Sorry in advance for the length of this, I'll try to make it worth a read. It'll get heated at times but I come in peace

As Americans, we live in a time where some are so politically polarized that they meltdown if they hear someone who doesn't think or look like they do. In the really bad cases, you'll see a lot of projection. In psychological terms, projection is when someone feels or behaves the same way as those they criticize or encourage, (it can work both ways). Negative projection is a self-defense mechanism and can be a form of venting for those who are unhappy with one or more aspects of their life, (Why acknowledge a hate or dislike of yourself when you can project those feelings onto others)? While projection is a good distraction, it prevents those who do it from fixing the root causes of their problems.

In politics, a word that's fairly similar and commonly used, (often by conservatives and independents), is hypocrisy. It's a common argument made by the right that the left is often hypocritical, so as a moderate conservative I'm going to explain this from a right of center perspective. I welcome the left to counter or contribute ideas.

I believe the focus on hypocrisy is understandable, especially regarding the lefts biggest issues and self-proclaimed mindsets. For example, being inclusive by respecting those who are different or at a disadvantage is thought to be central to the left. Closely linked to inclusivity is the idea of being respectful towards women and further down I'll also explain a few other positions where I believe the idea of hypocrisy or "projection" is a criticism that's fair to make in regards to the left.

The right and Republicans often project as well but the difference here is that they don't claim to be the party of inclusivity, at least not as commonly as the left does. (Covered largely in sections 4 and 5 below), inclusivity is a concept that often dominates in American politics because it filters into various policies, that's why it's so important and it's why the right is concerned, (not with the concept of inclusion itself, but with the misuse of that word). I believe the left, as a whole, is usually more vocal with their opinions as well, especially when you subtract Donald Trump. Being more vocal means left-wing projection comes more frequently and from many directions. (Ask if you want me to break that down more.)

With all of that out of the way, below I'm going to explain key areas where I believe the left is projecting their own behavior onto others, or otherwise pushing a double standard....


1.

Many leftists complain about Fox News bias and have a half dozen cute names for that network yet they can usually count on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just to name major networks comparable to Fox. Conservatives invent names like Clinton News Network and have hypocrisy issues of their own but look at how many networks back the left, they have an advantage in the News Media and are therefore pushing a larger double standard if they can't call those networks out yet make charges of bias against right-wing media. In the following thread, I've debated the media and shared substantiation that it's left-leaning in the opening post and in a few replies, so I'll keep this one short....

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...#entry100035097

2.

Some groups on the left portray Christians as an unfair or dangerous group who's persecuting others. Particularly Atheists which is a group that thrives on the left, not to mention progressives who have trouble putting focus on Muslim terrorists but often complain about Christianity. I don't know about the members here but I haven't heard anything about abortion clinic bombings lately, from what I can tell Christians today are largely on the defense, not only in America but across the world....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytdMUddGe-U&t=29s

This short video shares some data and information on what's happening. It describes Christians as the most persecuted religious group in the world today. I'm not sure if they're the "most" persecuted but they make a convincing case that it's certainly a problem. To paraphrase the video...

The video gets much more detailed than I did.

I'm not a Christian or religious but I have a problem with injustice. This topic should be covered more than it is, it's an enormous human rights issue that too many people don't know the extent of because Christians are considered a group who persecute, rather than a group who's being persecuted. I'm not saying there's no longer a judgemental aspect to Christianity but times are changing in many ways.

To mention Atheists, is it hypocritical for them to focus the majority of their claims of violence on the religious when Joseph Stalin was an Atheist who targeted Christians and was responsible for more deaths than Hitler? Just a few days ago Devin Patrick Kelley, (an Atheist), barged into a church in Texas and killed 26 people. Does anyone know of a situation, in recent history, where an American Christian killed 26 people or more because they held different values or beliefs? I don't, but share this information if you have it, I'm usually willing to refine my beliefs.

To be clear, most Atheists and Christians don't act like that but it's a problem, especially when combined with the insults that fly back and forth which get us into these situations. I should also state that there are Christians on the left and not all Atheists are leftists but every survey I've read either suggest that the majority of them are, or that there's a huge difference between the left and right. I believe this is readily agreed upon so, in short, the left often criticises Christian conservatives, talks about how dumb or dangerous they are while Atheist and Muslims are more prone to getting a passes.

3.

The left often hounds Trump for dishonest behavior, and while they sometimes get it right, they've embraced the Clintons who are one of the most, if not the most, dishonest political duos in America today. Allegations in regards to Hillary's dishonesty date back decades to when she was a lawyer and there was less partisan politics involved with the charges made. Those who defend her adamantly would be surprised how many of the allegations over the years have been true. Fast forward to today, former presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee is one of the latest prominent Democrats who is suggesting she rigged the primary for her own benefit. Things are falling apart for her fast, nearly every day I see someone come out against her or hear about a new piece of the puzzle in regards to one of her scandals and not all of that is coming from the right.

Even with that, so many people on the left that I've heard from are still dismissing what she did during the primaries, along with other scandals she's involved in and there is no shortage of them. Some will hound Trump over anything, even things which are fabricated such as the fake Russian dossier that the Hillary campaign paid for. Others, including Hillary, mention fact-checking a lot for Trump but the double standard is clear proof that their charges are often politically motivated because Hillary and some of the defenses of her have also needed fact-checking. This is to say nothing about Bill who I'll mention below.

4.

To talk about sexual harassment, some on the left condemn the right and are quick to label conservatives as disrespectful towards women while they lecture others on how to behave. This is very evident in Hollywood but what are celebrities thinking with that?!? It's like an alcoholic who's drinking yelling at another drinker telling him he's a loser for doing so. Celebrities who are doing this often have no concept of self-reflection, it's too often about what someone else is doing while they're entitled to whatever the hell they want. Sorry for the ranting on that but conservatives have had to hear that they don't value women for a long time. However, sexual harassment on the left is widespread just as with every other group, not to mention a fair amount of discrimination against Conservative women and women who choose not to work.

Outside of Hollywood, the sexual harassment charges against Bill Clinton have resurfaced with prominent Democrats now calling him out. It's a problem that goes as deep as allegations of rape. Where on earth have leftists who are only now condemning Bill Clinton been? Conservatives were portrayed as conspiracy theorists and the victims were ridiculed and described as liars for decades! Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Bill is starting to be held accountable by the left but this new wave of condemnation of the Clintons is only happening now that they have virtually no power or ability to lead. It's now become safe to call them out on serious allegations. That just comes off as defending a movement no matter what happens, later to be honest when it doesn't matter as much. I'm glad we're seeing at least some honesty in regards to the Clintons but it makes me wonder if, for example, there are leftists pushing this Trump/Russia collusion narrative without believing in it. The possibility that someone is projecting their own frustrations or guilt seems more likely when there isn't a factual basis behind an argument.

5.

This is a big one, the left points to groups like the KKK or White Nationalists and talks about how divisive and dangerous they are, and they use that as an arguing point against the right. While I agree that we certainly need to be concerned, yet again there's little self-reflection.

In order to make this seem like an epidemic, some have decided to rewrite the rules on what qualifies as a White Supremacist. It's no longer about actual White Supremacists who join a movement. To some if you're a Trump supporter you're a White Supremacist, that's it, that's all it takes in the eyes of some! Trump supporters are lumped together with a group that few people respect and most people, understandably, hate. I didn't vote for Trump and question some of his actions, but here again I have a problem with injustice. Both sides need to be called out for divisive rhetoric and violent actions.

I'm not going to say that there isn't a rise in hateful rhetoric over the last 9 years from White Supremacist groups, but they're not the movements they once were by any stretch. Furthermore, this is indeed happening on "both sides". Left-wing protesting movements have exploded in size and divisive, hateful, and often violent rhetoric and behavior. Groups which are going largely unchecked by the left are on a regular basis, dividing Americans if not assaulting those they disagree with. If anybody needs proof of that, I can accommodate you easily but keep in mind that the details are so bad in certain circumstances that if this were taken seriously more people would rethink where the left currently stands on inclusivity.

Having said that, these events aren't a fair description of leftist protesters as a whole but too many individuals are straying from the concept of rational and civil conversations, It's clear that things are getting worse. Antifa violence is common, Black Lives Matter is less violent by comparison but they also divide with hateful rhetoric and by encouraging violence on Cops. Outside of these movements, random acts of violence from leftists are also on the rise yet by some stretch, the right has the label of intolerant and the left has the label of inclusive. Growing hate groups on the left often simply don't know or don't want to know, that America as a whole is in trouble, with many sides contributing to the problems we see.

To wrap this up, the left is never going to be trusted as a group who advocates equal treatment of others or a group who's inclusive if they're not living by example. Inclusion doesn't mean attacking Black Conservatives, Female Conservatives, Whites, Cops, Christians, the Upper Class, Trump Supporters, Conservative College Students, etc etc. It doesn't mean supporting only groups who sympathize with you, that's not progressive, it's a continuation of a very old problem.

I respect those on the left who aren't pushing problems they have onto others. I believe that if you're a civil and respectful person, that it's okay to call out conservatives when they've been disrespectful or uncivil. For leftists who are disrespectful and uncivil, it's still okay for you to call out the right for that behavior, it's America, but in the eyes of most, you're illegitimate and won't get through to anyone other than those who, more or less, agree with you already. To the Julian's and Vsrenard's on the left, it's up to people like you to redirect the left. With the hate that's directed at the right, many won't even hear us out but with the respect you show and constructive criticisms you make, you can change a lot for the benefit of both sides, so full speed ahead!

Questions for debate..

1. Do you believe the left has an issue with hypocrisy and projection, if so can you give an example of either?

2. Hypocrisy is an argument that the right makes often but do you believe that Conservatives have
this problem to the same degree? (give examples if you wish)

3. Can you name some things which would help both sides to come together?

4. Do you have hope that we will heal some of this division or is our future grim?

Bonus Question...

5. With so much condemning information coming out and resurfacing on the Clintons, is it fair to say
they're no longer viable in politics and could either of them be facing criminal charges?

Net, you've obviously put a lot of work into this post but it really seems essentially a repeat of the (much more succinct) one Jule's started very recently.

Truth, Fact, and Meaning

Wow, you're not kidding, mine is a similar thread to Julian's. I'll have to leave him a comment, it's an important topic. If you wish, leave a reply here since this hits on different aspects, and delves into various subtopics, like the Clintons. He and I appear to be addressing a similar concept from different angles.

Activity seems to be low at AD but for anyone interested, a very obvious example of Psychological Projection, (or perhaps simple hypocrisy), happened very recently. As we all know Bill O'Reilly has allegations of sexual harassment against him and was fired by Fox News. A few weeks ago he made an appearance on the Today show where Matt Lauer grilled him for the entire segment.....

Washington Post 'Matt Lauer recently grilled Bill O'Reilly about sexual harassment Lauer could have been talking about himself"

Here's a quote from Lauer...



He continued by asking if O'Reilly had done any soul-searching or if he had thought about the way he had treated women, so it was obvious that he was assuming O'Reilly was guilty. I have a thread on O'Reilly where I state that I think it's very likely he was guilty but Matt Lauer is without question guilty given his own comments and the claims against him are just as bad if not worse. Either way, Lauer's case is strikingly similar to O'Reilly's, especially with Lauer being the top money maker at NBC.

In short, Matt Lauer sits there and grills O'Reilly for thing's he's guilty of himself. I believe that this goes beyond simple hypocrisy, I think it was the result of some subconscious urge he had to alleviate his own guilt by staying on the offensive and projecting those negative feelings onto others, and I think this type of thing is common, unfortunately. Media pundits and politicians don't have to look inwards when they spend so much of their time criticizing others.

Agreed. People project all the time and in all walks of life. It might seem like a growing concern, but it's been the way we human creatures have operated forever. Very similar to fake news, and the way to figure it out is the same. Basically, don't believe anything you hear and half of what you read. There's another part too, and that's the search for evidence to support this or that way of thinking. The justice system is supposed to be based on evidence and so is the scientific method. But then there's humanity involved, and so politics with its psychological problems messes with what people end up believing.

Examples exist for virtually any political stance. The common factor is humanity. This is why science is considered a discipline -- humans attempting to extricate themselves from the muck. Some are more successful at this than others, and some merely believe they are more successful than others. That's hubris, and it often leads to downfalls.

Unfortunately, the downfalls often happen a long time after the damage has been done. The more powerful the people, the worse the damage gets. Hell, we're looking once again down the barrel of thermonuclear war. Doesn't get much worse than that -- maybe some scientist somewhere destroying the entire universe while looking for a subatomic particle? Whoopsie. But then the whole concept of particle physics could be wrong, which points to a human saving grace:

We are often wrong.

Well said AM. Also, I agree that things like projection and fake news are not new problems but I feel that things are getting worse in many ways. I think a degradation of values and practices is taking place as if we're going from flawed to broken. To me broken means that a societal collapse to the point of anarchy or as you mentioned, a nuclear war has occurred. We're seeing some form of anarchy already with the hateful rhetoric and violent protest but I haven't completely given up on things getting better, America has had rough periods before so we shall see.

Maybe things will get better, and my terminal optimism wants to believe that. Julian asked what winning would look like. A related question is what better would look like.

From a conservative viewpoint, better might look like everyone's got the same opportunities to succeed. From a liberal viewpoint, better might look like empowerment to succeed. There's a world of difference between the two viewpoints that impacts political policy-making significantly.

I won't go into the specifics and am on the side of the liberal viewpoint, which makes me prejudiced against conservatism and prejudiced for liberalism. Yet there should be an objective way to look at political policies in terms of who benefits and who does not benefit from the policies.

The question I have is how can this objectivity be accomplished? The Government Accounting Office (GAO) is an attempt at objectively analyzing political policies. Great, but can its findings be trusted? Maybe so if its track record is more often right than wrong. Maybe not if the GAO becomes or has become corrupted -- and I would expect the track record to be more wrong than right if it's corrupted.

I'm of the opinion that track records are key to determining what works and doesn't work. Lots of attempts are made to either hide or reinterpret track records on things like Affirmative Action and trickle-down economics. Seems to me that this is a primary focus for fake news -- hiding/reinterpreting.

Projection tends to be different in that the projecting person is trying to cover his/her own weaknesses by attacking people who appear to have the same weaknesses. It's a lot more personal than fake news, yet the damage can be just as destructive.

Regarding things getting better, I have lots of doubt. If things go toward rectifying current conditions, what's to stop the power brokers operating behind the scenes from messing up the attempts? Then I think, how about public opinion? Okay, how about it? Are things so bad that heads will fall as in the French Revolution? Or will it be more civilized in that few with connections to the donor class will be elected? Or will it become public opinion that being ruled by the donor class is a good thing?

Mixed up in this is irrational hatred and fear. This suggests that some hatred and fear is rational, and I have my doubts about that as well. Overall, I can be either optimistic or pessimistic at this time. Heh, terminal optimism can last only so long, right up until it ends.

Guess what's left is hope. I hope this mess will turn out well.

Right, projection is more personal than fake news, it could be more dangerous for that reason too. This is because there's emotion involved and a higher incentive to stick with treating a person unfairly than money alone. Media pundits and politicians will get paid regardless of what party they back, but objectivity can fade even further when a media pundit or politician injects personal matters into the mix. So we're on similar ground on that.



Yea, you're quite liberal, just based on some of your writings here and your thoughts on Trump who you definitely don't like, but you've always been fair to me. You do a fair share of non-political threads as well and didn't take the bait that all Trump supporters are unworthy of friendship. As far as Trump is concerned, I think he's another good example of someone who projects his personal problems onto others, it's incredibly obvious in his case while someone like Matt Lauer was incredibly sneaky about it. Who knew he was a sexual harasser apart from some of the staff at NBC?

Although I don't like Trump's personality, I've been torn because I support about 65% of his policies, give or take. Apart from that, I'm very aware of problems that exist on the left so these things put me in quite a tricky position. I didn't vote for Trump and will never like that he lashes out and contradicts himself so much but he's addressing issues that haven't been touched in a long time and managing to get things done in situations where the left and a few Republicans can't obstruct. When I say he's getting stuff done, it's obviously for the benefit of those with conservative values who have gone largely neglected in the last 8 years, but like Obama, he's not offering anything the other side may appreciate.

You and I won't agree on a number of things but I've talked to leftist and Democrats who won't even hear us out, we're very hated by a lot of people. I saw what Julian had written and left a reply on the topic of what winning or better would look like. He seems to be another left-wing individual who I've found common ground with on certain things. Sometimes I focus on divisive things or instances of injustice on the left, like in my opening post. I think those things need attention because of the stereotype that conservatives are more prone to racism, poor treatment of women, and divisive rhetoric but I have to remember that putting attention on examples where the left and the right have common ground is important as well, (to helping America tone things back and moving forward).

1. Do you believe the left has an issue with hypocrisy and projection, if so can you give an example of either?

There are no principles. How can you be hypocrite if you have no principles to begin with? Phrases which sound like they may be principles are meaningless when there is no consistency. I would not give the benefit of the doubt and call contradictory ideas and actions hypocrisy. It is simply bull. We have stateism, progressivism, and unprincipled control for the benefit of government and groups which ride their coattails.

2. Hypocrisy is an argument that the right makes often but do you believe that Conservatives have
this problem to the same degree? (give examples if you wish)

The bull is bipartisan.

3. Can you name some things which would help both sides to come together?

They are together. Quibbling over details keeps the masses engaged and clueless.

4. Do you have hope that we will heal some of this division or is our future grim?

It will come to an end. Hopefully, people will realize government can have a different purpose than authoritarian control. Freedom should be the focal point of our culture. To not realize this is to keep having empire governments which rise and fall.

Let's go! That is, if I am invited to debate. I think I am what you consider a "bad" liberal. For what its worth I think you are a quite typical conservative. I think you believe in your convictions, your "values" you just turn a blind eye to so much so that your values can feel "good".

But if you'll have me I'd like to debate.

See part of the difficulty is fighting through your reasoning process. You, and many others will take a fact, any fact to prove your narrative. Then you dismiss facts counter to your narrative. But the facts never lead to your narrative. Case and point. The link you provide goes to a discussion where you state that Fox news was losing viewership. This support a narrative that right wing isn't as extreme as left wing makes them out to be. But the truth was

See Fox is doing just fine. They lost in a certain age bracket for a certain time frame (prime time) for a few weeks, but that was because the dramatic increase in MSNBC viewership, not a lost from fox.

But the truth as a whole didn't fit your narrative, so you picked a fact from that truth(that MSNBC beat out Fox for that small time frame) then misused that fact to support a narrative that isn't so true. Fox isn't really getting beat out by MSNBC and Fox doesn't have to moderate. So see how I just SHOWED you how you do, what you do?? It won't stop you from doing it. Honestly I don't even know if conservatives do this purposefully, or is it this type of processing ideas that leads one to be conservative. I mean maybe its something WE ALL do, but the greater degree we do it the more we would align with Right Wing politics.

Bottom line, I remember those "media" debate in various times with you. Getting you to define "liberal' or "left" was like pulling teeth from you and you never actually did define it. And when I defined it using a dictionary or wikipedia you said something like "well that what liberal may have used to been but it isn't anymore" or something like that. I think I just gave up, because for someone to call something bias to "anything" but not be able to define that "anything" means its just something they made up. Your substantiation was either cherry picked events or statistical events that showed something other than you point. Like, look at the statistics of people that are in media that vote Democratic... see that proves liberal bias. Oh .. and a lot of Prager U. You seem to love prager U.

Sure Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Chris Kyle, best known as American Sniper stated in his book.

"My shots saved several Americans, whose lives were clearly worth more than that woman's twisted soul," he wrote. "I can stand before God with a clear conscience about doing my job. But I truly, deeply hated the evil that woman possessed. I hate it to this day." -Chris Kyle


Let me guess, that's different. See that's how you and many other conservatives will process this and many other example of Christian going into foreign countries and killing muslims. The overall truth derived from the abundance of facts is that nations predominately Christians have been invading and killing non-Christians at an exponential rate. But once you get in the mindset of... no no no no no we're not going to count that... or that... or that... or that.... JUST THIS!!! Well then, yes, I guess you can prove your point.

Are you sure its the "left" that's rewriting the rules. Lately it seems that Whites, especially conservative Whites think they are only White Supremacist if they get caught saying the "N-Word" out loud or they are part of a racist group. How about English only mentality... you think that might stem from a little White Supremacy? How about thinking that keeping or creating monuments to leaders of a confederate who fought to further the enslavement of Blacks, you think that is a form of White Supremacy? You think predominately White nation with armies throughout the world in foreign countries is a form of White supremacy?


Probably not.

Alright here is a question, I'll put it in bold so you know I think its important. Blacks and Hispanic greatly outnumber Whites in incarceration rates. Why? Is it because a bunch of laws and social conditions created within this nation that targets Blacks and Hispanics... or is it because Blacks and Hispanics have inferior mentalities to Whites and thus resort to crime more?

Which flavor of White Supremacy do you want to choose?

The reason why Trump voters are consistently labeled as White Supremacists is because he ran a campaign of White Supremacy. No he didn't come out and say "let's go Nazis". But here is what he did say... "Lets make America Great... again" A call back to the past, to a better time for minorities, wait, not us. Must be some other group. What group you think that is? Middle Class?

Lastly, the way you create a narrative you don't seem to see the action that cause the reaction. A group like the Black Panthers does not exist without white Supremacy. BLM doesn't exist with out unarmed Blacks being killed in the street and many Whites feeling these killing were completely justified. My only point is these so called "hate groups" on the left only exist because of White Supremacy and would cease to exist if White Supremacy ceased to exist.

But if working class Whites weren't blinded with White Supremacy then maybe they'd start looking at the facts of what it means to be working class, and then you'd have a real left wing problem. Not some BLM and Antifa.

Questions for Debate

1. Do you believe the left has an issue with hypocrisy and projection, if so can you give an example of either?

I think hypocrisy is a part of humanity. I've never met a human that wasn't a hypocrite on some level. I think politically the left and the values of the left aren't too hypocritical.

2. Hypocrisy is an argument that the right makes often but do you believe that Conservatives have this problem to the same degree? (give examples if you wish)

LMAO!! Can the cherry picking and lets look at the political picture for a second. Lets talk right wing politics and projection. I'm not talking about politicians the constituents and consumers of right wing ideology.

The right wing is the party of Jesus and the party of war mongers

The right wing is the party of "pro Life" and "pro death penalty"

The right wing rails against a corrupt government while adoring the military and police who are the enforcement of said corrupt government.

The right wing consistently, CONSISTENTLY, call offensive acts of violence and intimidation self defense. You go to war for 15 years in a foreign land, its self defense. You chase a child behind apartment and he starts whooping you tail and then you get to kill the kid in self-defense. You could drop a NUKE, in fact I've debated members on this board that pretty much argued that dropping a Nuke was a necessary act of self defense. I mean, you don't think its weird that you think its OK to invade all these other nations and think its wrong for people to invade ours?

Republican rail against welfare and 16 out of 20 of the biggest welfare recipients are conservative dominated red states.

You yell "Freedom" but I've never see conservative fight for anything but domination and incarceration. You want to kill these people, lock those people up, take away those people rights.

You call yourselves constitutionalist... but other than the 13th and 2nd what amendment does the right truly defend?

......... ......... ...........

I'd say, politically speaking nothing rises to the level of hypocrisy and projection of the Right. But as I said, as individuals I haven't met a human that isn't a hypocrite. Not you, not me.

3. Can you name some things which would help both sides to come together?

Sure. Tell me what Conservative values are. Imagine you are a parent of not one but two children. Tell me the values that you would teach your children that you as a conservative project out in you domestic and global policies.

4. Do you have hope that we will heal some of this division or is our future grim?

Both is true for me.

Droop


You're always invited to debates that I do, though I think you misunderstand me on certain things. You're saying that I'm a typical conservative but you'd be surprised, I've mentioned this to you before. I believe that humans are changing the climate, that government assistance programs are needed, (though we can't get to where we're getting downright unfair to the middle and upper class, balance is key), I believe that stem cell research is okay in many situations, and abortions are okay in some situations. Though I'm not highly opinionated on this, I also don't mind if gays get married. I'm not religious but as long as gays are not degrading those who are, or forcing small local Christian businesses to violate their beliefs, then I'm okay. Apart from that, I'm disabled, live in government assisted housing, have an EBT card, and I'm in a high crime area with a lot of racial diversity, whites are the minority in this neighborhood.

Most people in my situation are left-leaning or Democrats, by many accounts I could have been as well if many liberals hadn't sacrificed their core beliefs to the degree they have, some people would be shocked at the things I've seen both nationally and in my personal life. I'd say at a minimum I'd occasionally vote Democrat if things were different. I have many conservative beliefs as well but, by and large, it's been sociological developments which have kept me away from ever voting Democrat, many of which I discussed in the opening post here.

I don't agree with you on a number of things and as you know have viewed some of what you say as generalizing or hypocritical, but I agree with you on other things and think you make good arguments as well, you just don't know that because I think that perhaps you only consider the things which you believe to be unfair. The primary thing holding me back from replying much at AD at the moment is time restrictions related to family obligations and work. I'll be a few days perhaps but will be back to cover more here.

Droop and Gray Seal, I'll have a reply before too long, either just before Christmas or just after. I started in on one a little bit but have had only small moments where I've been able to write, due in part to the time of year.

_____________________________

Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays to all the members here, whichever floats your boat.

My apologies for being longer than I said I'd be, it's hard to judge times around here sometimes with how crazy things are. Before I start with this reply consider that it's longer than most of my replies, I won't be able to expand on each part next time so choose wisely what you want to focus on here. I spent more time to get a little more in-depth for you as well. On the media stuff, I think we're likely to always disagree on this topic so decide how much time you want to spend on that too, there's other stuff that we haven't debated. If this is where you want to focus, please read this before you choose your arguments. This is a rundown of where I think we're at after months of debating, along with some new points.

For openers, there are no shortage of facts that back the idea that the media leans left and if you present something that contradicts that, I'll consider it you're presenting something new which steps it up from before. So far I haven't seen anything groundbreaking on your end but you're always welcome to try. As far as Fox News losing viewers goes, it'd help you if you paid attention to detail and asked questions before jumping to conclusions. For openers, mentioning that Fox News viewership was declining at that time was an afterthought mentioned long after the opening post of the thread I shared. It was far from being the crux of my debate or necessary to substantiate that left-wing media can be "extreme" or biased.

When I shared that link I specifically stated to check the opening post and a few replies for substantiation on media bias, not that one particular post. In retrospect, I should have noticed that I was linking the last page of the debate, instead of the first, just in case someone wasn't reading and absorbing what I wrote. However, that's pretty fundamental to debates and had you done that you'd know that the understanding that the media is biased comes with cumulative knowledge where each piece of the puzzle adds evidence. I'm trying not to be too harsh but work with me on being on the same page and I'll try to do the same.

To address your accusations in regards to Fox News, as with several other accusations you've made, my opinion on Fox isn't as simple as you're letting on. I've suggested quite bluntly, in many different ways, that Fox News has an overall bias towards the right, and can be extreme. In fact, sometimes I've done this directly to you, here I called out Tucker Carlson in a debate with you just recently....



You also said that I'm turning a blind eye to information so that my values can feel good. That makes no sense if I'm doing things like starting a debate that was specifically directed at Bill O'Reilly, where I stated he's likely guilty of the charges against him several times. Forgetting the news, I call out the right on a number of things, both on some of the beliefs held and specific individuals if I feel a criticism is fair. I believe Roy Moore was guilty of the charges against him because I followed that closely. Along with Moore, others have misused the term Fake News to try to get away with something they're doing wrong, as with many other valid concepts that people exploit.

If I'm turning a blind eye for the sake of my values, it seems odd that I've branched out to develop beliefs that aren't conservative and that I'm okay with calling out conservatives when they do something wrong despite them being strong advocates of key values I share (I do lean right overall). Do you simply expect that type of conformity and denial to be true of conservatives? Is it true of you? Can you show me a topic you've created, where in the opening post, you called out someone who's on the left politically on something serious? How about that comment I made about Tucker, I agree with him on a good bit but said "he's particularly bad" and got detailed explaining why I think that is.

So to go further, can you show me an example where you were extremely critical of someone who shares your values? It can't be something minor or a reply to someone else. In other words, if you were prompted or asked what you think about a certain person, that's not quite the same thing as coming out and saying something because YOU felt it was important enough to mention. If you can show me examples of you doing those two things I'll take your charge that I'm turning a blind eye a little more seriously, I may not agree with the charge you're making but at least it won't sound so much like your spitting out random things which you feel could sound condemning. Even if you show one of those two things it'll sound a little more like you know something about considering difficult information on the beliefs you have or those who share them.

As far as my quote in the other thread, it was based on observations after the departure of Bill O'Reilly. It's true that they suffered in viewership/rating numbers, with other networks jumping ahead which your first link demonstrated...



To go deeper, I believe that this is the comment of mine which you found troublesome in the other thread....



You aren't looking at wording when you blow this up into something it isn't. "I think some of the conservative viewers are departing", is different than saying, (I know that Fox News viewers are departing for good and that the network will never recover.) The second part where I say they're in a bit of trouble due to some of the sexual harassment charges, who wouldn't have said that??? Multiple sexual scandals against Fox does not mean the network is doing "just fine" as if there's no problem. At minimum they took a credibility hit because workplace ethics will be on the minds of viewers and critics for some time. You're saying they bounced back some, if they have, thanks for the additional info. I'm usually willing to consider new information if it's not ridiculous or false. I'd still like to see consistent long-term growth, a lot has happened.

I consider a few factors when discussing potential future viewership problems or the potential that Fox News will moderate more. They lost one of the two men who envisioned and founded Fox News to be the first conservative major news network to challenge the monopoly that the left had and that's hard to compete with. By the way, the fact that Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch (who isn't getting any younger at 86 years old) even had to do that and that it worked is a huge piece of the puzzle which points to a media that typically favors the left. Fox News thrives and generally has more viewers because it's true that other major networks lean to the left to various degrees which has created a hole that needs to be filled.

While that isn't insignificant, It'll take more than Fox News losing Ailes for the network to flounder or moderate further, some of which has happened but there are no certainties here. If they have more trouble with falling behind networks like MSNBC, it won't simply depend on what those networks are doing either. I believe you when you say MSNBC is doing better on their end but where Fox News stands depends on a number of factors, including what Fox News is doing. Ailes death was symbolic, and a spirit killer for the staff and some of the viewers. Losing Murdoch will do the same but also open up the potential for someone to take over who isn't as dedicated to the original purpose of Fox News. The Murdoch sons, James and Lachlan, will most likely run Fox News when Rupert goes and they're not near as conservative as their father. In fact, from what I read about James, he has views which strikingly contrast his father's views and this is one of the things which has lead to debate about the potential for Fox News moderating in the future, but I'm sure you knew that, right? There's already been some change within the network.....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/business...entury-fox.html



If Fox moderates further it'll be because they hire more anchors like Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, Juan Williams, and Megyn Kelly, (who in her case was let go but they seem very willing to hire multiple moderate or liberal Anchors). Those aren't the only voices on Fox which are critical of conservatives and get a lot of airtime either. I'm not saying that makes Fox centrist, balanced, or always fair but it's worth a mention. Something like that in combination with more sexual harassment scandals could certainly contribute to more conservatives changing the channel.

Additionally, they lost their best conservative Anchor for viewership and ratings (best in the industry for those things) and they're now competing with internet based conservative media outlets, both sides are worried about that actually. The News Media as a whole is now competing with a rise in internet based news sources and as far as Fox is concerned some of those online sources lean further to the right politically than they do. There's a lot of information to look at on this topic and reasons not to take the success of Fox News for granted but nobody can say definitively where the network will be years from now. Hopefully, that explains my position some.



On defining liberal media bias, we went over that many times, as with several other things you aren't looking at details and oversimplify my responses. You didn't even know I'm a moderate with some liberal beliefs and I've explained that to you several times as well, you say things like "typical conservative". Somehow I think you meant that as a compliment but many things you say have me think you're skimming through my post or baiting me. As I've said I think you make good or fair arguments when you focus so I view those as distractions and an unfortunate loss for you, something which hurts your ability to effectively communicate your message.

As far as the News Media goes, the substantiation for it being left-leaning is far from cherry-picked. If you want substantiation, apart from what I shared with the polls, the surveys, the misleading news stories, the PragerU clips which share more statistics, and the facts on Roger Ailes mentioned above, all you need to do on your end is simply turn on the TV. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow's show comes on during weekdays as well as Morning Joe's show. On CNN Don Lemons show comes on weekdays, as well as Brain Stelter's show. On every one of these shows, they share information which is more favorable to the left than the right and they do it on a daily basis, not occasionally, and that's only a small fraction of shows I could mention.

Mixed in with the fact that so many news shows focus primarily on facts which are sympathetic to the left while ignoring many other things, is the fact that multiple shows like these sometimes focus on or create false information and stories, that happens less frequently but it isn't rare. Recently they've had to retract multiple false or overblown comments, including reporting that Trump had ordered Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians during the campaign which turned out to be false and an embarrassment for those who reported on it.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-01/a...nn-story?page=1
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/a...rvatives-275981

The first link has a line graph on what that false story did to the stock market. That lie or "mistake" had an impact in a real and measurable way. Erroneous or misleading news stories can do damage in a number of ways, I debated that in the media thread I did where I suggest the media is having an influence on the divisive and sometimes violent nature of some in the general public.

When the media is caught reporting on a false story, they come back and call those types of things simple mistakes but why do so many of their "mistakes" go in one direction? These days, many, if not all of these major foul-ups from liberal dominate networks just happen to be damaging for Trump or conservatives unless it's a general mistake which hurts neither side. That's a hard one to explain, where are the mistakes on networks like ABC, CNN, and MSNBC which suggest Trump or conservatives did something good? Even in the sources above, there's a hint that there's a pattern here....



The only mistake of his they listed which could be spun as positive for conservatives happened in 2001, (almost 2 decades ago). I think it's fair to ask why so many of the major mistakes being made on left wing networks hurt the right in one way or another.
With everything else I've learned, it's clear to me that this is much deeper than making simple mistakes, there's bias at play here. I don't believe they lie in every circumstance like this but they're so eager to jump on information that hurts the right, they do it before they even know what they're dealing with.

With everything that's come to the surface in regards to Hillary's potential ties to criminal acts, they haven't taken the same leap of faith that they do with Trump, I've heard nothing about major foul-ups they've made which hurt Hillary and that speaks volumes, though your welcome to substantiate that they have made some. They're reluctantly criticising her more in recent months because they don't need her anymore, but where are the bombshell reports which brought new condemning information to light, where they were so eager to report on it that they messed up? If you find anything I'd be willing to bet it happened within the last few months if it's happened at all.

You have to look at the bigger picture when determining whether or not the News Media is biased towards the left, this is one small piece of the puzzle. The very fact that someone like Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch needed to create a conservative network to compete with the monopoly the left had is a larger piece of the puzzle and the polls and surveys add even more, etc etc.

You may suggest again that I blame everything on biased left wing media but that's been a strawman argument. To reiterate from other posts, I believe that criticisms of Trump and conservatives need to be made and that many of them have been understandable. The problem is that too many networks don't mix it up enough and share positive stories for Trump or the right. Much of what they say may be factual, but are they seeking the truth or simply facts that back a negative narrative? There's some good with the bad, but there's no question that the News Media has taken a massive credibility hit and are more prone to backing those on the left. The left includes Modern Liberals, Democrats, Progressives, and many of the subgroups within. The definitions you provided of liberal were more consistent with what is now considered a "classical liberal". The media will back them sooner than they would a conservative but liberalism has strayed away from where it was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, this is the left-wing group which I feel could contribute the most if they were embraced, but a lot has changed on the left.

It appears to me that suggesting the media doesn't have an overall bias in favor of the left has been one of the hardest positions for some on the left to defend. The best counterargument that I've heard from you which doesn't include dismissing evidence or going after those who are revealing the substantiation, is that the news media functions on what they believe will make them money. The argument is true, which is what makes it a good argument, but it's not the whole truth because partisan politics is another factor in how they function. I think I can explain it like this....

Imagine we're debating the Solar System, I explain to you that the Earth orbits the Sun and show the substantiating evidence and then you counter that by saying (no no, it's Mars that orbits the Sun!) While what you're saying is true, it doesn't negate the fact that Earth also orbits the Sun. Your best argument is coming off as if the medias corporate ties is being used as a scapegoat to explain what's happening with bias in the media. Even if this is only about making money they'd still be corrupt either way but there's so much evidence that partisan politics are at play as well.

For example, Comcast is the worlds largest broadcasting and cable television conglomerate in the world. They have their hands in other things such as being the largest home internet service provider in America as well as being our third largest home telephone service provider. In relation to this debate, Comcast also owns NBCUniversal Media and therefore NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC. The CEO of Comcast is Brian Roberts who's a major donor for the Democrats....



As you'll read in the link, other top executives and employees have also favored the Democrats so it's clear that overall Comcast has been donating far more to Democrats than Republicans...

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/19835...bama-supporters

Why is this significant? Because in some fashion you were trying to tie the media in with conservatism. To be specific, here's one of the things you said...



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...23107&st=60 Post #63

You say that yet even the highest ranking executives and CEOs in the News Media appear to be on the left ideologically speaking. You can argue that they often make fiscally conservative decisions (because, when it comes down to it, liberals know those concepts are practical) but it often ends there. They're more prone to supporting left-leaning policies, politicians, and more importantly, they're more prone to hiring other liberals, most of whom report the news in a way that's sympathetic to the left.

The idea that money is the only significant factor that's considered when they hire staff, or when the media reports the news, flat out ignores a number of facts and dismisses much of what we're witnessing. For example, it'd be easy and factual to argue that sometimes the News Media stirs the pot and either helps cause a controversy or focuses on one for ratings, but the fact of the matter is that they can effectively make money by doing that regardless of what side they focus the controversy on. Fox News has gotten by, in part, because they often focus on all of the corruption, lies, and violence that the left has to offer, yet most networks don't take that route, they focus on all of the corruption conservatives have to offer and individual networks have actually made less money than Fox News because they're not branching out enough.

Networks like CNN choose to target the right, for political reasons, same is true for Fox News in regards the left. Money is a factor in many of the decisions the media makes but let's get real here, generally speaking, News Anchors and CEO's are well off, they have money and will continue to make it regardless of what side they focus on, (as long as they make it interesting). Money and the media's corporate ties do not explain why more of the negative coverage from the MSM is directed at the right rather than the left. The political affiliations of media pundits does explain it, (which you've even admitted more of them are liberal than conservative.)

What I'm getting at with this is that I don't see how your arguments have defended your position. Another counter-argument you made which didn't include across the board denial or taking cracks at conservatives, was in regards to the media's alleged focus on facts...



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...23107&st=40

This argument doesn't hold up as well as the one where you're pointing out the media's obsession with money because the idea that the media is out to reveal facts in the most unfiltered way possible is true far less often. Networks are good at letting on as if they're simply trying to help and work as hard as possible to be fair and honest, like CNN saying they're "The most trusted name in news", but far too many pundits think the narrative they favor is just as important as the truth or more so. Again, some anchors are worse than others, but it isn't difficult to show examples of numerous things the media is doing which are disingenuous.

Also, when they do give facts, for you to say they're unfiltered is rarely true within liberal or conservative media. Most of the time they present a piece of information along with their opinion, or bring up the information while mentioning another topic so they can try to connect the two in some fashion. If, for example, they show Trump's approval rating, they may do so after they've mentioned a policy they think is wrong or a comment of his they found to be unfair, then try to connect the action to the poll. That's understandable compared to some of what they do but unfiltered means that you share the information and allow the viewer or reader to decide who that information helps or hurts.

What's happening is that they're mixing up opinion and fact in the same story and often don't specify when they're sharing an opinion, they want their opinion to be as close to that fact as possible but here's the problem. As hinted at before, they're selective with the information they share and if you're a media buff, you darn well know it, especially given you're trying to make that argument on me. Consider looking into confirmation bias in regards to the News Media you're defending, it won't take long for things to become clear.

On something like the media having an overall bias that favors the left, again, it's been cumulative knowledge which has pointed me in the right direction, I can't emphasize that enough. The numerous polls, surveys, slanted news stories, the medias campaign contributions, data and stories that other members have shared, so much of that points to there being a problem. The recent employee and viewer shakeup at Fox is peanuts by comparison to all of that so it shouldn't be isolated and considered on its own. In contrast, your best counter-argument on this topic (which for me was the media's corporate ties and focus on money) doesn't discredit the case for a left-wing biased media or demonstrate the opposite is more common for sure.

I welcome that though, I want you to be able show that you're right when you are. I could show examples to where I've conceded when I was wrong about something, I figure it's better to be shown I've made a mistake than to go around spreading false information but you haven't done that here, much of it has been oriented around spin, distraction, and debating my credibility. You've gotten the same type of credibility questioning in return and there's a lot of material to work with so where does this debate go from here, we've exhausted many sub-topics on media bias? If there isn't a new tone between us or new information that you have, I'm okay to agree to disagree on this one with you because much of this is simply on repeat. To move on to the rest of your reply....



It sounds to me like you wrote that with knowledge that this wasn't an apples to apples comparison. If each situation is vastly different yet the comparison is drawn anyway, are you sure it's conservatives who'd be processing this in a concerning way? Is what Chris Kyle did different than Devin Patrick Kelley? Why don't you tell me?

Were any of the Christians that Devin Patrick Kelly killed in Texas armed with machine guns or hand grenades?
Were any of the Christians Kelly killed part of a terrorist group or closely linked to one?
Did any of the church members who died in Texas have a plot to kill anyone for any reason?
Were any of the victims in Texas currently fighting a war? A literal war, not a spin.

I'm not highly researched on him but know that Chris Kyle suggested that his motive was to save American lives and from what I've read he wasn't dishonorably discharged as some have been for war crimes. He was blunt and often unapologetic but does that make him a criminal who's comparable to someone who opened fire on unarmed civilians in a Church?



If that last question is important to you then don't frame it in a way that makes someone who answers it out to be a White Supremacist. I don't agree with either of those answers, I think it's more complicated than that. I will say that white supremacy isn't about those who say the N-Word, which you believe is how conservatives define it, and it's not about whether or not someone advocates speaking English. A white supremacist is "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races." You've speculated on some of what you wrote, particularly when talking about the English language. White supremacy is probably a factor for some who prefer English to be spoken, but you have to assume that everyone who wants English spoken has no sensible reason for holding that position to say what you did. I'd state first that a lot of people who favor English aren't forcing the issue, at least not from what I've seen. It's common that people believe we should keep the dominant language that we have and that other languages should be allowed. I don't believe it should be English only but I think it's smart to learn English in America given that it's the dominant language here. That could even be explained as a benefit that opens up opportunities for those who move here from a foreign country, success would be easier for them.

It'd also be a greater inconvenience to have English speaking Americans change based on the needs of foreigners than vice vera given so many people already speak English here. I mention that because not being inconvenienced is where many, who want English spoken only, are coming from. I'm not saying that's good because we should allow others to celebrate their native language if they choose but it's a rational explanation that's an alternative to the white supremacy narrative. White Supremacists are selfish by nature, but people can be selfish and not be a White Supremacist.

Also for those who do believe others should speak English because whites do, that's not a fair thing to believe but I'd call that person racist (at least on that issue) before I would say it stems from white supremacy, simply because that can't be determined by that issue alone. The word White Supremacist is being used for one reason above any other, the term has history. White Supremacist groups have been associated with violent acts and that's the motivation for using that as a one size fits all term.

People do the same thing when they suggest that our president (or someone else they don't like) is comparable to Hitler. I didn't like it when they did it to Obama, and and I don't like it when they do it to Trump. Arguments like that are made because they're easy, either that or to invoke an emotional response. There may indeed be a similarity or two, but in many of these types of circumstances similar comparisons could have been drawn with those who aren't despised, the underlying reason for going straight to people like Hitler or White Surprimisist, is that millions of people suffered and died. That fact becomes more clear when you watch how some of these blowhards debate on other topics, it's quite often the worst case scenario with no exceptions unless that person agrees with them.

Putting the blowhards aside, I think we all have our own preferred beliefs which we favor and generally try to defend but sometimes things get mixed up or out off track in the process. Personally, I don't quite have things down the way I want either, but I try to give credit where it's due in regards to those who don't share my beliefs. Criticisms are needed in debates but having a consistently negative tone on those who don't think like us can lead to both inaccurate conclusions and do damage to the causes each of us favor if things get out of hand. Suggesting someone is a white supremacist or Hitler has the habit delegitimizing the one making the argument in the eyes of those receiving those labels. Consider that most people don't like debating politics or racial issues enough to do it more than occasionally and part of the reason for that is the fighting and childish behavior.



I will agree that some of our current situation stems from white supremacy, which is now a shadow of what it once was, but our current situation (the bad and the good) stems from a lot of things and the ones most responsible for violent or hateful behavior are those who are acting violent or hateful. It comes down to each of us first and foremost, few people are forced to say or do rotten things to others. Slavery didn't start with the African Slave Trade, but the same thing applies to the English and early American settlers, those who were doing something wrong were most responsible for the things which were done in those days.

Nobody forced Barbary Corsairs (from Africa) to enslave over a million white Europeans and do things like underfeed them to the point of starvation, crack them with whips, shackle them, force them to use the bathroom where they were shackled, or use the women as sex slaves. Many cultures have enslaved others and done rotten things and in each case, the responsibility primarily rested on those who make the choice to do something inhumane. There's no doubt been influence or outside contributing factors for each group who's done this kind of thing, or who are doing what left-wing hate groups can get away with these days but there are those who are pushing narratives that much of their bad behavior is due to what others are doing, it's another reason people don't debate politics or racial matters and it's a mindset that generally hurts those who cant be self-critical or critical of those with similar beliefs and appearance.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-pla...-barbary-002171

Questions for Debate

Agreed, most people have it on some level, some are more hypocritical than others though, people like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump often don't even try in that department. Both of them lie, treat some groups better than others, and have been prone to preaching things they don't practice.



Some of those examples are fair, though they could be expanded on because there's more to it. I'm not religious in large part due to hypocrisy, though they're not alone in that for sure. I think I was more turned away by the inconsistencies between each religion and that some of the ideas clash heavily with science. Having said that so do some of the stances taken on something like transgenderism. In many ways, I'm less concerned about religion than I used to be, I now see that there are good aspects to it as well, religion helps a lot of people and things like abortion clinic bombings are way down, I can't remember the last time I heard about one happening in the U.S. Many of the judmental aspects to religion are likely not to change but it's a mixed bag and it's obvious that many who are religious are being discriminated against, attacked, and feel marginalized so I have to consider that as well.

To determine who's more hypocritical between the left and right would be no easy task because we'd both be able to show multiple examples of hypocritical behavior. A safe assumption is that both sides have the same problem and personally I'd leave it there if it weren't for one thing. As mentioned in the opening post, I believe that the left is more vocal and therefore hypocritical statements appear more frequently coming from them. To try to be fair, It's hard to say whether or not that means they're more hypocritical. If conservatives had the numbers that leftist do in the News Media, College Campuses, Hollywood, and if the rights protesting movements were as massive as what's seen on the left, then we could be looking at a very different picture.

Sure the religious right and churches push some double standards but they no longer reach the same amount of people as a number of other institutions do and religion has become less central to the lives of Americans. In short, it's a complicated situation and I couldn't say for sure who's more hypocritical, I can only say that the left appears to be more intrusive with the hypocrisy and double standards they're pushing so we differ here.



I'd want to emphasize freedom of choice and allow my child to see a range of opinions. For example, when I explain a belief that I have (that's political in nature) I'd explain why it's worked for me but add that there are different ways to tackle the same problem. In my eyes many of these types of topics would get brought up in the teen years, kids should have fun being kids before worrying about most of these issues. I'd educate a child on something like the importance of being responsible with money when they're younger if you want to call that a fiscally conservative belief.

To wrap this up, I got to a lot of your reply here but keep in mind that I may not have time to expand on each part of it due to the time constraints I face here. If you really want to go over the term "liberal media bias" again, we can but pick the parts that are most important to you if you want those covered, I'll probably have to shorten my next reply somewhat.

Gray Seal



If you're still around, after that long break, I just had a couple things to add. I'm fairly moderate on how much control I believe the government should have but at minimum, the idea that government has been too large with too much control for some time is definitely an agreement between us. Your largest concern seems to have been the size of government, I tend to be most concerned with sociological developments, though the two are linked in some respects.



Though I have a hard time believing that there aren't those on the left who have principals they believe in, in many respects things have gotten worse for them, particularly in the last couple of decades. Much of that has to do with how some of them fight for the principals they have and the issues have certainly changed in many areas as well. Men like John F. Kennedy would be a conservative on several issues by today's standards. When he said things like "Ask not what your country can do for youâ€â€�ask what you can do for your country" that struck an entirely different tone that resembles something a conservative would say today. These days, leftist aren't fighting for principals like that nearly as often so some of the issues have flipped between the left and the right. I've tried to explain that liberal no longer means what it used to, I think that's what it boils down to in many circumstances.

I do believe there's a segment of people who fit your description as well which is what this thread touches on, though some of that change has happened on the right as well, which you've hinted at. People who care less about the argument they're making and more about winning the argument. I've often wondered what Hillary Clinton believes in, she's in that group where she's changed tone a lot and got caught lying enough for a substantial chunk of the public to question how genuine she really is. Chuck Schumer is probably my least favorite politician, everything conservatives do seems to be the end of the world in his eyes but how much of that can be serious when half the time he's fighting against things the left has done in excess? He acts as if he's worried about the national debt for goodess' sake.

The left makes a similar argument of hypocrisy in regards to conservatives who are worried about the debt yet have spent enough money to increase it, or who have chosen to put in place a new regulation. While I think it's an okay argument, I think there's an important difference that should be considered. At minimum conservatives spend and regulate less than someone like Obama, the fact that conservatives are showing hypocrisy on this issue may be true but they adhere to small government principals more than the left does for sure so there isn't an exact equivalency between the two arguments.

False equivalencies is something I keep an eye out for because when someone is doing something wrong, often they're going to want to portray others in the same light and that comes full circle back the issue of projection. Not enough people are taking responsibility for their actions, it seems particularly true in the case of our government and the media, (people with power or influence). The worst part about that is that it's filtering down to the public in some circumstances, it's contagious behavior that's doing a lot of damage.

Lets start here to shorten things up for you. Imagine that we were discussing the solar system and you were unable to concisely define solar or, maybe, you couldn't explain what you mean by the term "orbit". See I don't mind you framing your analogy, but you are not really getting MY point in your analogy.

You believe there is an overall liberal media bias without being able to concisely define liberal. You can tell me what you think it isn't, but you can't tell me what it is. And you aren't the only conservative that can't, none of you can. NONE OF YOU CAN. So that brings us to your next point.

Absolutely. We agree. It's an assertion that we have to prove wrong. You aren't obligated to prove it true. As you emphasized it is a "cumulative knowledge" that allows you to know you are right. If you say so, but you still can't define liberal.

Check this out, you state

You see? Can you see what you did there?!?!? You brought up me making a point that you don't define "liberal", but what don't you do. You don't define it. You NEVER define it. It got so bad lone wisdom jumped in the debate to insert that And that was an honest conservative viewpoint, because that is what conservative and "moderate" conservatism psyche understands. Us... them... us... them... us... them.

And that psychology isn't essential in a debate about media, but it is in a debate about psychological projection.

Net2007 if I were to have a debate on what the planets in the solar system were, but you couldn't concisely define planet, then how would we truly have the debate. You could argue there are hundreds of thousands of planets orbiting our Sun. I could say it was 9, and a scientist could tell us it was 8. I guess it would depend on how we define planet. So Net are you going to define what liberal is now? Can you? Will you... ever???

And deep down you will know if I am right or wrong because either you will concisely define liberal... or you won't in your next response.

Moving on...

I can see that, but a more nuanced view might be that I understand conservative psyche. In other words, a conservative would not see it as an "apple to apple" comparison.

But lets make sure we understand what I compared. I compared human killing humans to... humans killing humans. That's what you asked me to do. LOL that's what I did. Let me ask you something. Say I kill someone breaking in my house, say I kill someone walking down the street, say I kill someone in war, say I kill someone in the line of duty as a Police officer? All kinds of things could be different, my position, my motivations, most importantly my justification. You know what isn't different? I just took a human being life.

I'm not comparing Chris Kyle... legally to anyone. I answered your question. And look how you responded.



To answer so that I don't dodge. In order: Yes in many ways. No machine guns. No terrorist groups. No plots. No war.

What is crazy is you think exactly like I know you are going to think... quote it... then go on to prove my point. Net what is the point of you series of questions? I said: "Let me guess, that's different. See that's how you and many other conservatives will process this ... But once you get in the mindset of... no no no no no we're not going to count that... or that... or that... or that.... JUST THIS!!! Well then, yes, I guess you can prove your point." See, you asked a question as a challenge "find me an example..." I found you one. And you countered by moving the goal post, just like I knew you would, just like I knew you had to, because this is the way a conservative mind works. It us... them... us... them... us... them. Once I successfully compared, us to them, a natural conservative response, even a "moderate" one, is to further differentiate us from them. And you know what, you will ALWAYS be successful.

But here is the question I wish I knew, do you all think that the conservative on the other side of conflict process differently. They just create a series of justifications of HOW they act to differentiate them from us they too think it morally justifiable to kill humans. Circumstances are different but the process seems exactly the same.

Bottom line if you think a liberal has issues comparing apples to apples by comparing human killings to human killings, I'm GOOD with that.

Dodge. But I get it. If the framing bothered you then reframe it concisely. Criminality is incredibly complex, no argument here. What isn't complicated is the conservative political response in political solutions. "Lock 'em up." The incarceration rate for Blacks and Hispanics vs. Whites is on record. They are facts. I didn't "frame" those facts. You could take the incarceration rate and then point to other statistics like education(i.e. drop out rate), family upbringing (i.e. single family home), but then you'd still be dealing with facts. And you'd have to ask why the racial disparity. Now, you don't like the psychology of Nature vs Nurture, you don't like the framing, show me a better way. But those statistics are real they exist, and because of the racial disparity there is a valid argument to see white supremacy. Bottom line what is the Republican political answer to this disparity. Oh that's right Sessions is trying to figure out how to lock more people up for marijuana.

English Only. That's what I stated. I don't mind English being spoken, but that's not the English only philosophy. And the English philosophy is rooted in White supremacy. Don dodge what I am saying by writing paragraphs of something I'm not stating. Here is something I believe by looking at data of the modern English only. Its a nothing movement. Its a conservative think tank problem that has no practical appliance on any large social scale. Sure as an individual I may walk in a situation where I can't communicate because of language... oh well. West Virginia made itself an Official English State. Why? You think there was an issue there? Its just conservative political meat to their base. White Supremacy is the hunger.

Hitler was a real human being. Our understanding of the Hitler and the Nazi movement has become cartoonish. As if there weren't human beings, but just evil incarnate, like Cobra from GI Joe or Skeletor from He-man. Well Hitler was a human being. And he was the leader of a Movement. And he was followed by a very large, if not majority, populace of his country. They wanted Hitler. He sold them German superiority and they bought in. Now would I argue Hitler here on maybe, but I'd rather not. Too many pitfalls especially when discussing with non-liberal thinkers. Too much us... them ... us... them to have an honest intellectual debate.

The title of your debate is awesome even if I think the questions weren't. What was Trump selling when he ran for office? Trump sold you domination. Trump sold you Supremacy. White supremacy...yes. Economic supremacy... yes. Political and Military supremacy... yes. American supremacy... absolutely YES!!!

Do you need the quotes? "Make American great again... so much winning if I am elected... this person a loser and that person a loser... i'll make us win.. I'll make us great..." Do you understand why he is projecting winning? Its a form of domination. And people on the right wing ate it up, not the liberals on the left, but the conservatives on the right.

Now again, like hypocrisy, individually we are ALL guilty of this sin. We all want to win, some of us are more compulsive about it than others, but we all want it on some level.

Conservatives project this into their politics. And, again, I'm not talking about the politician, I'm talking about the vast constituency. What brought the millions of poor whites to the poll for Trump? The promise of dominance, the promise of a reassertion of their greatness, whether that greatness stemmed from their national identity, their racial identity, or a combination of both. It doesn't really matter why you want to be dominant over other, what matters is you do on a large political level. And you all can never lead us or help us to fight or spread the concepts of freedom, because on a large scale, national and global, you fight for the domination of other... with you on top.

Now I can't compare Trump to Hitler, and you are right there is no point provoke certain responses by making the comparison. I shouldn't compare modern day conservatism to Nazism either. But I can show you all have an incessant need to dominate. I can show the motivation by the response of conservatives to elect Trump who promised various forms of supremacy.

Police act violent. Soldiers act violent. Do you argue that they are the most responsible for their violent behavior? No and neither do most conservatives as a group. see their extreme violence is always some necessary response.

Racism isn't a shadow of what it was, it hides in the shadow like it never did before. But you start looking at the poverty and incarceration of minorities in this nation, if you are just willing to acknowledge the statistics, racism isn't the shadow it once was. White people calling Blacks "N-word" is a shadow of what it once was, Whites practicing or turning a blind eye to racism is still quite prominent.

And your history lesson on slavery isn't that relevant, IMO. You know what is relevant though? That we would still have modern day Americans that would want to erect or protect memorializes statues to people that fought to maintain slavery in America. Its 2018. And guess which side of the political aisle is fighting to make sure these traitors who fought for slavery name remain in prominence. The left or the right? Conservatives or Liberals?? Who fights so that names like Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis are names that remain prominent on our schools, roads, and libraries? C'mon man. When are conservatives going to be ready to own their psychology?

Here is the difference, you'd show me hypocrisy of an individual vs their political beliefs. What I showed you is the hypocrisy of conservative political beliefs vs conservative political beliefs.

I'd love to see you try to do what I just did pointing out liberal political beliefs vs liberal political beliefs. I guarantee you won't find it as easy as I did putting one conservative belief vs another. Go ahead and try.

Let me try to explain this.... again. Conservatives.. us... them... us... them... us... them... psychology. Do you think there is ANY reasonable plausible current scenario where its Ok for a foreign government or group to drop a bomb killing your family? I doubt it. But I guarantee you can justify your country doing this exact same thing in some country in the Middle east or Africa. For conservative thinking psychology its not the action being done but who is doing it and who is it being done to. If we are doing "something" violent to another country, it's OK cause we're the good guys. If someone does the exact "something" violent action to us, it would be bad, because.. well same reason, we're the good guys. This mentality lends itself to so much high level hypocrisy and its a very conservative way of thinking. And as I have told you before we all have conservative views and thinking patterns, but liberalism is elevating our thoughts above that base level thinking. Nevermind.

Droop, just to give a heads up, I'll be a while longer on a reply, perhaps 3 days approximately.

Mmm hmm. None of us can eh? Maybe the common denominator is closer to home than you realize. Either every conservative you talk to is inept, or Droop happens to get some things wrong and doesn't know or care that he does. Defining the word liberal is pretty straightforward. The definitions you provided are accurate when applied to some people but the word liberal has broad meaning given it refers to a large group of people who have diversity. These are some other common positions, which you didn't present....

-Being supportive of big government.
-Believing in a slimmer military that's less confrontational.
-Protective of the rights of minorities but often less so for the religious, the rich, and other groups which are often
associated with conservatism.
-Believing in stricter gun laws.

Those are a few things which help define liberal today, (very straightforward). From there I explained who the media backs and how the meaning of the word liberal has changed in many respects. You now have Modern Liberalism which includes positions that I just presented and there's Classical Liberalism and the media favors both more than conservatism, generally speaking. Classical Liberalism gets less backing from the MSM, it's the form of liberalism which comes closer to the definitions you provided, so we've both defined liberal (in part) when you presented your definitions and I agreed that the definition is accurate for some people, (again, pretty straightforward).

Classical Liberalism happens to be the form of liberalism I think can be beneficial but it's being replaced (for decades now) by a modern version with a different set of beliefs in key areas. In large part, liberal politicians today don't have the mindset of someone like John F. Kennedy where he gave a speech on not asking what your country can do for you but what each of us can do for our country. Self-proclaimed liberals are in many cases supporting more government control than ever before. Take what I said about "believing in stricter gun laws", that's a position that picked up momentum for liberals under the Clinton Administration with the passing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Whether you like or hate positions like this, (I personally think some gun restrictions are smart), they can indeed be classified as restrictive of individual right and freedoms. A couple of the definitions you provided of liberal were as follows...



Yet there are several positions liberals have taken up today which completely disregard those definitions without question. If you don't know or understand that things have changed and if you're going to narrow a group as large as liberals down to such limited descriptions then how you process information should be your primary focus, a lot more than how others process. The only thing you have to do is read and ask straightforward questions. That's in the scenario that you're not acting confused because you're not quite sure how to counter the fact that the media has become abusively bias. In other words, it would be (why not distract some when you're debating with a weak hand)?



Are you making a burden of proof argument? When an argument is made and substantiating information is indeed presented in excess, there'd be nothing wrong with another debater pulling their own weight to defend their position as well, that's a good thing, particularly when that other debater starts to make points of their own. What I've shown is the same type of substantiation that's been used elsewhere to substantiate that there are problems within the media, including bias, and that's even factored into the News Media having an approval rating that's nearly half of Trumps.

You're saying things like this.. "But once you get in the mindset of... no no no no no we're not going to count that... or that... or that... or that.... JUST THIS!!!" yet that's what you're doing with the media on a level that steps things up a few notches. I acknowledge that the military has some of the problems that you're hinting at further down and even thanked you for the newer information you presented on Fox News. On the other hand, you've shot down most if not all of my substantiation and haven't acknowledged the media has any problem with liberal bias whatsoever, you can't even say it's a slight problem that conservatives get carried away with, you've rejected the concept entirely. At one point you suggested the media has some problems but the primary argument was that overall they have a bias that leans left. That's another thing about projection, people who do it to an unhealthy level generally think others will do as they do, that's true for some, (as I acknowledged before), there's a degree of hypocrisy in most people but are you trying to fit the descriptions laid out in the opening post and say hypocritical things?

A great deal of the information on media bias, along with some extras, were brought to one place in the media thread so I've done my part and haven't minded showing more either, the evidence has been abundant and relatively easy to find. It being necessary for Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch to create a conservative network like Fox News to compete with the monopoly the left had, and the fact that it worked is a recent substantiation addition, and that's huge on its own.

On defining liberal, what you're doing isn't disagreeing with how I defined liberal (I'm fine to agree to disagree), you're stepping that up a notch and failing to even acknowledge I defined it. However as you've relied heavily on diversionary semantics, it's only opened up new opportunities to explain things that are happening within the media. I actually don't like seeing you fumble and hurt your own message as much as you have been lately, it's not a challenge when you're making my arguments for me and I've been trying to hold on to hope that you'll rebound because you have made solid arguments in the past. Take the fact that below you're claiming that I'm dodging your questions as you don't even quote key questions I've had and dodge and distract all the time. Here are some important questions you skipped, I wrote this after you claimed that I was turning a blind eye so my values can feel good...

(You'll Refer back to this quote later as well...)

Granted I told you to pick and choose what you want to cover but I like how the topic you focused on the most was something you've already covered, your goto argument about how I didn't or can't define the word liberal which you might as well be copying and pasting from before. You do that, yet you're bothered that I didn't answer a question where you followed it up by asking "Which flavor of White Supremacy do you want to choose? ". You gave choices that I didn't feel accurately answered your question anyway, where I had to choose between your pre-approved responses. Had you asked an open-ended question, you would have gotten an answer. However, I'll answer your other question in regards to Chris Kyle further down since you expanded some.



Before I get to your question, I'm not sure who told you that you understand conservative psyche but you don't. You may understand a common position or two but that's easy, what's hard is understanding the depth and people behind those stances. You understand CNNs brand of conservatism, a limited one focused on everything negative you think conservatives do with very limited ability or desire to speak about the good aspects. Many of us have a side we favor, but you've said you take all conservatives as seriously as teenagers with guns which really boils down to the fact that you don't take them seriously, because if you did you'd know that only a fraction of people on both sides deserve that kind of a comment.

There's been a great deal of smears and mischaracterizations combined with simply leaving out a huge portion of what's happening, almost as if you often take notes from some of the most divisive and unbalanced news sources available. Even if you've developed this way on your own or through those you know, the arguments and approach are similar, if not a bit amplified in your case. I've seen those who are more extreme, who cant get through a sentence without a hateful or racist comment, but you often don't make an effort to understand those who don't think like you do. Again, I'm trying not to be too harsh, but you're not close to having an accurate picture of the right. Individuals who think other groups are inferior to them often think they know more than they do but if it means anything I think you could develop an understanding if you wanted to, or put in an effort to.

To address Chris Kyle, I don't think it takes a conservative to understand that putting him side by side with Devin Patrick Kelly isn't an apples to apples comparison. Unless you have something significant to show, that position should be associated with someone who's trying to be accurate and reasonable first and foremost. I get the feeling that you're taking the idea that conservatives often favor the military and believe they'll defend Chris Kyle on that basis with little thought put into it. That's not applicable to everyone and to make that argument at all, you'd first need to show that your answer has merit. Best I can tell, those two men were in two very different situations, and the things they did were different. You want to associate an answer like that with conservatives but you're the one who jumped into mentioning a soldier who was in our military. Perhaps your answer to my question happened after Droop as a liberal (modern liberal), took a position because not favoring our military is more common amongst liberals and you didn't care about considering the differences between those two men.

To move on, I wanted to give you a chance to clarify your argument before answering, It had been a long time since I read up on Chris Kyle. Perhaps he had gotten dishonorably discharged, or went home afterward and killed people who weren't armed and not fighting a war, anything that would make sense of your argument. Perhaps it was discovered that the reason he killed people during his time of service had nothing to do with obeying orders or saving American lives (Facts, not Speculation). I'm open to interpretation but to address your concern.... "Let me guess, that's different". Based on what I've learned the two men and situations are different but you're welcome to add information at any time.

To go deeper on Chris Kyle, I asked this question....



You came back with Chris Kyle (American Sniper) as an answer, so to comment on where you said this...



You did not provide an accurate answer because you disregarded the conditions required in the question, (unless you can show otherwise.) I said an American Christian who killed 26 people or more because they held different values or beliefs. Also, consider the context of the question, my example was of someone who committed a criminal act and shot down unarmed civilians in a church, it was a domestic mass murder.

For your example to be fair and accurate to the question, you'd have to demonstrate (for example) that Chris Kyle killed those targets specifically because he was Christian and based on the different religious beliefs of Muslims he wanted them dead and acted on the basis of that. If you simply show that everyone he killed was Muslim with different beliefs, that doesn't substantiate your case. If what he was doing was in reference to what Terrorsts (and those who were helping Terrorists), were doing or if it was to save a life or in self-defense, that's acting based on the situation and actions of others. Here's the quote you presented,.....



and it doesn't justify your answer. You can hate your job, or in his case, he can hate the Terrorists and dangerous people he encountered on the job, and still be following orders and be there because preventing deaths of Americans (or civilians who are being victimized) is the goal. You don't have to agree with our reasons for being in the Middle East but we wouldn't be there (in active combat and performing air strikes) if Terrorists posed no threat to anyone and didn't victimize others, (if they held extreme beliefs but were docile in their actions.)

Those actions from Terrorists may be based on some extreme beliefs but you'd still have to show that the motivation was the belief, rather than the actions of Terrorists and the situation at hand. To go further let's just be clear that Terrorist beliefs aren't in the same ballpark as the beliefs of Christians who aren't plotting to or guilty of murdering others. unless of course, they are. That's your second problem if your example met the conditions of the question I suppose I'll agree with you and consider your answer passable, but you'd have to be pretty desperate to put Terrorists side by side with an example of unarmed civilians who were killed in a church. That disregards the context of the question but it'll be a technically passable answer if you meet the conditions of the question, as stated above. If you can do that and show something definitive on Chris Kyle, I'll tone my position back on this one and meet you halfway.

I don't think it's insignificant that we've been in the Middle East for as long as we have, but the situation is complicated. My position is that we should take terrorism seriously. Going after those who are out to kill us, or who say they want to kill us as they kill others, (proving they're credible), makes sense. Helping nations who face tyranny where the oppressors don't have a desire to kill us is more complicated, it's a big decision with many possible outcomes, I think it depends largely on the situation. On the other end of it I believe we should leave the nation-building out of it, we can help others but fundamentally trying to change other nations has gotten us into trouble. Not doing that reduces casualties and the death associated with war should be something we're keeping in mind always.




In large part, you appear to be going through talking points about how nasty and unfair people unlike you, tend to be. You've generalized on conservative beliefs and the holders of those beliefs as well in some circumstances.

"Let me try to explain this.... again. Conservatives.. us... them... us... them... us... them... psychology."

Good grief, where is your ability to look inwards or look at what the left is doing, conservatives are about us, them, us, them? Many constituencies have an "us... them... us... them" mentality. Practically all groups who disagree have some degree of this problem! According to some people, white male conservatives might as well be animals and sometimes they're not judged in this way on an individual basis, but as a collective. The left also targets minority conservatives, conservative women, women who choose not to work, Christians, the rich, sometimes even the middle class, and Trump supporters, just to name some groups. When targeting groups they don't like some are using smear tactics and hateful rhetoric designed to create hysteria, and often act as if they believe in inclusion but prove that they don't when someone comes along who doesn't think like they do. The violence involved in left-wing protesting movements has also gotten out of hand and should be mentioned, the bottom line is that a growing number of people on the left play favorites and identity politics has gotten to such insane levels that some of them can't even stand to hear a conservative opinion (in a college for example), they freak out and start smashing things up.

This goes as far as to cause problems for various people who are on the left who want to work together. If you can't acknowledge these problems, you either don't pay attention or don't care. I don't believe this kind of divisiveness or combativeness is true of all or even most people who identify with the left in some fashion whether they be Democrats, Modern Liberals, or Classical Liberals. There's hope and good people on both sides so when it comes down to it you left out half of the story and didn't specify that America has become more divisive generally speaking.

As for Trump, I think he's divisive. Having said that, the left often does oversimplify when they describe him and focus on the most sensational things they can while ditching the rest, not to mention the fact that some on the left are just as bad or worse. Democrats voted in Maxine Waters and praise her for goodness sake, she's not exactly a symbol of unity, she's bombastic and in some cases hateful. Chuck Schumer is more polished but he's also divisive, he wants to portray the right in the most negative way he can, he probably helps contribute to people like you having little knowledge or desire to see anything but the worst in others. As for someone like Obama, he talked the talk as a uniter but didn't walk the walk. It was 8 years of special treatment for those who thought or looked like him, and 8 years of neglect for those who didn't. Race relations and general divisiveness got worse under Obama, in part, because it takes more than words to unite. There has to be something genuine behind the words, so for those who put most of their focus on how people talk, they have a lot to learn in regards to people who say one thing and do another.

What happened with Trump was that things flipped, as they seem to every 4 to 8 years, now the left gets to feel exactly how conservatives have for a long time. I love that the extremist have to deal with it and that there's little they can do but for the sake of everyone else I'm hoping the partisanship dies down some and we get someone who can genuinely represent both sides or at least let them know they're not forgotten, but that remains to be seen for now.

To move on, correct me if I'm wrong but it almost seems as if you're not for any military action that involves fighting, or at minimum are trying to get onto conservatives if they were to support any bombing of a foreign nation or regime. This seems to be a big issue for you and comes in combination with the fact that everytime you talk about the military it's in a negative context. My opinion may not matter to you because I support some degree of military action and you have little ability to see a side of an argument which you wouldn't view as negative for your opponent, but I don't think that military action is always smart or that we should currently be in a large-scale ground war with elevated civilian casualty numbers. That calls for extreme circumstances but having said that I think there are situations where it's okay, or smart to fight. If you think there's no situation that justifies a bombing then you're in an extreme left-wing isolationist position that a minority of Americans agree with, in the scheme of things. Even Obama supported air strikes, he performed many of them in fact and he's a far left Democrat. You're presenting a paragraph like this...



But apply that criticism strictly to conservatives, yet after we've developed the technology to drop bombs, there's never been a Democrat in office who decided not to use them on some level (at least not that I know of, you're welcome to counter.) The left and Democrats are more critical of our military, sure, but as with many issues, you take it to such an extreme point that you're nearly isolated in your approach on others. Come to think of it, you haven't properly defined conservative anyway, you might want to jump on that Mr. Everytime you say you understand conservatives it's because your explaining how unreasonable or dangerous you think that mindset is. I've been quite critical of the left myself, (including liberals) but don't go to the extreme of taking them all as seriously at teenagers with guns, that's for sure. You think conservative views are a "base level of thinking" as well. It would follow that you believe that the more conservative you are, the more inferior you are (based on multiple condescending comments). It's clear that this is factoring into a lot your stances.....

To address the question, show me a bomb we've dropped on another nation that had the purpose of doing nothing but killing a person's family. When I see a new report of a bombing, the purpose behind it has consistantly been to focus on Terrorists or those who are otherwise a threat to others. Families composed of Terrorists are likely the examples you'd come up with, along with some civilian casualties. I haven't seen where we've gone in with the goal of dropping bombs to kill people who weren't dangerous but the civilian casualties are a problem. However, it's something we're getting much better at not causing as time goes by. On the other hand, the purpose of Terrorist attacks is often quite specifically to attack people who are not violent based on their beliefs, and this is a group you're putting little if any focus on. Both intentions and actions matter, especially when bad intentions are turning into actions and civilian casualties become the rule rather than the exception. As for us, we have the most powerful military in the world, if we were using it without restraint we would be in a very different world where the deaths surrounding our actions increased many times over.

Thinking that civilian casualties are too much of a risk to do what we're doing is one thing, not being able to separate our military from Terrorists is another thing entirely. As I've been hinting at, the goals of America and the goals of groups like ISIS are different in key areas, yet there are some on the left who despise most of what America does while excusing or ignoring most things ISIS (or otherwise dangerous groups and nations) are doing. For example, in regards to Russia, it was only just recently that the Democrats started being proactive with them. Russia has often stood against what our goals are and have shown a disregard for other nations including the U.S., but it took the Dems getting slapped in the face for them to get tough.

So there's often a double standard with how extreme leftist portray our country and how they portray others, they cant do something like differentiate between a U.S. soldier and a terrorist and NOT differentiating is a disingenuous thing, it's why extreme left often gets it wrong. You trivialize this issue by saying good guys and bad guys, but it's not that simple. For something else you'll ignore, our country isn't perfect, far from it. We don't get it right every time and when something like a civilian casualty happens, it certainly matters a lot and should be on our minds with every decision we make to fight. For those who think our country is Gods gift to the world and is better in every way, that lacks depth just as with extreme leftist who can't differentiate. With that said I don't believe we should never drop a bomb or that our country is as bad off as a state sponsor of terrorism, many nations aren't that bad off. It's a fair and [u]accurate[/u] thing to do, to acknowledge differences.

With that out of the way and to answer your question, in the scenario that my family was composed of Terrorists I wouldn't find it surprising if a bomb was dropped which killed them or think it was unreasonable to do so, then again if I were a terrorist I'd probably act insane and then blame everyone else for things I do, but if I still had my sanity I'd understand why. In the scenario that my family was living next to terrorists and we were civil but got bombed anyway for being in their proximity, I still wouldn't find it surprising that we got hit, I'd put a lot of the blame on the Terrorists for attracting that kind of attention. As far as my "current" situation, my family doesn't attack anyone and doesn't live in a neighborhood where others are launching terrorist attacks. The two situations are different and therefore two different standards can be applied. In other word's it's reasonable that terrorists get bombed and it would be unreasonable if my family got bombed. That's not hypocrisy because you presented two very different situations. Unless of course, your goal is to get into false equivalencies.

On White Supremacy we're coming from two different places on that, I don't think it's insignificant and it certainly wasn't when people were enslaved and dying in massive numbers, but in many respects I see a different America than you do. I think the bad aspects of our country should always be addressed, but we're largely defined by our ingenuity and willingness to want to work together to fix problems like slavery for example. That effort relied heavily on whites wanting things to change as well. Whites had an overwhelming amount of control over our military, our police forces, our government, and over 80% of our population was white just decades ago yet despite how some depict white Americans, we no longer have slavery and by law, segregation is over (Primarily because of Republicans by the way). I'm not saying that to minimize what happened in the past, or when something bad happens today, but I do believe all races have contributed and that we're defined as much by our skills and courage as anything you could present. America is a melting pot of more than just different races, it's a melting pot of ideas and has good traits and bad ones. Over the last 15 years, (give or take), things have gotten more divisive but if history is any indicator, I think we'll get through it just as before. We're not perfect, or god's gift to the world but we're not as monstrous as some would have you believe.

From here, since I answered question on Chris Kyle, your theoretical question on what would justify my family getting bombed, defined the word liberal for you again, (I know you'll say I didn't, use the other two examples if you want to continue with that line of ridiculousness), along with getting detailed for you in other areas, I'll get to more of what your points if you address the following two issues. Issues with questions that you entirely skipped, later to let on like you're not to skipping or "dodging" questions, then later to complain that I dodge your questions. At any rate, if you go over these I'll go over a bit more...



Those quotes work together to cover one issue, so if you address some of that and, most importantly, the issue of turning a blind eye, I'll get to more of what you present. You'll be looking for the quote above that I said you'd refer back to later, the quote next to the note I made above in Red.

Address those two issues and we'll continue with anything else I may have missed, the primary reason I don't address everything is because I tend to be detailed and don't have time to expand on every point you make, it's either that or a situation or two where you weren't clear enough or choose to present a limited choice question with oversimplified answers to choose from.

Finally, this debate has gotten personal (coming from both of us at this point) but it doesn't have to be that way. I tend not to put it softly if someone is getting personal on their end or don't even debate if it's too bad. You're not to that point and I bet there's a good bit we could agree on if we tweeked things a bit. I'm going to aim for that next time, but for us to communicate better it'll take effort from you at some point as well.

President Trump has pointed to established news outlets he considers to have done fake news, but he has also expressed demonstrable falsehoods, aka lies, at an average rate of around five per day, including weekends and holidays. I've never trusted that guy, but now it is becoming moot because, as the adage goes, I know he's lying because his mouth is flapping. What's disturbing is that he is so very bad at lying, forgetting what he lied about and contradicting himself so much that even Republican elected officials are finding him impossible to work with. It's disturbing because this guy has already caused harm to people of all political stripes, and he has another year ahead of him to do even worse stuff. I don't think anyone's going to get away without suffering something, like untreated illnesses due to no Medicaid bennies tightly associated with unexpected unemployment and perhaps another senseless war over something or another that the POTUS heard from Fox News.

On top of this, what remains of his staff seems to have signed on to defending his 180-degree turns and his belief in non-problems seemingly invented in the minds of paranoid schizophrenics.

On the possible plus side, Trump has said he plans to campaign for Republican candidates this season, which will very likely motivate high turnout to vote against the candidates, thereby ensuring a tough new Democratic Congress in 2019. But I will believe that when I see it because Trump says a lot of things on which he never follows through. Or he tries, fails, and declares victory. Or he points to unrelated stuff, like the economy, and takes credit for it. What he seems to be counting on is human stupidity, short memory and apathy.

What does this say about the way conservatives think? For some, they either don't vote or swing to other parties, but not enough to make a real difference. For most, it reflects on them and makes them look to be super stupid, extremely memory-challenged and cynical beyond your typical naked ancient Greek in the streets of old Athens, back in BCE.

Historical evidence shows that under Republican leadership, the government grows in an authoritarian way, and the economy slumps or crashes. Budget deficits come back due to foolish tax breaks for the rich and even more foolish wars. The water gets dirtier, the air full of toxic fumes, the land destroyed, social safety nets weakened, and for what? So that bored rich people can play with fake currency markets after they get tired of their yachts and private islands? Yep, exactly that.

At least Trump played with real estate, but that seems so quaint now as Bitcoin and other fake currencies get the attention of big money for various purposes, such as laundering stolen funds and financing terrorism.

Every moment that conservatives defend this stuff solidifies the perception that they are morons without a cause, with some of them of the religious belief that nothing will get better until the world is destroyed.

But then there are some that can't take it any longer, and so they either don't vote or vote for someone else, occasionally Democratic candidates. Living within blatant hypocrisy and supporting obvious double standards is just too much for some people who like to think of themselves as conservatives. I personally think that a lot of self-proclaimed conservatives are simply kissing up to their employers, spouses, or parents -- so they don't get cut off and have to live like everyone they've been attacking. It is basically a sin to become poor in their eyes, which of course isn't what their god was preaching way back when, assuming that wasn't a fiction invented many years after the alleged events took place.

Then there are the swamp people who look down on others taking government money while they take it themselves without knowing where the bucks come from. As with liberals, there are hopelessly lost people among conservatives that you just have to tolerate and hope that their votes don't count more than yours. The Electoral College allows the minority candidate to win, so that hope doesn't hold for the election of our nation's presidents. But then there are the mid-terms that only allow the majority candidates to win, so a bad POTUS pick can be at least slowed down, which will likely happen in the fall of 2018 into 2019.

Or it could lead to the very first takeover of our nation by a bunch of deplorable tyrants who say they will save the country while they actually destroy it. Do the coup before the new Congress gets sworn in.

You know, because the founding fathers wanted it this way.

I can see other things that might happen too, an accidental firearm discharge or more short circuiting a coup, a bunch of lefties organizing and stopping the movement toward actual tyranny, even a bunch of civic-minded conservatives conking the dictator wannabees with more lawsuits than you can shake a stick at (a very big stick, walked around with mouth talking quietly).

If conservatives let the deplorable tyrants have at it, then there's another way to describe conservatives: cowardly and dim. I frankly don't think that will happen, as the lost causes are actually in the minority within conservative circles -- and the rest are smart enough to know they'd become targets of the tyrannical oligarchy.

Or worse, poor -- and it's nobody's fault but their own, by conservative thought. Shoulda kissed up more; woulda conned more; coulda become a Russian-inspired oligarch too! But no, had to do what was done, and it didn't work out.

Or did it? Maybe it's what JC wanted them to do all along, give it all away, just not to the already rich. And it's not exactly a donation when the tyrants just take what they want, which is generally all of it. They might let you live.

I often find it difficult to untangle conservative thought, much like I don't get the idea of a state withering away after revolution. Why on Earth would it do that? Power is the most addictive thing among primates with big brains and scheming hearts. The best we've been able to do so far is to distribute the power within a system of checks and balances. We need more of that.

Hey net2007.


I could have quoted other lines but these are a decent summary and a reminder of the train of thought.

Sociological developments. And what is the list of things this refers to? A gamut of possibilities but false equivalencies gets towards it. I would say false principles does, too. Voters are voting for advantage for themselves and they can care less who it hurts. We do not vote for principles. We vote for winners and losers and we think some candidates will make us a winner. It could be a need for affirmation that our own values have been blessed by government. We do not believe in freedom to have your own values. Government is the source of winning and winning is the better choice as government will make you a loser if you vote for the wrong one. Voting is to look out for your pocketbook at the expense of someone else's. Voting is to look out for your own values and crushing the values of others.

The period of winning by making government more powerful and intrusive will end. It is the life cycle of empires.

Some voters want to vote for principles. Typically, these voters give in to the lure of easy fixes and the seemingly insurmountable favor big money has controlling the government towards its own ends.

A big portion of voters are simply uneducated dolts when it comes to the role of government. There is no standard nor expectation upon government to have sociological development which in based upon principles such as freedom.

Sociological development. I think of it as culture. What is the culture of the United States? Quite scary. Self centered nominators who look out for themselves and their own pathetic cliques. At least that is what is driving their voting patterns. If we had a good educational system voters would know basic economics, what freedom is, what privacy is, why civil rights are important, etc..

I hope the culture changes in my lifetime. The trouble caused by the culture which has been thriving is coming to a climax.

Ideas such as responsibility are due for a comeback. People may think solving problems is their own matter. By golly, could we ever expect government to be responsible by not overstepping its bounds?

-----

Personal feedback: I like what you have written in this thread. Good stuff.

I can't say I agree with all of that but I share some of your thoughts on Trump, I'm one of those who didn't vote for him due to similar problems that you've pointed out over the months. For me it was all about weighing pro's and con's though, I'm not in a position where I believe everything he's done has been horrific, actually there are certain things I feel he's doing well but there were just a few too many traits he possesses that bothered me enough not to support him, the divisiveness and lies being at the top of the list. Also, every other Republican candidate polled better than Trump in theoretical matchups against Hillary. John Kasich polled the best and always above Hillary by several points, he was ahead of her by 8 points the last time I had checked those polls during the election which really equates to well over 10 points given how pollsters were oversampling Democrats. It's likely that Kasich would have won the popular vote.

Trump talks up his win a lot and while some credit is due for how he campaigned, I believe the results of our last election had a lot to do with anti-Hillary votes and the fact that it's difficult for a party to win three presidential elections in a row. After 8 years of policies and special treatment for one side, enough people wanted a change to vote for Trump. To comment on where you said Trump is bad at lying, I think that's true but Hillary was good at it so I ask myself which is worse? Our last election was between a liar and another liar who, in her case, was slick enough to get away with more of what she was doing and that fact almost lead to me casting a Trump vote, I believe Hillary is a better deceiver. Some would argue against that because she lost the election but she's gotten away with a lot and for a very long time, it's crazy that certain politicians have even managed to be viable candidates for anything. A lot of new information has been learned about Hillary after the election which likely would have never come to the surface had she won, she could a lot of trouble this time from what I've been reading.

While much of the information that's been coming out hasn't been shown on networks like CNN, there are new discoveries each week including discoveries on a number of people who have a connection to her or support her in some fashion and with individuals who hate Trump for that matter. Peter Strzok and Andrew Weissmann could be in trouble just to name a couple people in the Muller probe, but this is far-reaching, there seems to be no end to the scandals. After a long fight, congressmen have managed to obtain documents that are likely to change a lot, they're in reference to the FBI, the Department of Justice and Trump. Those who have read them say that it'll shock the public when they see the implications of them and how deep the contents go. Some are also saying that this could go as far as to unravel the Muller investigation though understanding that there are problems with that investigation isn't dependant on unreleased documents. The investigation has already been shown to have participants with extreme anti-Trump biases and a lawyer who uses unethical measures to get information.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-securit...rveillance-memo

I'm not sure if you remember this but I once made a bet with you that if Hillary got elected, she wouldn't be elected for a second term due to a number of factors, it turns out she was weaker against Trump than I thought and didn't make it for one term so the bet is void. I mention this because I get a similar feeling about the Russia investigation, I don't think this is going to turn out the way that some Democrats are hoping it will. I'd also bet those guitar picks on that, even though you said you had plenty

Between the Muller probe, Hillary Clinton, and revelations of sex scandals occurring in high numbers on the left, they've had a hard time getting on their feet. What I'm getting at is that while I agree Trump brings a lot of drama and divisiveness, the left seems to have the same problem. I think the Republicans are likely lose seats later this year but that typically happens during the first midterms to whatever side has a President in office. So that goes to the question of... If they lose seats, how much of that has to do with historical trends (which effected Obama as well) and how much of it has to do with the idea that Democrats are doing better than they were before the last election?

I think it's a mess on both sides, and that the bull goes far up on both sides. Take Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, those who pay close attention to his arguments and don't have a political reason to defend him often view him as part of the problem in American politics. Personally, I don't think there are many people who are as disingenuous, corrupt, and slimy as that man. There's been so many lies and so much deceitful behavior coming from him and he won't stop doing it. He seems to only care about destroying Trump and diminishing conservatives, even on things that are quite obviously wrong.

Take the government shutdown, under Obama Schumer viewed shutting down the government as "governmental chaos" and "political idiocy", yet he and the Democrats were most responsible for shutting down the government a few days ago. Perhaps somewhere in his head, he knows that what he's doing is hypocritical and disingenuous, so he takes the focus away from that double standard by moving onto the next disingenuous thing, putting all of the blame on Republicans and Trump for the shutdown. All the media pundits have been debating who's fault that was, the Democrats want to blame Republicans and Republicans want to blame Democrats. To me, none of that noise matters, it should be as simple as wanting to know the facts and learning the truth and there's no way around these numbers...

5 Democratic Senators voted to keep the government open, only 5 out of 49 Senators.
47 Republican Senators voted to keep the government open, 47 out of 51 Senators. (the vast majority).

With basic math we can break down those numbers like this....

For the Dems, 5 is 10.2% of 49, which means 10.2% of Democrats in the Senate voted to keep the government open.
For the Reps 47 is 92.1% of 51, which means 92.1% of Republicans in the Senate voted to keep the government open.

House Republicans were the one who wrote the bill to keep the government moving to begin with and it didn't contain anything the Democrats would have had a hard time voting for, it was very standard. After the bill passed the House, it failed in the Senate primarily because of Democrats so to me it's as simple as saying the Democrats hold the most responsibility because the vast majority of them decided not to vote to fund the government. Schumer uses clever wording to get around basic facts, by pointing out, for example, that Trump had suggested it's time for a good shutdown. Many people don't like Trump, so it's a perfect way to distract from what happened. However ridiculous the things that Trump says are, (I tend to think he needs to keep his mouth shut more), what Schumer wouldn't say is that Trump was wanting a shutdown on an entirely different occasion last year when they were working on repealing Obamacare, Trump was referring to last September when he said that....

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration...a-good-shutdown

I don't think that rhetoric helped things but Schumer is calling this shutdown the Trump shutdown and taking zero responsibility for how his party voted and how little they're offering the Republicans on a DACA deal. Offering 1.6 billion dollars for an 18 billion dollar wall and expecting to get exactly what they want after offering peanuts to the opposing party is not bipartisanship. I believe the Democrats thought that Republicans would be blamed for the shutdown again, but as soon as the polls started showing otherwise they backed down. Heres what the shutdown did for the Democrats...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot..._vote-6185.html

Notice the shift in the days following the shutdown?

So I feel your frustration AM. Much of the time I understand your arguments on Trump, I really do, but I think that there's so much noise coming from the Democrats that people are having a hard time separating the wheat from the chaff. In my opinion, if the Republicans do lose the House or Senate it won't have near as much to do with a quality difference between the Dems and Reps as some may claim later this year. The Democrats will claim victory if they flip either the House or Senate and while there's always credit due to the winner, for the Dems to maintain a healthy majority, as with the Republicans it'll take some kind of a fundamental change in how they behave. Historical voting trends will be on their side later this year but I don't know how they can claim they've improved since Trump got elected.

On what you mentioned in regards to the media, Trump does call them out for fake news a great deal. My opinion on that is that they shouldn't stop pointing out when he lies or does something wrong, so he has a long road ahead of him with the media for sure. My only pet peeve is that they hardly put any focus on cases where he's right or is telling the truth and they don't hold the left's feet to the fire in quite the same way. I say they should just cover all of it if they're going to focus on controversy. If I had a network I'd attempt to split it down the middle with both conservative and liberal anchors and let the viewers decide which shows they like. Networks with either 90% liberal or 90% conservative anchors usually present a warped picture of reality where the opposing side might as well be depicted as aliens hell-bent on the destruction of the human race.

_________________

Grey Seal, I just saw that you replied as well, I'm going to get to that one just as soon as I get some writing time again.

Indeed, a lot of the Republican Party worked hard to not get him elected. He won a minority of the voters in such a way that the EC did the electing, not the people. It isn't supposed to work that way, but it does. HRC did indeed win a lot more votes, even though President Trump was absolutely sure, at one time, that illegal voters made up most of that three million. I don't hear much about that any longer, so maybe he doesn't believe that now. I kinda doubt it, given his track record all through his life and now in the eternal spotlight of the White House.


I suppose she will continue to be a subject of speculation for maybe another decade. Until her enemies can come up with something that sticks, it's all speculation, whereas with Trump, the legal hounds are closing in. Does this mean she's a better liar or simply not guilty? Looks to me to be the latter. However, it is now a moot point. She has no power with which to do damage to the nation.


We will see how this all pans out, but it looks to me that the closer it gets to the POTUS, the harder his defenders try to get him off the hook. Same thing happened with Nixon, so I see history rhyming.

Maybe this time our democratic republic will fall to a bunch of deplorable tyrannical oligarchs. I remember seeing a report in 1975 or so that Kissinger suggested to Nixon that he could make a similar move, but he declined. Fake news? Maybe. I've not seen anything on that since, not in support of the story nor a debunking. But it is a major concern among those who want Trump out of office ASAP and possibly in the slammer soon after.


She was actually stronger than Trump and should have won, but that's moot and so is the bet.


Well, we've got a racist sexist immature weakling heading up the Executive and a complacent Republican Congress. My bet is on the Demos. Also, the Demos did pretty well this last election -- HRC getting 3,000,000 more votes than Trump, and Congress not becoming out of reach for 2018. So if you look at it from the perspective of all elections in 2016, the Demos could have done a lot worse, and most significant, the Republicans should have done a lot better.


First off, the vote was on the budget bill. Second off, the bill was passed with compromise from both sides. How you make the sausage is always a greasy mess, and politics will never be rid of that. The thing I take from the very short shutdown is that both sides realized that it's their butts on the line, and letting Trump's 180 degree turn kill their careers wasn't worth it.

The last honest POTUS we had was Carter. He only got in because of Nixon and then Ford, the guy who pardoned Nixon. Honest politicians usually don't get elected. But like the Trump election, stuff happens, and there you go. Now we are all stuck with a bad choice made by, not the people, but the Electoral College -- which is supposed to reflect the majority, but has failed to do so twice this century. Both Republicans. Both really bad POTUS's. This needs to be changed, IMO (not so humble ).


Trump calls the media fake news like how criminals call police pigs. If it were not for the fake news, he'd have no problems. If it were not for the pigs, he wouldn't have to go to jail.

But he does and he will, and there's nobody to blame but himself. You know, when all the chips finally fall. That is my opinion based on the downfall of Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and having known about Trump since the 1980s. The way his minions have been behaving adds certainty to my prognostication, but time will tell. I'm even more sure that we haven't seen the end of outrageous behavior from President Trump, since that is basically who he is -- a breathtakingly outrageous character who seemingly escaped from a bad novel.

Gray Seal
Hey net2007.



I appreciate that, my grammar often sucks, along with a few other things, but I try.

To address this first...

"Sociological developments. And what is the list of things this refers to?"

My view on what sociological developments entails is similar to yours it seems, things have gone downhill in more ways than one. Along with what you're saying, I also believe there's a strong racial element to the behaviors we're seeing. I don't believe America is as bad off as we were 100 years ago as some will let on but racial tensions do account for some of what's happening. Problems are happening for many groups, in regards to white conservatives, there's a decent chunk of individuals who think that racism is their problem, an inherent trait of those who look and think like that.

There are those who believe they can hold as much hatred as they want, be as hurtful to others as they want, and even be as violent as they want as long it's against those who they perceive as dangerous, racist, or even if they simply disagree with them in some cases. The problem with that is they're often getting it wrong, those traits can be subjective when people are basing it on skin color or an issue as broad as supporting a border wall. In modern America, I think all races get hit a little by this problem, but often a member of any given race will think their race has it the worst.

More broadly speaking beyond race, what are people to do when the truth is no longer held in high regard and so many people have normalized lies and smear tactics? It's rough because emotion now reigns supreme and in many cases, if a person feels something is wrong, then it's wrong. It's definitely confusing and difficult times in many respects but I think there's an underlying footnote to this as well. There's no poll (at least not that I know of) which tells us exactly how many people are contributing to a decline of our society and if there was such a poll I'd question its validity. Afterall, most people taking a poll like that wouldn't come out and say "yep, that's me, I love lying and hope to screw things up for everybody" Domestic terrorist, or those in other extreme groups may say that but I've found that those who are destructive or disingenuous generally aren't upfront about it, in fact, some of them don't even know they're acting in such a fashion.

So we don't know exactly how many people are contributing to the divisiveness we're seeing but personally, I think it's far fewer people than the impression the news media would give us. I think there's a good chance that over half of the American public still has a brain and will be at least reasonably fair to others, that being largely based on a contrast I see in my personal life between what's shown on the News and people I've known, I've known a good chunk of rotten people but there is a difference. The news media, to a large degree, focuses on the most sensational cases and it's also true that many of those who are causing problems, whether they be in our government, in the news media, or hollywood, etc. etc., those types have a louder megaphone than your average joe, they can get the message out in ways others can't.

What's holding this country together right now are those who are going largely unnoticed, the farmers, mothers who are more concerned about something like their kids grades than what politicians are doing, firefighters, etc etc. Even our scientist, who are working to advance our society, stay largely in the background most of the time. If history is any indicator, I think we'll pull through, we got through the 60's after all.

I'm a big space science nut so I may be biased on this but I think the cooperation we showed when going to the Moon has at least something to do with racial and political tensions subsiding from the 70's to the 90's. There were lots of other factors of course but that event was something that helped JFK to have one of the best approval ratings of any president, he got a lot of support from the Republicans. The controversy surrounding Nixon didn't help, but for all Americans to witness what we could achieve when working together, I believe that helped by the end of it. We may just need something new and substantial that can excite both sides, it doesn't necessarily have to be in relation to exploring space, but anything that helps ease tensions.

Though I feel government has its place, I agree with you that another aspect of this would be an unhealthy degree of fixation on government, and what it can offer. It may not be a coincidence that things have gotten more divisive as government has expanded and that would also be true of an expanding media, people often put more emphasis on the things they're trying to push, rather than thinking for themselves. Take a look at this short video, it'll explain it better than I can.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMYCnI5kz0&t=67s

That's in relation to Hollywood but it applies to the news media as well. I think we'll get through this though, I hope that won't depend on a collapse of the system as you're suggesting, thinking that we'll solve these problems without a calamity helps ease my mind some. Unfortunately you may be right though.

_____________________

AuthorMusician


Yea, I think he's wrong on the three million illegals voting for him and those are the kinds of comments I'm talking about which steer people away from him. People should know their arguments and have something to go on, especially when that something is being stated as fact rather than opinion. I would add though that the Republicans are understandably concerned with the legalization of illegals. Whether or not we're to agree that it's fair to do so with the dreamers, (I think it's fine as long as Republicans get something they want like the border wall), legalizing them will indeed change the electorate in the short term and help the Democrats. Though some are certainly genuinely concerned about the Dreamers, I think that's the goal for some Democrats, many people simply want new voters. With what Trump said, I'm sure some illegals manage to vote but legalization is what will make a measurable impact.

On Trump losing the popular vote, while that's true and can be phrased that way in a general sense, it could also be phrased that Trump won the popular vote in the majority of states and in the vast majority of counties. Our founding fathers didn't want highly populated, (but often isolated areas), to have control over other communities. That's especially applicable now since those communities outnumber cities by a factor of at least 7 to 1. Highly populated states still have more influence (as I think they should), the EC is a compromise so that those kinds of states cant go as far as to dominate the country with their politics which are often fixed. The Electoral College is complicated, as you hinted at in your thread on it, but I think it has its place.

_____________






_______________

This will be pretty critical, but in your case, these criticisms are in relation to some of what you believe on this issue, rather than the belief holder.

To address these quotes together I wouldn't doubt that there are some who want to find out about corruption in the Muller probe or corruption with Hillary simply because it's a good defense of, or distraction from Trump, as some on the left are also trying to distract away from the Muller probe or Hillary by pushing false information on Trump like the dossier the Hillary Campaign and DNC paid for which contained Russian propaganda. However, I think the investigations on both sides should continue, but based on facts and a desire to find truth.

I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum on this issue. If I'm understanding you right we both agree that we'll have to wait and see on these investigations, but from what I've seen the evidence shows that Hillary and the Muller probe both have more dirt on them than Trump does in regards to Russia and these investigations. To be specific, on the Democrats side the dirt is on how they're investigating Trump and trying to tie him to Russia, but with Hillary, there are also a range of other scandals, some of which have come back with some pretty damning information already. Some of it still needs to be tied together in the current investigation of her, but many things are known.

Some of it's extremely slimy and disingenuous revelations that have already been verified, with some of it pointing to potential criminal acts, (I'm being modest and conservative when I say potential criminal acts). Between the emails, the dossier containing lies, the Uranium One scandal, the rigging of the primaries which even has Elizabeth Warren, Dona Brazile, Lincoln Chafee, and other prominent Democrats saying that what she did was wrong, and this latest scandal that broke a couple days ago about her going against advice to fire an abuser of women, there's just so much material which reveals that she wasn't the candidate the Democrats needed.

As far as investigations go, honestly I could see the Democrats having better luck focusing on something like a Trump sexual harassment charge than anything else, they'd still have a way to go to prove the witnesses are credible, (some of them were paid to come out against Trump), and I think that's a huge part of the problem come to think of it. There are legitimate concerns surrounding things he's said and things others have said about him but on a number of issues, there are those who want him out of office so badly that they're trying to force it, and many of them are incriminating themselves in the process.

That's one of the reasons I'm saying that I'm willing to bet that the Russia investigation isn't going to turn out the way they're hoping. On the side of the Republicans, the new information seems to be inching them closer in many cases. On the side of the Democrats, some of the reports on Trump were so erroneous that media pundits have gotten either fired or suspended, one erroneous report was so bad that it sent the stock market plummeting. I haven't seen those types of things happening with the Republicans, so I'm considering the magnitude of what's happening on the left on this topic. The media phrases things in the most incriminating way possible even though a lot the stories are turning out to be small and insignificant things that they're hyping up.

One of the more important things they've successfully made stick was the fact Michael Flynn made false statement To FBI.



http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington...-htmlstory.html

That's not good but I'm not sure what that has to do with demonstrating Trump colluded with Russia, the charge they got him on was the act of lying to the FBI rather than Flynn helping Trump to do something illegal. That story wasn't as condemning for Trump as some networks let on, if it were they wouldn't have had to exaggerate things by saying Trump ordered Flynn to make contact with the Russians during the campaign, (which was the story that caused the stock market to plummet), also if they had found something definitive on Trump which proves their case, I would have little doubt that they would have released that information before Trump and the Republicans managed to pass tax reform because optics like that could have ruined their chances. Again, there are those who simply want to cause damage to Trump and Republicans. There's at least some credible evidence which points to the Muller investigation getting triggered, in part, by the Dossier which was largely discredited.

Based on what I know, the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia is in all likelihood a false narrative. I think the best chance the Muller team has is to get Trump the way that they got Flynn, especially if Trump does testify under oath. Trump speaks in haste and has lied on many occasions to look better. In other words, it's often about optics with him, he doesn't like criticism whether or not the charges are true or false and that's the best thing Muller has in his favor. However, if that's how this goes down, and Trump gets in serious trouble for lying on something that doesn't prove Russia collusion and the Muller team cant prove it after all of this time and all of these witnesses, the Democrats would have successfully taken Trump down with a false narrative based on lies and fueled by a determination to get him impeached and that puts a lot of the wrongdoing on the side of the Democrats as well.

In regards to Hillary, my stance is that there should be equal justice under the law. Michael Flynn was already fired and had little influence when he was charged with lying to the FBI. I realize that Hillary isn't president and has no power but I think that's largely irrelevant. She should be held to the same standard as most people are when they break the law or lie. With all of that said we will have to wait and see on a lot of this, as you're hinting at. It's crunch time right now and if Muller is about to get Trump to testify, something is going to give soon. I don't think the fact that Muller wanting to do that now is surprising, his investigation has an incredible amount of heat on it right now. Personally, I think he's worried about the memo that's likely to be released within a couple of weeks.

We come from different viewpoints on a lot of this but for what it's worth I think you've been a valuable contributor at AD, many of your topics aren't on divisive issues at all and get people who don't agree on much to communicate in a civil way, I can respect that.
_______________


___________

To further explain, the bill that we're both referencing meant the difference between an open government and a government shutdown. I don't know how to get around what actually happened with the votes AM. The old bill failed because only 10.2% of Democrats voted for it while 92.1% of Republicans voted for it. The Republicans needed much more in the way of help from the Democrats to prevent this. In the newer bill, which allowed the government to reopen, there was more bipartisan support but there was still a significant difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Only 2 Republicans didn't vote for this bill while 15 Democrats plus Bernie Sanders didn't vote for it...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/201...m=.0e306fc21f9d

To me, the way that all of this went down reveals the Democrats were more responsible because the Democrats literally voted in a way that caused the shutdown. That's concrete, measurable, and doesn't rely on speculation from Liberal or Conservative media pundits, many of whom have a motive to make one side or the other look innocent on this. This even tightened the favorability polling between the Republicans and Democrats, so this is something the Dems felt the effects of in a short amount of time. I'd go as far as to say the Republicans were more responsible for the last shutdown, I don't want to make out like the Dems never get it right but this one was different.

To the credit of Trump and the Republicans on this, they're offering the Democrats something that's valuable to them, a DACA fix and potentially citizenship for over 2 million Dreamers. Either one of those things is huge so I think Schumer and the Democrats need to step up to the plate and offer something real on their end. Democrats have been treating this like we have a Democrat in the White House, but they're not going to get exactly what they want without compromise. I hope they all work it out, maybe this is something that can show that the two sides can work together on something big.
______________


_________

I readily agree with you that we haven't seen the end of the outrageous behavior from Trump, and I don't doubt you have knowledge of history, but I feel you're going to be disappointed on this one. Of course, I could always be wrong on this too, I'm not a brother to Trump or a senior member of his staff, but I trust my sources and instincts. To break down my confidence on this I'd say I'm in the 90% range that the investigation won't show Trump colluded with Russia, or result in him getting impeached or charged with a crime. The doubt I do have is mostly due to the fact that I think Trump could potentially lie under oath for optics. In other words, he could say something like "You think I colluded with Russia?!?!, I never even speak to Russians!!!" We all know he doesn't always speak candidly but if he does that under oath he's screwed whether or not he's guilty of collusion.

There's also an outside chance that they found something unrelated to Russia collusion but as far as collusion itself goes, I don't expect anything other than the types of things they've found already, (story's that don't result in proof of collusion). There's been too many false alarms and too little bipartisan agreement on it which tells me it's a politically motivated argument for some. Apart from the claim usually being made by the political left, the political motivation becomes more clear with the Steele Dossier given it was paid for by the DNC and Hillary campaign and had wild unsubstantiated claims which try to tie Trump to Russia. Ultimately time will tell but I think considering the possibility of 4 to 8 years of Trump would be smart for those who are left of center or simply don't like Trump.

_________________

Just to give a heads up, part of my new reply was accidentally put within prior quotes so it may not have been noticed. The part that was in quotes that may have been missed starts like this..... "This will be pretty critical" Holding the Ctrl key down then pressing F will bring up a search bar for this web page. If you have trouble finding that line try searching it.

When I visited Sweden (2011) and asked the question: "What is the best thing about Sweden and the worst thing about Sweden?" A common reply for the worst thing was: "We are becoming racist." From my perspective it was native Swedes who were upset with immigrants who were coming to the country to take advantage of the generous social system but having never contributed to it. I told it may appear to be racist but they will have the same problem if Swedes began abusing the system, which would eventually happen. "The problem is the system, ripe to be plundered, not race", I told them.

I say to you, "It is not race which is causing our problems. It is the system."

Of course there are people who are prejudiced based upon race. There are people who favor all sorts of things. Some people discriminate based upon religion. There is freedom to associate.

Prejudice would be a problem if there was use of government force to discriminate. I do not see evidence that racial prejudice is being forced upon anyone via government. I see people of all races excelling in many fields.

Unfortunately, government force is being used where it should not. I do not see a pattern that this is racial. Government force is out of control in many aspects. I can think of Ruby Ridge or Waco or the Bundy Ranch or killing of Levoy Finicum. I know locally county police shot and killed a white guy in this backyard when he came out after midnight armed to find out who was in his yard at night. The Michael Brown case in St Louis was about excessive force and poor training/policy. Race was used to diverge the public from the real problem. If it was just white government abusing black citizens there would be a point. It clearly is not.

People generally do the right thing. I give credit to those who live rurally. They tend to be more self sufficient and responsible. Even responsible people are not responsible when they vote. Whether from the city, urban, or countryside the tendency is to vote for advantage and more government force.

When your quality of life depends directly upon who is elected, conflict is going to generated. There will be losers. Losers will be angry. The work ethic will carry the country so far. The work ethic can be overwhelmed. Government's current role as decider of who gets to take from whom is no good. The government's role of giving advantage is no good. The bad is getting thicker. Even those who are driven by a strong work ethic can and will say, "Enough already!"

There is a path of solving this obvious problem peacefully. That would be my choice. However, there is insufficient knowledge in the general population to identify, understand, and correct the problem. Mayhew will not be the means to correcting the problem but a continuation of the problem when the general population is ignorant.

On the hopeful side, we do have greatly improved technology for spreading and learning the knowledge of the world our scientists have gleaned. The internet is fabulous. The internet is a cheap way to disseminate information and to find information. Against a knowledge based solution is our public schools and political parties. Will science or ignorance win? We shall know in our lifetimes.

I appreciate and sympathise with your optimism, but I fear that ignorance has already won, and not least because of the internet.

Let me explain.

Back in the days when books contained knowledge, it was easy to know (or think you know) if you were ignorant - you couldn't read, or you didn't spend much of your time reading. People who did may have been objects of scorn sometimes ('bookworm' wasn't usually applied as a compliment) but, as a generality, there was a societal respect for people who'd put in the time and effort to garner expertise in a subject. Of course that wasn't only true of book learning, and people/society accorded even more respect to people who had learned from experience than those that learned only from study, and even more respect to those that had done both.

Now, pretty much all the knowledge in the world is contained within the internet. If you know where to look, and how to use it, you can find out as much about a subject from your own armchair in a matter of weeks as someone visiting the biggest academic libraries could find out in a matter of months or years.

BUT, there are no editors, no publishers and no librarians on the internet. Well, there are, but they (Google, Facebook and the others) are generally being paid by content providers and advertisers to expose their content to us, the audience. We aren't paying to use it like we might pay subs to a private library, or funding it through taxes like we would to fund a public one. We are the product, being presented to the paying customers. We are not the customers ourselves. Google et al present us with what they think we might like (with startling accuracy, perhaps), but it's like being in a library where the librarian only ever lets you look at books about one subject, or by one author or publisher and physically hides all the other books. You don't even know they exist.

And, anybody can post anything, often just as easily as they can read it. The opinions of lay people have been elevated to the same level as those of recognised experts to the point where few people really can recognise genuine expertise any more.

The net result of this is that everyone (me included) thinks they are highly informed on any given subject, because they've read about it on the web, or seen a YouTube video, or discussed it in a closed Facebook group.

I don't believe for a second this was the intended effect, but one corollary of the way the internet has come to work is that we are no longer exposed to the reality of our own ignorance. We think we know. We think we know as much as that expert we see/hear/read about (who is a genuine expert). We think the guy with a contrary opinion that our preferred news source has used as a counter to the genuine expert is also a genuine expert. Indeed, he must be a better expert because his opinion confirms ours, rather than contradicts it. (Think about the whole debate on anthropogenic global warming, from whatever side of the fence you sit, and tell me this doesn't happen.)

I think this is a HUGE part of the whole subject of this thread - the way the internet has come to work has entrenched divisions in many areas of politics and debate, rather than minimised or removed them. Instead of engaging across the aisle with actual ideas and propositions, debating them, and arriving at solutions based on compromise, we engage in debate with our own 'side' and hurl insults and contempt at the others, ideas that used to seem extreme become normalised, both sides drift further apart and "reaching across the aisle" requires longer and longer arms. To wit, "Liberals are soft-hearted simpletons and just want to spend other people's money to fix problems rather than expending any effort helping themselves." "Conservatives are lower than vermin* and their ideas must never be considered, much less treated seriously."

Now, the internet is a human phenomenon and, being that, the only certainty about it is that it will change. But, will we look back on it from our future selves and think "man, how did we ever think THAT was a good idea?" or "man, I really miss the way this used to work"?

One way or the other, we are going to find out...

*British Labour politician Aneurin Bevan said that in the 1950s, so the internet hasn't introduced concepts that never existed before, just amplified such extremes to make them seem more mainstream.

Gray Seal, just a heads up that I'll be able to write again in a couple days, I wanted to follow up on what you wrote. I'm currently preparing for a Superbowl party here tomorrow, a welcome break from Lizzy and I running around like crazy trying to get things done.

Julian, bad information did not start with the internet. We have always had to sift through information and figure out what makes sense. We have had to do this with books (information written on paper) for a long time. We have learned to do this.

Having a middleman (editor, publicist, agent, publisher) between us and authors has not been a benefit, in my mind. There are many factors which determine our access to information via middlemen and determination of value is not an exclusive factor. There is also the problem that middlemen have their own prejudice and they are not by definition the best and picking what we need to know.

With the internet, much more information is possible to acquire. It is can be overwhelming. In addition to the skill of figuring out what is worthy to read we also can pick our own advisors as to what we should try.

The abundance of material and the reduced cost can be nothing but a good thing. The internet has not solved the problem of bad information. But the internet is not the originator of bad information, either. We can use our own judgement as to what to read, like we have with paper information. The chance to get valuable information is much greater. Being informed is never a bad thing.

Hubris has not been invented by the internet. Life tends to sort out such misgivings whether there is an internet or not. People can think they know everything and have the best opinions. Luckily we do not have any of that sort here on .

Information and our ideas are worth sharing. We can not go too far in this regard.

Julian, I find your ideas to be interesting. I can never quite predict what you will say on a position. You and I can wholeheartedly agree on a notion and then diverge away on the next. Having a middleman between us would not benefit the exchange, as far as I am concerned. Trying to figure out your train of thought makes it interesting. You are part of the internet and the extra new cheap information!

I believe I understand and there's a lot which supports that line of reasoning. It is certainly race-based prejudices which drive some of our problems, I'll second that and the idea that there's more to it. The history of slavery is revealing as well, in the sense that nations or regions with power and influence often had slaves, dating back long before the African Slave Trade in fact. There's speculation that the Egyptians had slaves, but the earliest verified accounts of slavery that I could find took place in some of the first civilizations we have better records of like Mesopotamia, which was a region that today corresponds to Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey.

So whether or not Egypt had slaves, as far as we know the Middle East was the first region to have slavery and at that time they were at the cutting edge in a number of ways. They formed the first cities (as we know them today), invented the wheel, and were close to being the first in communicating with written language. Mesopotamia was advanced enough to be referred to as the "cradle of civilization", so it's another example of a powerful region which had slaves. From what I've read many other civilizations had slaves throughout history but larger concentrations of them were in advanced or dominate cultures. This shows the connection between having power and influence but using that to do things that shouldn't be done. Today slavery trends have changed where the U.S. and other highly developed nations have done away with it so there are some promising signs as well, thankfully.

Continued below...



I hear you, though I believe government and stronger regions and nations can be a force for good, I'm understanding more on the abuses of government and the excessive worship of it with each passing year. I believe moderation to be one of my core principals, most things done in excess can be a bad thing, to my surprise you can even be poisoned and die from drinking too much water. In regards to the government, there are certainly reasons for the frustration on both sides. Most recently I've been looking a lot into abuses within the FBI, DOJ, and Hillary campaign and what's happening now substantiates your position a great deal.

To recap how messy this has gotten, the Nunes Memo that was released by Republicans a few days ago likely accelerated the process of exposing more corruption, there's already been a second Republican memo which helps substantiate the first one, it was released yesterday. It's probable now that a new special counsel will be initiated to investigate the FBI and DOJ. The Democrats think the memo was nonsense, the Republicans often think it's groundbreaking. I think it's concerning at minimum, the information in it is a continuation of other things we've learned about how they spied on Trump and how they're going about investigating him.

The Democrats are suggesting this memo is misleading but with what we've already learned I don't find any of it hard to believe, the abuses of power become more clear every day. One of the primary arguments is that the Russia investigation was triggered by the Hillary Campaign and DNC paying Christopher Steele who then composed a dossier which contained wild and unsubstantiated claims (propaganda which was Russian sourced). The Republican memo which was released said...



That's easy to believe given the nature of the dossier and its ties to the Hillary Campaign. After she was caught Hillary said the Steele Dossier was "opposition research". If her idea of research is looking for dirt, not being happy with what she finds, then deciding to present a document containing wild claims that they can't prove, then I suppose she could call that research. To me, it stops being research the moment a person makes up a story they can't prove.

The history of the Clintons is part of a long list of reasons why I think there was no Trump and Russian collusion, there is so much in the way of scandals and lies with the Clintons, so if what was stated here in the Republican memo is true....



Then it's only a matter of time before the Russia/Trump collusion narrative falls apart, they're taking a massive credibility hit right now.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-53...l#ixzz56LozpeJ2

I believe both parties have serious problems, Republicans in the Senate are not always for small government nor are they always productive, yet I find myself siding with Republicans and conservatives more because I feel I'm slightly more likely to find truth with them, and this falls under "sociological developments" as well. There's not a huge difference between the Democrats and Republicans and it depends on the issue but, as an example of a difference between the two, take what's happened with the Republican and Democratic memos so far.

The Democrats were screaming bloody murder over releasing the Nunes Memo, they suggested the Republicans would reveal sources and methods, and it would be a grave risk to our national security. Despite that, we now know that no sources and methods were in the memo, so this comes off as if many Democrats simply didn't want the information out there. As crazy and ironic as this is, the counter memo that the Democrats have been working on DOES contain sources and methods, it's one of the reasons it was delayed.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/06...ve-details.html

It's not just Fox News saying that. The following article was against the release of the Republican memo yet it says something similar....



https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/...o/#1d7247d455c4

By the time the Democratic memo comes out, I'm sure the sensitive information will be removed but this goes back to the issue of projection, the Democrats were doing something wrong and with a knee-jerk reaction accused others of doing what they were. This causes those who aren't paying attention to go right along with their argument, if the argument is about a group or person someone doesn't like, it's easier for them to go along with that argument without challenging it.

The Republicans also seemed more supportive of releasing the Democrats memo than vice versa. With some exceptions, from the Republicans, I keep hearing the argument of (let's get all of the information out there), rather than them making a concentrated effort to stop the release of it. That comes off as if the Democrats are scared of what's being revealed and they have reason to be.

To wrap up the Russia topic with one last point, when I turn on a left leaning network or listen to a Democrat in office they keep making the claim that Republicans are attacking the FBI, yet when I flip over to a conservative network or listen to a Republican in office they're actually continuously making the claim that rank and file members of the FBI are not part of the problem and that it's simply a few of the higher level members of the bureau who are either corrupt or politizising things and anybody who has read the things that people like Lisa Page and Peter Strzok have said, darn well knows that's the truth. So Democrats have simply rephrased the arguments that Republicans were making on the FBI. I mention a contrast between the Republicans and Democrats because the Dems happen to support a larger and more restrictive government than the Republicans do, so It's fair to ask if the problems the Democrats face are linked to that.

The government certainly isn't alone in demonstrating or fueling the types of problems we're addressing. The media is complaisant and even drives some of this, I think any organization with power is at risk of being corrupted by that power. To the credit of leftist, corporations aren't free from this problem either, though I don't think they're disproportionally corrupt by comparison to the government.

Our government has more power and faces fewer consequences if a policy fails while the consequences corporations or particularly small businesses face from a failed product or idea is often severe and felt immediately. Blue Bell Creameries couldn't count on not being at risk until an election rolled around when their ice cream was infected with Listeriosis which got people killed. The company almost went out of business, they lost millions because they had to stop production and shut down plants. When the government shuts down they still get paid so I think they have more leeway to abuse the power they have. "With great power comes great responsibility", and we are desperate for more of the latter.

With what I'm explaining on the divisive nature of politics, the lying, and problems within our government, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir but in my lifetime I've never seen it quite like this. I think things will get better one way or another but if we don't see a change soon millions of peoples hair will fall out from stress. The makers of Rogaine will love this but beyond that, I don't see the upside.

1. Do you believe the left has an issue with hypocrisy and projection, if so can you give an example of either?

I would say hypocrisy and projection has infected all corners of the debate. In the last year however, the most glaring examples would come from the FISA memos which were handled from the DNC and the FBI.

2. Hypocrisy is an argument that the right makes often but do you believe that Conservatives have
this problem to the same degree? (give examples if you wish)

Yes I can agree with that. Examples at bottom.

3. Can you name some things which would help both sides to come together?

Yes, recognize what a wedge issue is and stop getting worked up over them. I am calling this a class issue because sex, race, and nationalism are all up on the carving block to an arguement that that does not argue. The problems at hand are brought on by those who will not argue but will pressure legislating bodies to pass ever more erroneous laws. I'll call this entity Postmodernism. The problem is if society is genuinely coming apart, there will be a point where one should just let whatever happen, happen. Thus, reading The Five Stages of Collapse written by a Russian expat who saw the wall fall in Germany and drew parallels might be of significance to the conversation.

4. Do you have hope that we will heal some of this division or is our future grim?

For new growth to occur the big redwood of today's constitution must come tumbling down to allow whatever comes next to take hold. Trying to stop things now just makes you a target.

Bonus Question...

5. With so much condemning information coming out and resurfacing on the Clintons, is it fair to say
they're no longer viable in politics and could either of them be facing criminal charges?

The criminal charges would only work on the premise of a working justice system. I'd say the war on terror broke the justice system into tiers. What is a instructive Net is how many James Comeys and McCabes are going to bat for the Clinton's and then coming up empty. It will take much of 2018 to reveal that the Clintons were the tip of the spear of a rather nasty slander campaign. Ergo, going after the Clintons will involve going after the various institutions which broke their objectivity promises and held bias during the last election. The option left to people at the end of the day is either form another Church commission to root out who did what and accept the loss of face by institutions or put a fork in the constitution. I would argue the latter, because this is in for a penny, in for a pound sort of deal. Any investigation would involve Brennan's involvement at the CIA, Comey's involvement at the FBI, Clapper's involvement at the DNI, and most likely the NSA which chose not to resolve the authenticity of the claims made against Trump. This means for closure to happen we have to have an investigation of immense scope.

I've often considered the Clintons and the Bushes to be two sides of the same coin which embraces interventionism abroad while cutting programs at home as unemployment burns a hole in the midlands. For all his problems I think the current President is a different animal.

Initially, I called myself a Liberal, but in a Canadian sense which is a centrist. Then in 2012, there came extreme left leaning groups like Antifa which were initiating counter groups like the Alt Right four or so years later. The point is Net you don't plant corn when there is snow on the ground. The time for centrism and participatory democracy went the way of the dodo sometime during Obama's second term. Anyone who still thinks centrism still is possible in this political climate is either being disingenuous or an idiot.

I respect Americans because of their frankness but also because they are exposed to many forces while allied countries like to pretend certain problems either do not exist or exist only in America. When we attempt to define the problem we find corruption by financial means. The problem is worldwide and addressing this will alter GDP and immigration. If you are a growth proponent we can argue from many directions that challenges are on the horizon.



Julian, I can agree with your premise in so far as the internet is a disruptive technology. However, I'm not the first person to realize the information contained within is often at a superficial level. True, the contents are broad but the important stuff is always set up behind a paywall. I think the real learning is allowing yourself to be exposed to new ideas and allow the tidal waters to pull you in a particular direction. Follow up afterwards with hard copy on any given subject. If we step back we will see just as the printing press brought about a reformation of sorts with the Protestants who wanted both the freedom and the right to interpret the bible on their own terms, we are now seeing self organizing groups come together for all manner of subjects. The large media are playing the role of the church. If losing corporate filters costs us of accuracy and objectivity. then the structure of what is reporting has to change. The emphasis as you might have guessed now falls on us to figure what is true or not.

And, anybody can post anything, often just as easily as they can read it. The opinions of lay people have been elevated to the same level as those of recognised experts to the point where few people really can recognise genuine expertise any more.


They sure can but qualitative differences usually give the small outlet a short lifespan. The large media outlets have increasingly the same problem because of budget cutbacks. Have you noticed participants on tv may have more window dressing but rarely bring any more professionalism anymore? There are no Walter Cronkites. Authentic people talking honestly about a subject because they are concerned have retired. They are sitting grimly watching on with a bottle of scotch in their hand.

The search for authenticity I think is what first drove people onto Youtube and what is now driving people off of Youtube. This element more than any other drove up my time searching because opinion pieces replaced actual reporting. People on some level get this and I'd wager contribute to the tuning out process. The individual opinion and the professional outlet are merging in terms of quality and until we are able to improve upon this, we are in an informational wasteland.

Here is the thing, people sense a decline in media. For those who are still aware enough not to derive their news from social media, the sniffing skills of Joe Q public are improving. I'll use ProporNot as the example of a hit piece by corporate media against alternative media which failed in its objective. The whole concept of fake news relies on large media becoming irritated that people are not accepting their product anymore and have launched a war on people who do not agree with them.

It will take decades to judge the efficacy of such self organizing collectives. As with the printing press, I will call this the great reinterpretation. Shaky at first but necessary for a more engaged citizenry.

In particular, I'll highlight this:

The net result of this is that everyone (me included) thinks they are highly informed on any given subject, because they've read about it on the web, or seen a YouTube video, or discussed it in a closed Facebook group.

That is only true if you are prone to narcissism. If there is a shred of humility in the individual, you will see echo chambers for what they are and act accordingly. For those who just post anything for any reason whatsoever, they will find eventually have to support their arguements or just step off the platform. Upon further deliberation, I guess I could be guilty of repeating what I've heard as well, but in a sense of furthering the conversation for conversation's sake rather than trying to dominate a given discussion. I guess it depends on ones' motives?

Is there a whole generation of young people affected by social media and becoming depressed when someone somewhere says something bad about them? I don't know. But I would definitely classify their interactions as part of the greater psychological response which is affecting politics. There is a weird correlation between the young doing this weird form of virtue signaling and our political parties. Both can no longer handle debate. Both are searching for echo chambers. Both are degrading the climate of debate by forcing outside ideas into the extreme category. There comes a point when we have to live with offensive ideas. I don't care which idea we tap into, the climate which allowed us to make arguements of our own is waning which means everyone here are dinosaurs. We usually look to the young as driving force for change. But what if the change they call for is mostly unconstructive, dangerous and stupid? Then the notion of compromise is a fools game. Isn't that the very definition of a predicament?

The hostility in the air you've described I would argue was intentional and being orchestrated by governing bodies everywhere, especially in Britain. The poisoning of the well moves all future challenges to a fragile governing structure into the hate category and therefore not part of the debate. It is a self preservation tactic and nothing more. My concern is there is so much distortion in the media that it is allowing preposterous positions to be taken by the administration. All administrations. In a climate where everyone lies, no one cares so therefore there is no penalty in escalating the lie. That is the downward spiral affecting the psyche we now face.

When finding news becomes this hard there is most likely a reason and my bet is power. Maybe we'll look back and call it propanada or maybe we'll have a different word for it, I don't know. What I do know is that it is really easy to be angry at the wrong things instead of issues that appeal to you.

I am glad you brought this up. There is the constant plan to keep voters looking at Democrats and Republicans and no one else. There is the faux hostility and banter to maintain the illusion that there are opposites. It is intentional and orchestrated.

Further, there is a concerted effort to paint the "opposition" as bad which must mean the other party is good. Terrible logic but many fall for it.

Which is part of the problem - it's quite difficult to get at ALL the information behind paywalls, not least because few have got enough time and money to pay for ALL the different paywalls they'd need to access to get a fuller picture. And most of the junk information is free to access (along with some of the good stuff).

There is a possible technical solution - I came across a thing called Agate One the other day that allows you pay-per-view access to a pay-walled site. If other paywall sites signed up too, you'd only need to pay Agate to top up your page view count, then dip into otherwise pay-walled content.




True, but we are where we are now, and the people who can't be bother or just can't see the walls of their bubble (who haven't taken the red pill?) also have votes and pay taxes. Rather than just accept that - or, most pertinently to this thread, make the partisan assumption that our side of a debate are clear-eyed guardians of the truth while the other side are, at best, victims of being trapped in their bubble and without the wit to see it, or worse, stupid, ignorant, cruel, etc. - we need to shout about it and try to get more of the good stuff in the open for everyone to make up their own minds.



I don't disagree with your point, but that void is being filled by Twitter and deskbound press-released re-worders who increasingly cobble together news stories based on their social media feed.



Agreed.



Really? I thought it had really captured the public's imagination when a presidential candidate in a US election a couple of years back described every single piece of news coverage that did not shower him with totally unqualified praise as 'Fake News' and has continued to do so in office, to the point where he has given exactly one face-to-face interview in his first year with a foreign press correspondent. And that was Piers Morgan, a man with an ego as large and a skin as thin as Trump.



Yes, maybe one day we might get to a better place. But what do we do in the meantime, while Presidents and potentates start wars via social media and refuse to talk to (or imprison, torture and murder) journalists?



Again, you or I know we are well-informed individuals with thoughtful opinions. But we don't know what we don't know, so we might be blowing smoke without even realising it. The loud idiots who have half-baked ideas don't think of themselves as that, remember. And the business model of the big internet companies is to not let us see how the information they let us see has been filtered. Because we're human, and if we know something is being hidden from us, we will fight to find out about it. But if we never know it is hidden, we will never know it is there at all. Back to The Matrix again - if we don't want 'Google' and 'Facebook' to end up being 'The Machines', we have to fight to keep and get information completely in the public domain and have some kind of neutral arbiter of salience. More neutral than any commercial or state entity has been historically, so I have no clue what the answer is, but it needs to be much more neutral than anything around today.


Yes, there is. I read it on the internet


Agreed 100%. I've always thought that 'No Platforming' from either side, be it Fox News refusing to give a non-hostile hearing to a left-wing view or leftie students 'refusing to invite' someone slightly to the right of Karl Marx to speak on campus in a debate where they have a pertinent expertise is going in the wrong direction.

The only effective measure of whether true freedom of speech exists in our society is that we are confronted by opinions and speech we find offensive, outrageous, or plain wrong.



Oh yes. Our press is poisonous and has been for decades, and our institutions have been "media trained" - IOW, have learned how to ignore any questions and just parrot the agreed line - to match, which has just amplified the frustrations of the people with the governing body which we the impetus for press poison in the first place.



Yup. Scientists often get things wrong, but the urge of journalists to invite two opposing views to generate a 'debate' on every news item is actively dangerous when 98% of the evidence repeatably and demonstrably supports one side, and 98% of the other side's evidence isn't actually evidence at all, but just a critique of the majority view, all to protect the vested interests (who usually fund the scientists who oppose the majority view) of those who stand to lose money if the majority view wins out and is accepted as government policy. (AGW). Or because the proponent is a junk scientist who wants to sell a book (vaccinations). And all that happens because journalists, even science journalists, rarely have any science training at all, they just know that a good controversy gets ratings, readers, clicks etc. Kids are dying of preventable disease around the world because one British doctor faked a study about the MMR vaccine, linked it to the fashionable and newsworthy (and only recently taken seriously, at the time) story of the autism spectrum disorders, for which he had no reliable evidence, and millions of parents who were already suspicious of 'The Man' /'Gubmint' laid down the lives of their children based on Fake News.

This is too serious a matter to just shrug and say "well, they should be better at using more than one search engine" or "they should get behind the paywall". Kids died, and still are dying, because people believe what other people tell them, if they trust that person enough. The same will be true of AGW, in my view - though (apparently) the science isn't settled, it's all happening naturally, it isn't happening at all, etc. **PLEASE NOTE*** don't reply to the substance of the AGW debate here - the point is that people can be gullible on all sides and the media - all of it, not just the bits we think of as "fake" or "mainstream" - will stoke controversy where there was consensus if they think it will fly.



Agreed again.

I have not found paywalls to be a barrier for getting information. If there has been a charge, I gladly pay if the information is important to me. I rarely pay anything to get information, good information, on the internet.

If a news source is found to be poor, quit using it. That is how the market can be cleansed of bad news.

I find more good information than I have time to read it. I would not have these good sources if not for the internet.

I have found even more information sources which I do not use as they are poor, to worthless, to propaganda. These are purged from list of places to learn what is going on.

Bad information should not control any of us. We should control them.

If you are trying to get enough information and the find right people to control the world you will fail. No one is capable of controlling the world. It can only be controlled by the involvement of everyone. There is no hidden information to get which will allow you to pick the right authoritarian leader to guide you properly.

We have more than sufficient information available to know the current body of politicians elected to office, whether state or federal, are bad. Even if there is hidden information which would prove it further there is not need for that information. Should we need to know someone is horrendous when we already know they are terrible?

-------

In regards to institutional approval, I put forth an example of Steve Patterson. He found institutional philosophy to be less than desirable for discovering truth so he is an independent philosopher. He uses the internet to find supporters and disseminate information. You can find him as: patterson in pursuit.

Just an example of the internet giving us broader exposure of ideas than we would otherwise have.

To address the parts in bold, I hope you're wrong on many of those points. I'm not saying that you are, some of the indicators for a collapse are there but what you're thinking will happen would likely lead to a lot of people getting hurt in one way or another. Believe me, I understand the concern and think that it should be taken seriously, just as with the potential for something like a nuclear war. We're outspending what we're generating with our economy, culturally and socially we're struggling because things are so divisive right now that many people who have different beliefs can't even communicate civilly, and politically the story is the same. Politicians often can't work together and some are more concerned about self-preservation than passing legislation that will benefit the country. All of that is true, but I'm seeing some contradictory information from my observations.

I believe some things started to take a turn for the worse even earlier than Obama's second term, the divisiveness that developed during the Iraq War in Bush's 2nd term is something I also look at. Putting aside whether or not the Iraq War was a mistake, those who disagreed began to head down the long and unfortunate road of viewing those who don't share their opinion as inferior, people who should be smeared, stopped, and never trusted. In regards to what you said, that got much worse under Obama without question. I think he exacerbated things 10 fold because he was too partisan and increased our nations focus on identity politics. It was 8 years of policies and special treatment for those who think or look like him, and 8 years of neglect for those who don't. He spoke about unity but it was unity for those who are more like him, so while charismatic, his rhetoric couldn't hide the one-sided nature of his administration, people were smart enough to figure it out.

What I'm hoping for is that this is a phase that we'll pull out of, there's some substantiation that backs that scenario as well if you look at historical trends within the U.S. rather than with fallen nations. The 60s were incredibly divisive, things were much like they are now but the tension died down from the 70's through the 90's so this could be another temporary period of divisiveness and decay. America, like every other nation, will indeed eventually collapse. Nothing lasts forever so whether it's caused by Americans, a foreign nation, or some terrible hit we take from a natural disaster like this,.....

http://fortune.com/2017/10/12/yellowstone-park-supervolcano/

one day we won't be able to hold it together. That time could be closer than I think but America has overcome rough periods before. What you brought up was an important mention, though personally I'm conflicted on whether we'll see a collapse within my lifetime or the lifetime of the next generation. I'm coming across too much contradictory information but I'd say to others to be smart and keep their eyes open regardless.

Gray Seal


I can agree with that, I think both parties suffer from the similar influences, make many of the same mistakes, they both have a lot of sexual misconduct charges against them, and both parties have a massive problem with not being able to work together.

I don't think the parties are opposite, or that either should be painted as bad but I do think there's a difference between the two parties due to some observations that, for me, are hard to get around. As examples, when I compare how the left is often protesting compared to something like the Tea Party, I see a difference in the level of hostility and violence. I also consider how house and senate politicians are voting, both sides love to spend money so they were finally able to pass a new budget (however flawed it was). but on many issues, they haven't worked together at all.

The distinction between the two parties comes in when you look at the votes directly because many of them are good at spin and misdirection. Democrats, are in many circumstances voting 100% against the Republicans and some Republicans weren't casting votes with the rest of the party. That could be viewed as the Republicans have trouble working or voting together, but it could also be viewed as Republicans being a bit more willing to consider the views that centrist or leftist hold. Some Republicans were suggesting that certain bills, such as the attempted Obamacare repeals, were too far to the right, some wanted considerations for centrist or Democrats.

Obamacare is a mess so the way John McCain voted on it's repeal was controversial but right or wrong he didn't vote to repeal it because he wanted the Democrats to have more of a say on new legislation. I struggle to find anybody who would be the John McCain equivalent for the Democrats when it comes to voting, Republicans didn't get a single vote for Obamacare repeal, tax reform, and they're getting little in the way of cooperation on immigration reform. On immigration supposed bipartisan bill proposals offered about 1.8 billion dollars, (10%), for an 18 billion dollar wall while expecting to get everything they want such as amnesty for the dreamers.

also, in all the bills I've seen where a "no" vote would result in a government shutdown, the Democrats voted no by a higher margin. In the case of the First shutdown, that one happened because only 5 out of 49 Democratic Senators voted to avoid a shutdown, with Republicans 47 out of 51 Senators voted to avoid one, with the temporary budget bill which allowed for the government to reopen we only saw 2 Republicans who didn't vote for that while 15 Democrats didn't vote for it, things were more bipartisan but there was still a decent contrast between the parties, and as far as the last bill, it was a bit more complicated. Rand Paul, who tends to resist both Republicans and Democrats was largely responsible for this shutdown because he delayed the Senate vote past midnight but even with this latest bill more Democrats would have been okay with a shutdown. When the bill went to the house, it passed despite 67 Republicans not voting for it and 119 Democrats not voting for it....

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h69

That shutdown ended fast with Trump signing the bill into law shortly after. Despite his counterproductive rhetoric, Trump has yet to cause any shutdown.

I'm not suggesting a yes vote is always a good thing, they could have come up with a better bill here but in regards to the budget, they have to keep things moving. Preferably by coming up with a reasonable bill or passing something temporary until a better deal is made, but if necessary by passing something that is as close to being ideal as both sides can agree to, and the Democrats have been less willing to do either. In fairness to the Democrats trends do change, Republicans resisted Obama in ways that weren't always fair and were most responsible for a shutdown in that administration. Republicans also had a resistance movement which went as far as to claim Obama wasn't an American citizen, but they didn't go as far as to spy on Obama and use the FBI to do a special investigation based on weak evidence and propaganda, Bush and the Republicans didn't trigger anything like whats happening now. Between the memos, the investigation into Trump, the massive protesting movements on the left, the media, etc. etc., I have trouble not separating the two parties but I think the problems the left face are the worst at the top, most Democrats or left-leaning independents I talk to don't go that far, though some of them do emulate what they see on the news.

Although I think there's a small difference between the two parties, on some issues they are behaving the same. Also, I feel your position comes from a good place, you're one of the least divisive member's AD has. As soon as I start talking about a difference that puts one party even slightly ahead of the other, I run the risk of isolating or discouraging those who are left-leaning or who vote Democrat. For what it's worth to those who agree more with the Democrats, nothing has to be permanent, I don't think either side is inherently worse or more divisive than the other. A hyperpartisan media which largely focuses on talking about conservatives in a negative way doesn't serve them well, colleges which indoctrinate their students with leftist ideologies, as they discourage or reject conservative ideas doesn't serve them well. I think a lot of these problems come from the top down on both sides so I'm hoping to see everyday Americans stand up against what's happening.

One thing is certain, we live in complicated times which challenge everybody in one way or another. In America we have so many people pulling in opposite directions, diversity is a good but very challenging situation we face.

That would describe weaponised information plain and simple. Whoever was responsible fake news was really on the ball. In an informational environment that we know is suspect, injecting fake news has the following effects. First it allows one to erect red tape for external outlets like RT and Sputnik. Secondly it allows one to put into action a vetting process which ultimately shakes out small, independent journalists. The last effect is that if large organizations can't compete on accuracy they can poison the pie so the audience shrinks by tuning out. Ruthless yes, but at some point even the lay person will care how low standards have fallen.

---




I understand why you would want to direct your attention either to or from a known source. My approach is somewhat more cautious in that most sources are not right most of the time. Somehow, somewhere mistakes get made and our "proven" sources become rah rah echo chambers where we no longer follow up to the degree we once did when encountering said writer for the first time.


--------





Net, all I will say is that if we can agree we are at a point of maximum divisiveness, we should observe who said what and when. It will matter when someone wants to propose XYZ program. However between now and then that requires significant amounts of energy, time, and internal reflection. This may sound odd but if you know the sky is blue there are certain situations where it makes more sense to watch the Chicken Littles of society than the truth tellers. Why? The serial fibbers usually have an agenda and the sooner you can tune into it the easier it will be to see and avoid it.

Might I also interject the notion that ongoing agendas may exceed anyone president and placing the blame at the feet of president may allow another to escape scrutiny? I have a theory that Obama was cornered in policy wise by GW Bush in the international arena. I agree he did nothing for the black community. Realistically, his stayed true to his donors by providing big bank bailouts when needed, fomenting petty violence into a race war, largely for distraction purposes, and allowed the sinking of single payer health care to a cartel of insurance interests. The guy was corporate interests all the way which in decades prior people would have labeled republican.




I had not heard of this before. I will follow up on this. Thank you.




You do realize how many have played the dissemination game and failed? I can easily see such an attempt becoming a double edged sword. Infowars at the conceptual level made sense and then it was driven by Alex Jones....the Breitbart platform came the closest to your intent of sharing the information and then the CEO died and Bannon made things very personal and partisan when he took over. While I didn't agree with all aspects of the Alt Right for pure practical purposes, I was blown away by the lectures of Andrew Joyce, Greg Johnston, and Kevin MacDonald at Counter Currents and then Charlottesville fiasco (because it became a hit job in the most literal sense) happened and just talking to said individuals made one a Nazi sympathizer. This is going to sound a tad cynical and defeatist but the aforementioned examples of being outspoken and erudite just puts you on someone else' radar. We live in a society Julian that penalizes accuracy and truth. It puts a target on your back. Hate laws are more about stifling facts and intimidation than stopping bigotry. I think Gray Seal is on to something by painting all opposition as bad because that moves us away from facts and into narratives. Then it is just a matter who has the largest bullhorn.



I'll disagree somewhat with your assessment. As egotistical as this President may be he had a lot of negative coverage coming in which was not justified. Seeing the coverage not stop upon attaining office, he had to rely on twitter as the only outlet for getting his view across. Haven't you wondered why the President talks like a pro wrestling heel? He wants negative memes to be taken up by the press to which he can then attack them on. Why? If you know you aren't going to get even handed coverage, find a way to build your credibility by deconstructing theirs. Even Pat Buchanon is on to this and this guy is way past the typical tech savvy age



It isn't the concept of resistance I am against. It is the pace and frequency of aggrievements which are requiring us to pick and choose our battles. And what you have described is an endless can of worms depending on where you sit at the table and who said it. Depending on which side of the table you end up on determines whether you take action or not. Or get angry or not, or emotional or not.

I guess my point is our countries ended up selling so many moral arguements we went from War on terror to Overseas Contingency Operations, to R2P bombing runs under UN auspices. Both parties are united in America when it comes to moral arguements and this perspective is seeping into every allied country because of shared profiteering. The West desperately needs to take a breather with regards to pontificating moral outrage.



Filtered information has always been a clear and present issue. The internet brings us complexity through ever more sources. How we compile and come to terms with that is up to us. We can't act on what we don't know until someone with a camera phone is in right place at the right time. Problem solved? Well not exactly. While the old rules of journalism are thrown out the window we encounter a new set of problems. So if we acknowledge the fallibility of the situation we at least can come to terms with the limits of an ad hoc approach to information gathering. Maybe the clearest way to describe our response would be to call it a growing pain to a disruptive technology? It really is the ad hoc element that is throwing the industry for a loop, or outgrowth of counter intelligence which poses as citizens journalists like the White Helmets. I think it is a little too easy to dismiss China's ban of technologies like FB and Twitter as authouritarian because we can't see what these effects are doing to ourselves. Our self righteousness strikes me as a profound lack of awareness akin to an alcoholic and the people around them. For all the backwardness we love to attribute to Communist regimes, they understood something we did not.

As for breaking the monopoly on search engines, I've seen plenty of videos of people complaining about just that. My impression is there are plenty of people who are aware but not in a position to act. I would go as far as 1 in 10 are aware of the problem and are supportive. I see the problem as less of a do something issue and more of a watch which countries go crazy by spitting out piece after piece of junk legislation. Following the standards of monopoly and planned omission we arrive at the allied countries...

Surprisingly I'd say Canada and Britain are ahead of America in the omission department. Germany is ground zero for civil war. Sweden is going to be fun to watch. My observation is the countries with the worst projection issues also have broad hate speech laws. The boiler is going to burst sometime. There is a silent danger of a build up of pressure. My actions are thus adjusted accordingly.

I think the best use of your proactive approach would be to see more spoofing videos along the Pewdie Pie vein challenging Mattis or Tillerson types who send out demands in a discombobulated fashion to which the whole world must obey.



Facetiousness aside, I would argue there are radical generation divisions hampering our response. We have the difficult position of setting fire in a rain storm of bad ideas.

I get the sense my approach is more cautious than yours because I am waiting for the social media frenzy to either die out or grow up with a set of rules that have transited to social norms. Given much of the worst media reporting right now usually involves some anonymous social media quip, to solve the media puzzle it becomes a social issue which is dependent on time. Either that or on the ground reporting which has mostly dried up due to shrinking budgets.




Under normal circumstances I'd agree that speaking up and maintaining the right for all to be heard is the way to go. But there comes a point when no one listens because they can't differentiate between fact and opinion, and opinion and news speak. To be honest with you I think we are nearing that point when no one cares to listen what we have to say. I do not have an answer for apathy. It pains me to watch university scream sessions that have no equivalent in prior eras. The current generation of Millennials have a substantial portion of people who do not care for what you are advocating.

The government has successfully polluted the waters to such a degree that they have entrapped a generation of people to wanting what they want. If we treat propaganda as a pollution problem we see full infiltration to the zooplankton level. Maye this gets back to your earlier point... If we can agree on a heavy saturation of ideas taking a broad sweeping action may be impossible to clean up. We are then left with two choices, either leave the affected area, or fight it with as best we can knowing we will be saturated.

In a polarized society when a time-out happens to be the best choice I'd rather that happen before a violent episode occurs rather than later. If a mass reorganizing of society is taking place we might have to let the waters recede before future dialog can take place.



The problem is the press can get dirty and reverse project the partisanship load back onto the hecklers who don't play ball. That is exactly how you get on the persona non grata list. If you question, you have must be a partisan. Las Vegas shooter anyone??? Then again, I also remember this is where the think tanks and lobbiests get into the picture because these people have careers which thrive on loaded questions. So does being removed from the debate actually facilitate further corruption of the system by removing a meaningful counterpoint? I remember our former Prime Minister was a master at this. You were either part of the echo chamber or you were part of the problem. I hate to say it, but we are well past Goebbels tactics nowadays.



Bad news and fake news both contribute into the greater thread of psychological projection. Can we agree that intransigence is a corruptive element in society where you can lie and not be held to account? The effectiveness of speaking out while obvious, may wax and wane with time. This is a ongoing problem for all countries but I'd put the Western countries in a special category of hooped. I would classify this as a technological problem, somewhat a financial problem, and somewhat a cultural problem. Some countries may fair better than others and I suspect they won't be as Western as we'd like.

Trouble



Fair enough on both points.

With what you said on paying attention to serial fibbers, I very much agree that in certain situations one of the best ways to avoid the agenda of a serial fibber is to observe how they function. I tend to be pretty quick to pick up on falsehoods and the little games people sometimes play, "projection" being among a long list of things to look out for. For some preservation of an agenda can take priority over the truth and that's one of my pet peeves. For example, either Trump or Hillary can be wrong on something they're saying or doing yet there are those who won't call them out on it. Therefore, on a different note, the agenda itself isn't always an issue, I wish it was better understood that even if someone decides to support an agenda, that doesn't mean they have to defend an advocate of that agenda when they do or say something wrong. People get in trouble and sacrifice their own integrity when they do that.

On your other point, in regards to Obama, (or any other politician for that matter), I can agree that they're not solely responsible for the problems we face, many things are out of their control. Not only should the president be considered, but to expand on my prior comment, other politicians along with the general public all contribute to the good and bad aspects of our county at any given time. I'd say the tone is set largely by those with power though. Whether it be the President, media pundits, college professors, or priest, anyone who can have an influence on a large group of people could potentially use that advantage to misguide those who believe in them. I'd say that generally, we're in agreement on these types of topics.

The good news is party affiliation is dropping. It took the independence of a billionaire for the Republicans to succeed. It took the Clinton Foundation to step in and fund the DNC nominations against Bernie Sanders because fund raising was so low they could not hold the convention. The only people who are not realizing this development are in position where they are paid not to notice.



The next issues coming up will be how current Presidents handle the legacy costs of empire. At some point I'd love to get into a comparison of the Kerry era under Obama who made every effort to fracture Iraq to today where Tillerson is attempting to fracture the Kurdish area of Syria. There is some consistency behind the rhetoric and it needs discussing! But that is outside the confines of this thread.

I want to like Trump, although he and the Republicans are starting to spend too much without figuring out how to counter that spending, he's getting things done on policy, things that haven't been touched in decades in some cases. They're definitely not alone in the overspending and overall things are improving on border security, the economy, regulation cutting, and ISIS, etc. etc. Those are conservative positions I think are important.

The problem for me is that he says ridiculous things which sabotage his own cause, his approval rating would easily be 60% if he quit picking fights on things which distract. I agree with some of his focus on the media for sure, and in my opinion, Trump should continue to be assertive and fight back on things which are unfair but it's the way he's going about doing things which is problematic. The focus on the NFL was unnecessary and had the effect of causing more players to kneel, in some cases not because they're showing support for groups like Black Lives Matter, but to protest the President. It also defeated the purpose of those who want politics and divisive issues off of the football field because he responded by bringing politics and division into football. On another note, in relation to partisanship, he is the polar opposite of Obama. Trump is offering to legalize the Dreamers but his rhetoric seldomly reflects anything that could encourage Democrats. I think he's missing out on pulling some of them over to support him.

People who have talked to Trump in person have often said he's completely different when he's not tweeting or giving a speech. I've seen some of that when they televise some of the meetings they have. If that Trump was tweeting and making public statements, he would be able to pull more people together. Although actions are more important than words, words can do damage.

In short, he's complicated, some days I think he's doing good, other days he ticks me off, lol

All news sources have a perspective. There is no one with whom I agree all the time. Skepticism is built in. No one gets a free pass from me.

After hearing or reading someone over an expanse of time you can gain and understanding of where they come from. I do frequent those who are idealistic. They are not driven predominantly by money. Those who are in the business of news are in it for money but that does not mean they are driven by it. I prefer those who are consistent with values they present, even if they are not completely the same as mine.

Empty heads and tripe talkers are easy to figure out and avoid. It is gosh awful when a station has a table full of 'em. That happens a lot.

Yet, they are on the air. People like empty heads and regurgitated stomach wall. These people are on the air because many people like them. Not a whole lot but enough that between the money from the modern fascists and the zombies they predominate.

The modern fascists are a tough lot to beat. The money from government gives them an advantage in traditional mass communications of radio and television. It is why the internet is vital as money can not push other ideas off the internet like ideas are pushed from mass media.

------

net2007, please do not try to like Trump. It has nothing to do with his delivery, appearance, presentation. Trump likes war and wants more money poured into it (like Obama, Bush). Trump likes a central bank running things (like Obama, Bush). Trump likes to spend money. Federal spending will be up 20% over Obama's last year. Trump is economically ignorant (like Obama, Bush). War is worth mentioning again. Trump will be spending 45 billion on the war in Afghanistan this year. Money poured into the sand (like Obama, Bush). Billions on a wall? Against federal healthcare but wants it. Not a clue of freedom of travel.

Trump's policy agenda is more of the same and wrong. Who cares about delivery, appearance, presentation? Policy is what is important. Do not struggle to see the sun when the picture is the inside of cave. There may be some hint of light but there is no sun.

This forum is old enough that I remember when social media first got started.
Posters began creating their own blogs. Then Facebook happened.
I stated at the time (and for the record, I still hate social media with a passion) I believed it was all a phase and people would tire of it.
I was wrong. REALLY wrong. Hobbes got it right (he asserted it was just getting started...if memory serves, it has been a long while).

I didn't really foresee the effect it would have on society at large though.
What we have are pretty much EXCLUSIVELY little confirmation bias environments filled with partial information to fit our own world view.
For a person like me, there are partial information confirmation bias environments that only fit portions of my world views....I have to skip around.
So, I have to hold my pen for some of the time (these confirmation bias environments can get very angry when you don't confirm their world view).

I haven't really found a forum like this one (outside of here). But, as NT mentioned recently on another thread the world has kind of moved on.
This is the new normal.
Unlike NT though...I haven't found a real place to "hang". People like to believe they are open minded, but what they really like is a small challenge that then confirms their world view.

China has an interesting "solution" that is very Orwellian (Orwellian being almost too easy a reference these days....we need a new world for Orwellian).
They tie credit scores to "social rank". Really like something out of Black Mirror.
If you break the rules on the train, for example, or say something un-PC on social media, or something that challenges the government or whatever the government deems inappropriate, your credit score is impacted.
Since this score goes into a formula citizens carry around with them they have great incentive to be good little robots for the state.

Edited to add:
A post I read on a blog elsewhere, coupled with NT's polemic on the Confederate statues thread, brought this all to mind.
Communities thrive on interdependence and trust.
This is a problem in the new paradigm of confirmation bias and I-can't-trust-you-if-you-believe-absolutely-anything-differently-than-I-do.
The pertinent portion of the post (it's a military blog):
" My generation has the lowest job loyalty of any since those metrics were being measured. We move, we travel, we marry and have children later, and we care more about our careers. Staying in a service that pays us below the federal poverty line is a stupid life decision."

We've really reaped what we've sown as a society.
No longer the age of the pension, loyalty is also becoming an anachronism. Why care about your community? You'll just move again...
Very bad recipe for a future world.

Edited (again) to add:
I've just decided to give up posting on the internet (or reading any social media or blogs) for Lent.
See ya all in a few weeks.

Do you like church? I like some church. Church, to me, is where you can be with people who all think the same. It is a place where a bunch of people can celebrate the oneness they share. We all think alike and we are all wonderful! Yeah!

I also like variety. A variety of thinking. Solving problems, especially problems involving masses of people, requires brainstorming and a mix of thoughts. Just going to church does not cut it if you want to solve problems of the masses. You need to be as close to everyone-on-board as possible if you like peace or wish to achieve a low level of conflict.

One way to recognize hypocrites is when they throw out so-called-principles but apply them only to members of their own church.

Advantage via church is a well functioning axiom for many. Join the right church and you can get ahead of those who do not. Church can look good though Church advantage ultimately leads to conflict. When some are at a disadvantage they lash out.

Confirmation bias environments reveal the lure of belonging to church. It is us against them.

My confession is that I am guilty of wanting everyone in my church. The church of freedom where everyone, under the law, is treated the same while the law is nothing more than a protection of freedom.

Others have their own church. Some wish to remain a small group. Some wish for everyone to join. But all of them seem to me to be hypocritical when they say they are looking out for good. Good means you have to sacrifice individualism, sacrifice choice. I can not see that "good" to actually be good.

Many think that the struggle of conflicting churches is the only way humans can interact at the massive scale.

is a good place as we can share thinking which is diverse. We know someone, maybe a lot of someones, will not like our ideas. We take the time to state them, anyways. Someone may gain some insight by reading about those ideas. We may be here because we know the value of reading others ideas. We may be here just to evangelize for our church.

Hypocrites can be those who claim to look out for everyone but truly only care for those in their church. Is in-your-face I only care about members of my church any better than hypocrites?

-------

The China plan. It would not have surprised me if the credit score plan came from any of the Europe state, or the United States. Central banks are ruling.

My own little story on credit scores: A ways back my credit card company cancelled my card. I had it for 10 years and never missed payments (maybe once or twice). I called and they said my credit score was too low. I was taken aback as I do pay my bills. What the heck? It turns out that my credit score was tanked because I was behind on paying my income tax. I was behind to the state and the state was using my credit score to put pressure on me. So, I learned the lesson that credit scores are nearly meaningless. I learned the state was too full of itself. Everyone was paid, including the feds. I can't care less about my credit score.

------

Sorry for my rambling thoughts. I usually try to be more cohesive than this but felt like blurting today.

We disagree on a few things here but no worries. To explain, I don't know so much about appearance but delivery and presentation can be very important. Policy and actions are most important, I'll meet you halfway on that and understand where you're coming from but I wouldn't write off the significance of presentation or even more so, delivery. There needs to be something solid behind those things but they are important. That's because, in order to get a policy noticed in the first place, a politician would have to convince the public of why that policy would be a good thing.

As an analogy, a car dealership is fairly comparable in that they're trying to sell us a product which concerns our safety and lifestyle, just as with politicians who are trying to sell policy ideas to the public and fellow members of the House, Senate, or Presidency. For the analogy, would you buy a car from a dealership with the following characteristics? The name of the dealership is (We Sell Crappy Cars In A Way That Will Scare You), you get there and two of the dealers are in a fist fight, while the third dealer runs up to you and starts singing the theme song to the Flinstones about two inches from your face. As for "delivery", when the dealer finally stops singing and you have a moment to compose yourself, he then gives you the wrong price for the car, (a few thousand more than what it should be sold for), and to top it off he says that after buying the car you'll get to bring it home in a few months.

That sounds ridiculous and over the top with a side of misinformation, but to a lesser degree, Trump has a similar problem. He cuts people off when he speaks and says things which turn people away. Take notice of what happened with the NFL, which I mentioned earlier, when Trump got involved more players kneeled because of the way he went about addressing that issue. We've seen that in quite a few cases his approach has often backfired. Those types of things have no doubt drawn people away from him, I'm glad he's doing things like exposing the news media but when he starts picking fights with Mika Brzezinski from MSNBC by saying things like...



That has no relevance to how Joe and Mika report the news, which is extremely biased in favor of the left. Comments like that are probably one of the many reasons he doesn't have a high approval rating amongst women.

On my comment on Trump, I try to like most people, as far as he's concerned ultimately I feel he was chaotic enough for me to vote for one of the independent candidates instead, (Gary Johnson). That being said I don't disagree with everything he's doing on policy. You've been trying to explain to me what would be ideal, I'm trying to explain who we have to work with at this point. The people wanted either Hillary or Trump and they both have low favorability ratings and a LOT of flaws. In light of new information, Hillary's favorability rating has dropped several points below where she was already marked, which wasn't very high. The Clintons are finished and regardless of the warning signs a lot of people supported her regardless.

Hillary would have likely brought the same type of spending you don't like, combined with policies that give little to nothing to those who have conservative values, she was following in Obama's footsteps. She would have replaced the obviously chaotic approach of Trump with more clever snarky comments and shady actions against the right. One of the problems with her is that she's good at lying and manipulating, while Trump is easier to figure out. Neither approach is ideal but she could have been much more dangerous, not only because of the lying but because of the extremely corrupt nature of the Clintons generally speaking. Trump is no saint, in fact, he's not the one I wanted up there but Hillary was easily the most corrupt politician in modern American history, one who would have offered little to nothing to conservative America.

As I mentioned, I agree with Trump on some of his policy and he's brought attention to issues which haven't been touched in a long time. What do you think about the regulations? He's cut 22 regulations for every new one and thus far has cut more regulations than any president at this point in their presidency (best I can tell). It's not just conservative media outlets saying this, generally left-leaning news outlets are even admitting there's truth to the claims he's made on that. Granted they start out by listing a number of other issues he's not done good on, to brace themselves for the good news they have to give, but they have covered it....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-ch...m=.cb05928e2f23

http://freebeacon.com/politics/trump-cuts-...-every-new-one/ (for a conservative perspective on this)

Small government seems very important to you, believe me, I understand it's inflated. While Trump hasn't done well on the national debt, the only thing I can express to you is that you'd get less of what you want with the Democratic party if small government values are the most important thing to you, (which I'm sure you understand). I explained that the two parties have differences because they often vote for different things and sometimes even behave differently, to a degree. I don't think Trump, Bush, and Obama are exactly the same, Trump suffers from some of the same problems they have though, as well as Bush compared to Obama, they were both insiders who were more deep state than Trump. Trump does many of the same things every other politician has done but he's very different in other aspects, as with the regulation cutting I showed you. He's fighting a system that's been in place for a long time as well, (or at least fighting it in some ways), he's more than willing to spend money and isolate those who don't agree with him. In short, I hold a very complicated view on this.

I can get on board if you were to say that the two parties share similar problems, both have corruption, or that there are underlying factors pitting Republicans and Democrats against each other. I could agree that the fighting has gotten out of hand, or that we're in a two party system that may not be serving us as well as something new could. I'm just very analytical and believe there are distinct differences as well. Also, it'd be nice if someone did come along to balance the budget and not spend more than we can produce, when that person comes along, I'll gladly support them. Problem is that they all say they're going to be responsible but rarely live up to that.

Hey net2007. We will always quibble. Even disagree. There is so much common ground, too.

I do not think politicians try to convince the public about their policy being a good thing. Politicians try to convince the public they are giving out advantage. Good politicians convince enough voters that their particular demographic group is getting the advantages. Politicians could not care less about policy and philosophy other than the philosophy of, "What gets me more power and votes?"

The analogy with a car salesperson is correct for those salespersons who only care about the sale, not what is good for the customer. The clique used car salesman.

Politicians do not put forth their own philosophy. Politicians try to sound like they have a philosophy which is selling well as a current trend.

Politicians win with perception and not philosophy. Politicians mirror the electorate. The electorate lacks a philosophy other than, "What is in it for me?"

Both voters and politicians see government as a means to getting ahead. They generally lack policy based upon fair opportunity and protections for all.

Appearance is just that. Appearance. So what if one politician is a better salesman than the next? If policy is the same there is no real difference.

If a nicely dressed thug has a nice voice and sings to you during the mugging is this a good thing? Does the lack of anything left on your person afterward really matter between the singing thug and the shabby cursing one?

An informed and inquisitive public will avoid the bad policy politicians and the used car salesmen. It is a responsibility to support better.

"We will always quibble. Even disagree. There is so much common ground, too."

Right, I feel that generally speaking, we agree on a lot of things but no worries on where we don't. I feel you're more fiscally conservative than I am, though I agree we need to be more responsible with spending for sure. Your position on Trump also places criticism on policy or him continuing on like other politicians have. I see some of that but tend to be more critical of his approach and delivery, I think the tone he sets is often the number one thing that's working against him. With that said, I have a hard time with across the board condemnation of Trump, in part because I've noticed how dishonest media pundits and other partisans have had to be to maintain a consistently negative tone. It's been surreal watching them follow a path that almost appears programmed in for some of them as if facts and the situation at hand often have little or no impact on their arguments.

You've spoken some on those types of problems in broader terms but I can't help but look at the way left-wing groups handled Trump being elected and how right-wing groups handled Obama being elected and see a difference in the level of vitriol and game playing overall. There is certainly a good bit of that on the right as well but something is happening with many leftist and Democrats which steps things up a few notches. I have a lot of respect for those who are on the left who aren't contributing to those types of problems but they have their work cut out for them.

I believe the amplified hostility when protesting to be the end result of a media that is trying so hard to divide us, discourage conservatives from expressing their views, and portraying them in the worst possible way when they do. The "media" means most of the news media and Hollywood, talk radio is often different but it doesn't get the same exposure when you look at the numbers. The left gets an added boost from colleges which are also generally left-leaning where too many educators are teaching their students to distrust those who have outside opinions. What's happening at UC Berkeley is insanity, I fail to see a comparable large scale but typically conservative institution doing so bad that they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to beef up security each time someone with an opposite opinion simply walks through the door to speak. They've created a student base that's often so biased and hostile that many of them can't control themselves and those types will go on to spread that intolerance to the generation after them and I think that's the point. Catch them while they're young, easier to manipulate, and have a lot of time to spread what they learn to others.

I want to be fair with this but I want to discover the truth as well. I always welcome those on the left to challenge things I say or add information to a debate but thus far I'm not hearing good counters on those kinds of arguments. I asked this question earlier....

"Does anyone know of a situation, in recent history, where an American Christian killed 26 people or more because they held different values or beliefs?"

That in light of Devin Patrick Kelley, barging into a church in Texas and killing 26 people. The broader point I was making there is that a number of things (even larger than that) point to a shift where Christians also appear to be going more on the defense. While there's always going to be a judgmental aspect to religions like Christianity, I don't hear about abortion clinic bombings anymore, I hear a lot of concern that they're being marginalized though and there's a lot of information to support that. Right now, many are putting more emphasis on stories where Trump says something controversial than they do on anything like this because consistent pressure and negative coverage of the right is priority one to a substantial chunk of the News Media, Hollywood, Colleges, and Democrats in office.

To get closer to our debate, on Trump how could I not agree with you that there are problems with him? I think my position on him is more along the lines of a tweak from where you stand. He's continued with the trend of division between the left and right, he's done nothing to tone back racial tensions, in light of recent events he's spending on a similar level that Obama did, along with a number of other things but if he redirects on some of that he'd have an approval rating similar to what JFK's was. While he's continuing on with some of the nonsense of prior administrations, he's separated himself from the pack in key areas. I mentioned the regulation cutting but there are other things as well. Most recently Trump has been having open discussions with children from Stoneman Douglas High School, as well as openly debating with teachers and elected officials from Florida in regards to developing a new policy. Typically presidents don't get into situations where there are too many unknowns and they're not advised to, televised open policy discussions like that are risky.

In quite a few ways this presidency has got people involved and talking more about how our government functions. Granted a lot of that talk has been divisive or driven by those who are involved because they want to counter Trump but he's brought attention to how our government works for a lot of people and exposed a great deal of the ills within it.

To address a couple more things...

"Politicians could not care less about policy and philosophy other than the philosophy of, "What gets me more power and votes?""

Often that is the case, I'd only add that it's not 100% applicable to everyone and some have this problem more than others.

"Appearance is just that. Appearance. So what if one politician is a better salesman than the next? If policy is the same there is no real difference.

If a nicely dressed thug has a nice voice and sings to you during the mugging is this a good thing? Does the lack of anything left on your person afterward really matter between the singing thug and the shabby cursing one?"

Same as before, I think these are often problems but that they're not applicable in every circumstance. On the first sentence, I believe that things like style, tone, and approach matter less than the substance behind them and that actions speak louder than words as well, but all of that can be important. More or less I have a light version of your beliefs, for your analogy, if a thug can manage to sing and entertain you while he mugs you, anyone who can manage that would be even more dangerous than a thug that behaves like a thug. So I think the point behind the anylogy is a solid one but, as before I think it applies to some politicians more than others. In other words I don't think they're completely lost, yet. (Knock on wood)