they did then, conservatives do today. Using the language and concepts of liberalism to mask a non-liberal agenda.

Freedom of speech... that's a liberal thing. Liberty that's a liberal thing. Equality that's a liberal thing. And to tie this to the debate... freedom of press, you guessed it, a liberal thing. These are tenets of liberalism. These aren't tenets of conservatism. But as it was then, it is now, not exactly the same conditions, but the same .... struggle. Conservatives seek to usurp the language of liberalism "freedom this", "liberty that", but they only truly fight for liberty or freedom on issues where they hold liberal ideals.

If I bring gray seal up, I can tell you that me him disagree greatly, but we both agree that conservative platforms don't even fight for a free-markets, but they will use that language.

So though I agree with the idea that social change happens incrementally these opinions are not shaped or changed in a relative manner as we see when describing our wealth. Through the ideals of liberalism and progressivism we look into improving the human condition. It is both an individual and social struggle against beliefs of supremacy that are in contest. I think about the historical figures you bring up. There is no need for any of them to be morally good, because the concept of equality is not in play. It is a much more base, primal time in human history. The further back in time you go the less you see the ideals ideal based on equality and obviously the more brutality you see. I won't argue that. The struggle as I say continues... ideals based on equality vs ideals based on domination. The humane vs the brutal. That being said nature is strong and the ideals of liberalism are not natural, regardless of the flowery words used by the philosophers.

So I guess for me this ties to the debate like this. When we discuss Trump we clearly see a man in words and deeds that seeks to dominate others. And when we see complaints about media bias as it pertains to Trump we see him having to hear how he sounds and not appreciating it. This is reflective of conservatism as a whole and their beef with the media, in my opinion. Like Trump, their self reflection of themselves doesn't match their positions, words, or deeds. When the media shows this they think it is because the media is biased to the left.

QUOTE
Not currently, no. But not so long ago a woman had to prove she was raped, and part of the proof for court required evidence that she resisted to the best of her ability. That would have been pretty hard to prove in many cases. What if the person had a gun or knife? What if he used a sedative? And so forth. So, it's a good thing the burden of proof isn't so high now. That required a society-wide change of mindset. From the perspective of your post (the "liberal" mindset), society has evolved. Now the number of people who believe a woman has to have been beaten senseless and bloodied to have actually been raped are outliers, people who think otherwise are the norm. So, we have more justice for rape victims….which is a good thing. But on the flip side things have gone so far that in some cases the right to presumption of innocence (for the accused) is lost, along with the burden of proof of mens rea.


Again Mrs P, agreement with you on both points. Liberalism is not without its flaws. Liberalism can over correct in pushing for justice and create, not necessarily a greater, but another sort of injustice. Affirmative action laws come to mind. Is it fair that a White person gets passed over for a job, or a position based on their race? No, it isn't. But it happens because there was and is a greater injustice that has happened and is happening to minorities due to White supremacy. You are in a great position as a woman surrounded by men and young men. You can empathize with the idea of a woman having to prove she was raped with no other evidence but her truthful word, and empathize with the idea that the scales have tilted in such a way that the accusation alone is enough to ruin an innocent man.

But tell me where is your mindset on this? Is it actually rape if she says no? Is it rape if she concedes but is drunk out of her mind, if she comes over to the hotel\barracks\dorm room at 1 or 2 in the morning, if she takes the pills that relaxes her and puts her in a more willing frame of mind... is it rape even if she acts irresponsible. What if there no bloody beaten woman or torn clothes, just some girl drunk out of her mind\slightly conscious that let 3 guys have fun. Is it rape? Are liberals getting it right?



QUOTE
I've never noticed this ostensible flood to justify cop killings and beatings when the evidence clearly points to the police in the wrong. Nighttimer (a long while back) showed a video of a girl being beaten in a jail cell. There was no argument that the police were in the wrong…there was nothing whatsoever to debate, it was obvious. I once showed a video of a war veteran who was shot (or was it beaten? can't recall now) while on his knees in front of the police. No arguments there.

Alright there is so much important going on in this one small paragraph. First, have you ever looked to see if there is a flood of cop killing or beatings? The [email="http://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504"]FBI just stated that there is no requirement for police officer[/email] to report how many people they kill. Isn't that something? Maybe not. As for beatings well... wait lets think about this honestly for just a second... whats the standard for you? From what you say, indirectly, pretty high. So you see a video with someone getting their tell whooped by a few police and then you say... yeah that's abuse. But is the criteria of evidence that you, yo require to call abuse a video? Again, this is your journey of truth so be honest with yourself.

Back to "rape" side discussion, whats your standard there? Do you require a video for you to call it rape? Do you require hospitalization for you to believe a rape occurred? Like I said, only the most egregious of police abuse make it to the news, and even then, (maybe not you personally) you have many conservatives defending the abuse and necessary due to noncompliance. But you want evidence of widespread abuse. Its in front of you but not directly as one instance.

Lets take the Garner situation, since you see that as a case of abuse. What did the other police officers do? How many tried to stop the choke hold? How man tried to block the line of sight of camera phones? When we talk of mens rea or actus reus or whatever obscure latin legalese (why do we do that again... I have no clue) what does it say that police have shown time and time again that they don't want to be recorded?

I'll tell you this much if it were 4-7 "thugs" that choked to death a person all 7 would be up for felony murder even if they were just keeping watch. Bottom line the "liberal biased media" doesn't seem to make every report front and center, just the egregious ones.

QUOTE
A police officer is in an unusual situation. He is in a position of public trust, which requires a greater level of responsibility, and also a far higher level risk. When a person calls in and says, "OMG! There's a guy with a gun in the children's park! He's waving it around the threatening people!" and it's an area where cops have been shot, there is obviously going to be a higher level of perceived risk when entering this situation. Let's take the statistical evidence provided before (black cop faster on the draw). From your perspective that seems to be a bad thing. From my perspective, it might be bad or very good depending. If the cop gets shot or lets his partner get shot, or some other person in the park is shot because he was slow and/or did nothing, that's a bad thing. People don't have perfect knowledge and they have to go by events as they are perceiving them at the time, not hindsight 20/20 when everything is known. BTW, on another note related to risk…unlike the film Zero Dark Thirty would indicate, there was never a ninety-something percent likelihood bin Laden was at that compound. The real number was a little over 60 percent. Very ballsy on a lot of levels. I don't think most people realize exactly how ballsy this move was.


Hindsight...LMAO... Hindsight... Its not not "hindsight" if it is based on a "if" that has yet to "exist". If someone is shooting at the officer, the officers partner, or the public and an LEO make a kill, who complains? When was the last time you heard that police were in a shootout, killed the person they were in a shootout with and the liberals protested against them for that?

But just fun lets put both possible scenarios on the table. In what world Mrs P... in what world is it a better outcome to have a 12-year old with a toy gun killed by a police officer, rather than having an officer or their partner die because they gave were willing to investigate first? Where is the humanity in that position. It would be tragic either way, but an innocent 12 year old killed for me is the greater tragedy. But then you still have to deal with the the justice behind the tragedy. If the kid did kill a police officer... how many liberals would say its sad, but nothing wrong happened.

QUOTE
There is another side the equation that's important. We don't only expect LEOs to go into dangerous situations to protect the public, but we need a source of volunteers to do this. People willing to go into law enforcement. And we want GOOD people to volunteer for this. A free society actually depends on it. So when the media threatens to release names and addresses endangering the families of officers, that's a drawback to service. When there is mass looting and violence after a false (or incomplete, partial-information) story breaks, and they are expected to confront that violence, that's a drawback to service. The money isn't good either. And often the people who complain loudest against law enforcement are the same ones demanding loudest out of the other side of their mouths that law enforcement "do something!" when crap hits the fan. Unlike the sex drive, there isn't as much of a biological need to protect people outside of one's tribe.
It doesn't matter how good the person that joins is when you introduce them to a police for that acts the way our current police act. They don't want to be seen. They have the EXACT same code as criminals, "don't snitch" "protect you brother/sister", "if they target us we will target them"

And lastly Mrs P, yeah minority groups are asking for two things that don't seem mutually exclusive. Be police, patrol the streets, don't kill us or beat the crap out of the community when doing it... I'm surprised it seems like such difficult request. If you first concern is making it home to your family or making sure your partner lives, then you won't be a good cop, you should try a different profession.

Net

QUOTE
To get to the guts of all of this, you're saying that the news is full of liberals who are non-biased truth distributers? So you're admitting that liberals hold a news outlet majority, but that's as far as your wanting to go.
Close. I think the news organizations are owned by corporations though... right? As a matter of fact, 6 corporations own 90% of the media. Its that bad. The agenda of a corporation is not set by the employee. Take a look if you got time to see what Cenk Uygur from Young Turks leaves MSNBC just to get a relative idea of what it is I am speaking of. So while MSNBC is by the far most left of all cable news, it is still the same problem of trying to make money but not rock the boat.

So I am showing you with facts the consolidation of power within media into the hands of a few. Consolidation of power and wealth is a right wing principle, not a left wing principle. We both know which side say "be a rich as you possibly can" or "why punish success by taxing wealth". Because when you get a whole bunch of power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, you are going the opposite direction of equality, a core tenet of liberalism.

That being said, wanting to speak truth to power is a liberal mainstay, so people who feel a calling to journalism for idealistic reasons will be liberal. In the same way that people whose main goal is to enrich and empower themselves will lean conservative.

QUOTE
Fred has bad breath, he's loud, let's take something serious, he stole 100 dollars from a friend five years ago. Those may be facts but facts are only as good as the person distributing them. Perhaps the distributor, in this case, left out the fact that the 100 dollars was returned a week later and he apologized, or that he only did it because his kids would have been out on the street due to a late rent payment or something. The distributor could have also left out the fact that Fred is a good cook and when things are better he brings food down to a homeless shelter every weekend.
Ironically, in true conservative fashion, in your OWN analogy you have two opinions and one fact and call them all FACTS. He's loud and has bad breath are both opinion, even if it is your analogy. And THAT, NET2007, is just one of the uphill struggle that liberals have to deal with when discussing politics with our conservative homies. laugh.gif

QUOTE
It's easy to make a person look bad while reporting facts if you focus exclusively on unsavory characteristics or events then repeatedly mention them for weeks on end. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt that liberal news pundits are out to inform the populous with facts.
Its even easier when the guy is a pathological liar. But I get your point. Point is are you trying to make it applicable to trump or this so called liberal media? Was the press making Hillary look like a an angel and Trump a devil?


QUOTE
From what I can tell they also exaggerate and flat out lie in some circumstances. Take this exchange between CNNs Brian Stelter and Trump Spokesperson Katrina Pierson...


Oh please, yes, and Thank you... lets use this as an example. but first an analogous hypothetical conversation between "Fred" and "Sam" while playing poker with friends.

Fred looking at customized playing cards: "These are some nice cards like you got Sam why didn't you get me some for my birthday."

Sam: Can you prove you DIDN'T get any cards?

Fred looking confused trying to prove a negative: Yeah I can prove it... I didn't get any, not even a two dollar bicycle pack

Sam: Come on Fred are you sure you didn't get any cards for your birthday

Fred exasperated: Yeah I'm sure

Sam: Well Fred I remember coming to your house on your birthday and I saw you reading a card.

Fred trying to explain: Well, yeah I got a card from my mother but-

Sam: Wait I'm confused you just said you didn't get a card

Fred: Well yeah I got some cards from family and friends but-

Sam: Oh now its multiple cards not just one. So which is it... you did or didn't get cards for your birthday?

Fred: Yes I got cards but-

Sam: See Fred that why people don't like you... your breath stinks, you're loud, you stole that money back in the day.. and you still lie for no reason!!

The end!! Lets go to your story

QUOTE
STELTER: But, if you expect honesty from the press, shouldn't we expect honesty from Mr. Trump, when there are things that are factually inaccurate that he says? He did say thousands cheered on 9/11 in New Jersey, and that's not true.

PIERSON: Well, can you prove that it's not true?


The "left wing" news anchor questions the truthfulness of Trumps comments. He is saying that Donald said something happened that there is no evidence of it happening. He is then asked if he can prove the thing that he says didn't happen...actually didn't happen. Can he prove a negative (logically you can't prove a negative)... mistakenly... he tries.

QUOTE
STELTER: Yes, I can prove that it's not true, because there's absolutely no documentation, there's no video, there's no photos, there's no police reports, there's no crime reports. There's no proof.

PIERSON: There are no police reports? There are no police reports? There are no reports at all, Brian? Are you sure about that? Maybe you should fact-check that, and then we will talk about that next time.

STELTER: I would like to see them, the same way that Donald Trump repeated his calls for...
There is no evidence that the there were thousands or even hundreds of people celebrating. There are no POLICE or CRIME reports of thousands of people cheering 9/11.

QUOTE
PIERSON: Former FBI -- former FBI agent confirmed, former New York police commissioner that there were reports.

STELTER: One random news report.

PIERSON: That was not random news report. You had the AP. You had "The New York Post." Come on. Seriously? This is why the people don't trust the media, because the information is out there for wide range. It's out there, Brian. That's why people don't trust the media.
So there weren't any police reports or crime reports but there was a random news report that reported... something. This is called "bait and switch". Another logical fallacy. Can you see that? He started off talking about police reports or crime reports... now he is being led down to talk about NEWS report. And see the information is out there... what information... I don't know... but its out there.

QUOTE
STELTER: But the media is the ones that are -- these random stories you are mentioning, like the FBI agent, that's a media report. That came from a local TV station. Now, it doesn't really prove anything. It's just one person's claim. But it was a media report. Would you acknowledge that the media has played a role in Trump's success?

PIERSON: Well, there are reports, are there not reports? I'm confused now. Are there reports?

STELTER: There's a couple of news stories that you all have used to back up a claim that is not true.

PIERSON: Now there's a couple, not just one. But you just said one. Now you say a couple. How many is it?
Well are there or aren't there reports???? LMBO!! Now there a couple of NEWS reports not just one. When did this become about NEWS reports. They started off talking about if the claim that thousands of people were cheering 9/11 was true or not true... now she is chastising him tht there were news report out there stating.... information. Of what, we have no clue! So how many..huh... how many news articles are out there talking about ... information ... about people celebrating during 9/11?
QUOTE
STELTER: You know, I don't have the exact number. It might be four. It might be five. It doesn't matter...

PIERSON: OK. The's what I thought, OK.

STELTER: ... because there's no evidence in any report that there were thousands that were cheering.

PIERSON: Oh, it matters, it matters. No, it definitely matters.
It doesn't matter he is saying cause none of it has to do with the veracity of the claim... the fact of whether thousands of muslims celebrating 9/11 in the streets of New Jersey did or did not happen. She just ignores the point... "oh it matters"

So, Net2007, you had a chance to read the transcript and you still posted it as a "good example"... well it is, for me. The way I have seen conservatives digest news, let's just say it is fascinating and frustrating at the same time. And let me make it just a little personal, for just a second. Because your statement post cutting and pasting is the most fascinating\frustrating, but illustrative thing that deserves particular note. You say:
QUOTE
Ironically the topic of the debate was to challenge the idea that the media is dishonest and he still pulls a number out of his butt to substantiate his argument. I'm not talking about whether or not it's true thousands cheered, I'm talking about the fact that he didn't know how many reports there were but said there were none anyway. Under pressure, he goes on to say there may have been one isolated report, and from there says there may have been a few. So basically he guessed to support his own viewpoint, that doesn't seem like non-biased fact reporting to me.
You are not talking about THE CRUX of the issue. The most central and important part of why they are having a discussion. Your major concern in that back in forth is not whether or whether not Trump, the presidential candidate, was just making false claims that thousands of Muslims were celebrating in the streets? Its whether he could accurately count the press stories tha mention "information".

Again, this is the best example you could have given of the trouble with the "liberal media" and "conservatism"

QUOTE
Reporters, anchors, and celebrities are subject to the same limited sight as those in the public who don't pay attention or have a bias, except they're in a better position to influence others.
Yes, but here you go conflating things. Every human is subject to bias. It does not mean you let your bias influence your jobs or professionalism. It may, it may not... you don't judge this by what is reported but by whether what is reported is truthful or misleading. If the media uses facts and omits facts to mislead the public that is wrong. However, if the media is giving you facts that doesn't give you a warm and fuzzy about yourself, that is not them improperly doing their job.

QUOTE
With that you believe the left is energized by hope and change while conservatives are energized by racism. What I believe is that there was much more to the Trump win than, (what I believe to be), a fringe group of racially motivated conservative voters. He was a hope and change candidate himself and spoke to groups like the working class and Christians, he reminded them that their contributions mattered. If you look at one of his rallies or interviews you realize that the majority of his message is positive reinforcement of these groups, not derogatory in nature. For me, that doesn't justify some of the things he says but it's evidence that what you say is an oversimplification as well as being a generalizing remark on a group of 60+ million voters.
First, the base isn't the fringe. I believe at its core conservatism is a philosophy of supremacy where ever it is. Whether its racial, religious, or national its about being SEEN as the greatest, the best, most important, etc. I have not seen one bit of integrity in Trump or his campaign. I do see power. I do see his indulgence and lust of power. The conservative base responded positively to this. I don't know if he is a racist, but I know racist organizations are as excited for Trump as Blacks and young liberals were for Obama. Hopefully they are disappointed as well.

Trumps message was make America great again. America remains the most dominant force politically, culturally, and economically the world has ever seen. So what does it mean to make the greatest, most powerful country great again... and for who. One thing I feel from talking to White friends, mostly from the Corp, who are extreme Trump supporters is they feel that Whites, especially are White males, are getting abused from all side. They feel they are being oppressed and forgotten by their country. Is there any statistic to back that up, no, but I can't argue feelings. I think the people who voted for Trump are tired of being made to feel ashamed of White supremacy. I don't for a second think they call it "White Supremacy" I think they call it "traditional values", "a better time", or better "back when America was Great!!"

Make America Great, AGAIN. The phraseology is important. "Again" refers to the past. So the greatness of America was in the past, but its over now. The only minority group that had it better in the past, to include women(not really a minority) are muslims. Muslims are likely the only group wishing for the good ol days of America. That's domestically, but Trump has promised a bigger better military. Well we have THE most dominant military, he promises to make it even more so. For what? Oh Islamic Extremism, but how many Americans in the last 8 years to Islamic Extremism on American soil...I'd be surprised if you can get to 200...TOTAL, in over 8 years. You could likely get to 1000% of that over 8 years if we were to just talk about gun violence in America due to domestic firearm proliferation.

See what happens when you don't really care about facts or statistics... you don't like. You need a big strong military to protect you from an enemy that kills... well let say you have better odds winning the lotto then to be killed by Islamic extremist, but you are more afraid of that than the things much more likely to kill you.

So yeah Trump has promised greater domination and supremacy for Americans, and has done so in a way that Whites have become particularly energized. Racism is a big part of the, IMO, its not the only part s I don't mean to over simplify, but it IS NOT FRINGE. The Republican platform has been a platform for racists for as long as I have been alive, that does not make every conservative a racist.

Lastly, I will not take your debate this far off topic, but trust me, you have a much more limited understanding of racism and define it in much narrower terms than I. So there is that. I'm not saying my opinion on what is racism is more valid, please don't think that, but it is not defined by hating one race or saying racial slurs.







This post has been edited by droop224: Jan 3 2017, 02:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jan 5 2017, 11:00 PM
Post #59


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,220
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop I'm going to have a reply here within two days, it's busy times but I started in on it.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jan 5 2017, 11:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jan 8 2017, 01:26 AM
Post #60


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,220
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop

QUOTE
Net

QUOTE
To get to the guts of all of this, you're saying that the news is full of liberals who are non-biased truth distributers? So you're admitting that liberals hold a news outlet majority, but that's as far as your wanting to go.


Close. I think the news organizations are owned by corporations though... right? As a matter of fact, 6 corporations own 90% of the media. Its that bad. The agenda of a corporation is not set by the employee. Take a look if you got time to see what Cenk Uygur from Young Turks leaves MSNBC just to get a relative idea of what it is I am speaking of. So while MSNBC is by the far most left of all cable news, it is still the same problem of trying to make money but not rock the boat.

So I am showing you with facts the consolidation of power within media into the hands of a few. Consolidation of power and wealth is a right wing principle, not a left wing principle. We both know which side say "be a rich as you possibly can" or "why punish success by taxing wealth". Because when you get a whole bunch of power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, you are going the opposite direction of equality, a core tenet of liberalism.

That being said, wanting to speak truth to power is a liberal mainstay, so people who feel a calling to journalism for idealistic reasons will be liberal. In the same way that people whose main goal is to enrich and empower themselves will lean conservative.


As far as news bias goes, corporations are out to make money, but how relevant is that? They make money just fine with news stations that are often biased and unfair. If anything the divisive nature of that attracts attention and improves ratings. With the video you shared, MSNBC didn't want Cenk Uygur in the 6 o'clock time slot because of his overall style, (hand gestures and tone as examples) but were willing to keep him on along with their other liberal commentators and anchors.

I've watched him some on TYT and understand their decision. They couldn't have bumped up someone close to a primetime spot who's going to go as far as to curse out the Democratic party because Hillary couldn't beat Trump. He shouldn't have been on the network to begin with, but I think they saw where he was headed and that he was going to want to do things his way. In their head perhaps Rachel Maddow whining about how terrible she thinks conservatives are was the better option.

Overall a good decision not to promote him, but MSNBC is a liberal news network (as you're saying) with the exception of a couple shows. If that's the path they've chosen then this appears to have been how to effectively push a liberal agenda in a way that wouldn't backfire.

In short, I agree with some of what you said. I understand that money matters and that it'll affect decisions being made but also know that corporations and news networks are composed of people who have political opinions of their own. If they can make money while pushing an agenda they get everything they want. I'd say the same thing applies to Fox News. They lean conservative with the exception of a couple shows and there's a reason for it. The most unbiased reporting of the news that I've seen comes from local news stations where they more frequently cover crimes and natural disasters. From my experience, when they touch on politics it's less emotional and more of a layout of what happened.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Fred has bad breath, he's loud, let's take something serious, he stole 100 dollars from a friend five years ago. Those may be facts but facts are only as good as the person distributing them. Perhaps the distributor, in this case, left out the fact that the 100 dollars was returned a week later and he apologized, or that he only did it because his kids would have been out on the street due to a late rent payment or something. The distributor could have also left out the fact that Fred is a good cook and when things are better he brings food down to a homeless shelter every weekend.


Ironically, in true conservative fashion, in your OWN analogy you have two opinions and one fact and call them all FACTS. He's loud and has bad breath are both opinion, even if it is your analogy. And THAT, NET2007, is just one of the uphill struggle that liberals have to deal with when discussing politics with our conservative homies. laugh.gif


I'll meet you halfway on this particular analogy. Let me put it this way, whether or not someone has bad breath can be based on facts. Along with poor dental hygiene, there are a list of medical conditions that are known to cause it. I'm sure nobody would approach a doctor and say there's no factual evidence that an impacted wisdom tooth can cause bad breath. Perhaps Fred has one, and never brushes his teeth on top of that. tongue.gif In other words, his bad breath is by no means controversial.

Your reply splits hairs with terminology a bit. I suppose you could go as far as saying old skunk juice mixed with garbage and worn socks, (being something that smells bad), is an opinion, but there'd be an overwhelming consensus that it does. Touche on the distraction, but your rebuttal missed the larger point of the analogy which was to illustrate that it's easy to make a person look bad by focusing primarily on unsavory traits, or occurrences.

QUOTE
QUOTE
It's easy to make a person look bad while reporting facts if you focus exclusively on unsavory characteristics or events then repeatedly mention them for weeks on end. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt that liberal news pundits are out to inform the populous with facts.


Its even easier when the guy is a pathological liar. But I get your point. Point is are you trying to make it applicable to trump or this so called liberal media? Was the press making Hillary look like a an angel and Trump a devil?


Okay, so you caught on.

As for Hillary, to an extent yes they were trying to make her look like an angel while demonizing Trump. With your comment on the "so called liberal media" How do you explain the polling over the years and comments like the one below? Michael Moore isn't conservative, right?

QUOTE
1. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their *** in the days to come. Turn them off.

4. Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all "You're fired!" Trump's victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-12/l...onest-reporting

As I said in the opening post, he still defends liberals and he's very critical of Trump, but he's also offering some degree of honesty on a liberal media that's failed the left. I don't agree with all of the points in his 5 point post-election plan but it's interesting nevertheless. (Continued below for more substantiation....)

QUOTE
So there weren't any police reports or crime reports but there was a random news report that reported... something. This is called "bait and switch". Another logical fallacy. Can you see that? He started off talking about police reports or crime reports... now he is being led down to talk about NEWS report. And see the information is out there... what information... I don't know... but its out there.


QUOTE
You are not talking about THE CRUX of the issue. The most central and important part of why they are having a discussion. Your major concern in that back in forth is not whether or whether not Trump, the presidential candidate, was just making false claims that thousands of Muslims were celebrating in the streets? Its whether he could accurately count the press stories tha mention "information".

Again, this is the best example you could have given of the trouble with the "liberal media" and "conservatism"


What I see out of that report is that they were both trying to spin things to fit their narrative, some of the questions he started with were bait and switch to begin with. He tried to direct her away from the issue of liberal media bias by pointing at Trump. By the way, this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what the media is doing. Speaking of TYT and Cenk Uygur, here's a review from someone who describes himself as liberal, as with Michael Moore he's okay with being critical of like-minded individuals. When I hear him talk it's obvious that he has the best interest of the left in mind, but here again he's offering some honesty. He talks about TYT lacking facts when reporting, using strawman arguments, and getting over emotional, all of which are true. I looked at your video so I encourage you to actually watch the ones I post to get an idea of where I'm coming from....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXyiUi5fPWc

This further substantiates how misleading and dishonest the media can be. Although this is a Youtube news channel, it's a popular one that reaches a lot of people. Also, as you (rather unwittingly) pointed out, Cenk Uygur was part of the MSM as well.

There are so many examples of dishonesty or bias in the media so here's another you may have heard of...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...m=.0cb9ddb46789

As a CNN commentator, she was fine with feeding debate questions to Hillary Clinton because it could help her win, that's all that mattered. Someone who shared her own political views was given an advantage in a debate that should have been fair. Very disingenuous, but I'm sure you'll downplay and dismiss every one of these right? If your position is that liberal news outlets are composed of non-biased truth distributors then all of this will be foreign to you.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Reporters, anchors, and celebrities are subject to the same limited sight as those in the public who don't pay attention or have a bias, except they're in a better position to influence others.


Yes, but here you go conflating things. Every human is subject to bias. It does not mean you let your bias influence your jobs or professionalism. It may, it may not... you don't judge this by what is reported but by whether what is reported is truthful or misleading. If the media uses facts and omits facts to mislead the public that is wrong. However, if the media is giving you facts that doesn't give you a warm and fuzzy about yourself, that is not them improperly doing their job.


You're saying that every human is subject to bias but that it may, or may not influence their job. You're saying this in a way to convince me that I shouldn't assume bias, (which I already understand) but through this statement, the truth comes out. If every human is subject to bias, and it may or may not effect their job, would it follow that liberals aren't human? You were suggesting before that liberals only report facts and don't have a bias, then contradict yourself here whether or not you realized it.

QUOTE
QUOTE
With that you believe the left is energized by hope and change while conservatives are energized by racism. What I believe is that there was much more to the Trump win than, (what I believe to be), a fringe group of racially motivated conservative voters. He was a hope and change candidate himself and spoke to groups like the working class and Christians, he reminded them that their contributions mattered. If you look at one of his rallies or interviews you realize that the majority of his message is positive reinforcement of these groups, not derogatory in nature. For me, that doesn't justify some of the things he says but it's evidence that what you say is an oversimplification as well as being a generalizing remark on a group of 60+ million voters.


Trumps message was make America great again. America remains the most dominant force politically, culturally, and economically the world has ever seen. So what does it mean to make the greatest, most powerful country great again... and for who. One thing I feel from talking to White friends, mostly from the Corp, who are extreme Trump supporters is they feel that Whites, especially are White males, are getting abused from all side. They feel they are being oppressed and forgotten by their country. Is there any statistic to back that up, no, but I can't argue feelings. I think the people who voted for Trump are tired of being made to feel ashamed of White supremacy. I don't for a second think they call it "White Supremacy" I think they call it "traditional values", "a better time", or better "back when America was Great!!"

Make America Great, AGAIN. The phraseology is important. "Again" refers to the past. So the greatness of America was in the past, but its over now. The only minority group that had it better in the past, to include women(not really a minority) are muslims. Muslims are likely the only group wishing for the good ol days of America. That's domestically, but Trump has promised a bigger better military. Well we have THE most dominant military, he promises to make it even more so. For what? Oh Islamic Extremism, but how many Americans in the last 8 years to Islamic Extremism on American soil...I'd be surprised if you can get to 200...TOTAL, in over 8 years. You could likely get to 1000% of that over 8 years if we were to just talk about gun violence in America due to domestic firearm proliferation.

See what happens when you don't really care about facts or statistics... you don't like. You need a big strong military to protect you from an enemy that kills... well let say you have better odds winning the lotto then to be killed by Islamic extremist, but you are more afraid of that than the things much more likely to kill you.

So yeah Trump has promised greater domination and supremacy for Americans, and has done so in a way that Whites have become particularly energized. Racism is a big part of the, IMO, its not the only part s I don't mean to over simplify, but it IS NOT FRINGE. The Republican platform has been a platform for racists for as long as I have been alive, that does not make every conservative a racist.

Lastly, I will not take your debate this far off topic, but trust me, you have a much more limited understanding of racism and define it in much narrower terms than I. So there is that. I'm not saying my opinion on what is racism is more valid, please don't think that, but it is not defined by hating one race or saying racial slurs.


Droop, you're taking one thing and assuming it means something else, you're oversimplifying and generalizing. I hope this doesn't become too personal but in reply to you suggesting that you have a better understanding of racism, while suggesting mine is limited. It seems to me that you do have a high understanding of racism, but it's the kind of racism that affects you and like minded individuals. There's nothing wrong with that, we all want to be aware of things that are hurting us but if you had a higher understanding of racism you'd know how far reaching it is, meaning beyond white conservatism. Look at post #24 and tell me those videos don't demonstrate severe problems on behalf liberals and Democrats. When I say problems, I'm talking discrimination and in some cases hate crimes. If you had a high overall understanding you'd be aware of how deep an issue this is amongst liberals.

Don't take my word for it, look at this video with some degree of objectivity....

http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/227116738-story

I was looking at that one just before it hit the MSM, it's only the latest example I've found of a stream of hate crimes and violent acts on behalf of either liberals, (in some cases black liberals), or from those who just simply hate and generalize about Trump and his followers. Take a look at that along with the videos in post #23. If you can spin these into anything but acts committed out of hatred then you get massive credit, but it's not the kind I'd want.

For me having a good understanding of racism and discrimination also meant coming to the realization that we're talking about minority groups on both sides and that political labels are a vague representation of others. By looking at this election and how out of control the alt-left has gotten, I could assume that my political opponents are generally hateful or misguided.

But to give a rough breakdown, when talking about those who have highly polarizing attitudes and seek to offend others, it's a minority.

Then you have those who have problems to work through, or perhaps moderate amounts of prejudice but don't seek to offend others.

Last but not least are the ones who either want to engage in conversation to overcome the barriers seen between various racial, political, and religious groups, or they aren't involved in divisive political matters at all. Consider that well over half of Americans don't even vote, (or roughly half of eligible voters). I happen to believe the ones who get the least attention are the ones who've been holding this country together the whole time, we've gotten through a lot and there are reasons for this. The least noticed are the ones who are more concerned about how their kids are doing in school than turning on the TV to get involved with controversial matters. The latter groups, (all of those who don't seek to offend others), together make up the majority. Which of those are more prevalent takes some guess work. So although things have been more divisive over the last decade than they were in the 80's and 90's, I don't think things are as bad as you make them out to be.

I'm not saying that the divisiveness we see right now isn't a problem, but have you made an attempt to individualize your opponents? Do you acknowledge problems seen within the Democratic party or with those who share your beliefs or skin color? Just an observation here, but you don't seem to take your conservative opponents very seriously. No hard feelings, but how did that work out for the Democrats in this election?

Dems are holding onto the idea of Hillary winning the popular vote by about 3%, but the reality is that dismissing or labeling their opponents backfired immensely. Republicans have the House, Senate, and Presidency which should be eye-opening. An excess of votes for Hillary in states like California and New York only demonstrate that the Democrats are good at appealing to those with far-left viewpoints. Coming back from that will take communication with others, that doesn't mean agreeing with everything a conservative says but if you don't want a repeat of Bush winning the popular vote the second time around, know that the right means business and that when they see an inaccurate picture being drawn about them it makes conversation difficult and if anything motivates them to vote for anyone other than those who misrepresent them.

_________________

Just a heads up, I have a few things coming up and some work to put into my book, so future replies will be a bit shorter for now.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jan 8 2017, 08:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 24th, 2018 - 07:52 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.