Politics: The Undiscovered Country

[Skarpen]

11 hours ago, Gromnir said:

but his base doesn't care 'bout facts

And democrats and press do? How many fake stories that had to be retractes and agologized for they put out? Not long ago we had another Russia hoax story. How does anyone expect Trump supporters to believe liars  and hypocrites like Warren, Biden or Sanders over the guy who at least pretends he cares for his base?

[Gorth]

Trump is like a broken clock, he might accidentally be right about something, no matter how unintentional.

 

Got bored of the Greek Tragedy that is the Trump administration running the economy into the ground and even turned off the news when new fights repeatedly breaks out in Hong Kong. The new comedy series du jour is starring the Johnson family, Farage, and a few other comedians in a 2019 version of "Yes Minister". You have to give a hand to the script writers, even Monty Python would be hard pushed to beat it for sureality and absurdity. Got a feeling that the next *elected* PM will be named Corbyn.

(yeah, it's even worse than the circus that is Australian politics, which relies more on backstabbing and nightly maneuvering)

 

 

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Got a feeling that the next *elected* PM will be named Corbyn.

It seems Corbyn himself doesn't believe that -- else he wouldn't have balked at the prospect of an early general election, twice now.

I do believe there's a chance that he'll be the next unelected PM though. If Boris quits or is removed, the absurd scenario of Tory rebels and LibDems throwing their support behind comrade Corbyn to avoid a general election and postpone Brexit indefinitely is not much more far-fetched than what we've seen so far.

And by the time Labour is ready to go to an election on their own terms -which could be years- Blairites will have recovered control of the party, with Corbyn and his supporters having been kicked to the curb.

I must confess that I'm disappointed that nothing came out of the threat to have the anti no-deal bill filibustered to death in the Lords. That would have been fun.

[HoonDing]

 

[smjjames]

3 hours ago, 213374U said:

It seems Corbyn himself doesn't believe that -- else he wouldn't have balked at the prospect of an early general election, twice now.

I do believe there's a chance that he'll be the next unelected PM though. If Boris quits or is removed, the absurd scenario of Tory rebels and LibDems throwing their support behind comrade Corbyn to avoid a general election and postpone Brexit indefinitely is not much more far-fetched than what we've seen so far.

And by the time Labour is ready to go to an election on their own terms -which could be years- Blairites will have recovered control of the party, with Corbyn and his supporters having been kicked to the curb.

I must confess that I'm disappointed that nothing came out of the threat to have the anti no-deal bill filibustered to death in the Lords. That would have been fun.

Don’t the House of Lords pretty much rubberstamp everything anyway?

[Captain Corcoran]

Yeah, but it's kind of like asking the queen to suspend parliament.  Even largely symbolic and ceremonial functions can be useful if one side or the other can find a way to exploit them.  That's certainly nothing new.  I *do* hope the Brits complete their Brexit journey, but mostly because I believe they should uphold to their own plebiscite.  If they can't do that, then bring back the monarch and privy council.

So, does anyone have any thoughts on the CNN climate marathon? I've been trying to be less obnoxious, so I'm cutting out the huge chunk of my post, but I am really interested in the Democratic primary and specifically things like gun control and climate legislation. Citizen or not, it's instructive to hear different views on these issues, even if I already have a good idea where most folks stand.

[smjjames]

I haven’t found you to be obnoxious Corcoran, Gromnir often writes posts bigger than what you have been doing. It’s the formatting people were complaining about. 

[Gfted1]

Hell, you don't have to even be a citizen. Get on out there and vote and use our various social programs. You wont even need to present identification! Its no worse than jaywalking or perhaps speeding +1 to +9 MPH over the limit.

Now if youll excuse me, ima go try to vote in the UK.

[smjjames]

I think he was referring to us Obsidianites when he said that, gfted1. 

[ShadySands]

Watched some of the CNN Climate Town Hall and it was interesting to me and the missus but we didn't watch any of the candidates we don't care for because each segment is 40 minutes long. It's going to pretty much depend on your views on the issue as to how much you'd likely get out of it. 

[ktchong]

One of the best show you are not watching:

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by ktchong

[ktchong]

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by ktchong

[Zoraptor]

7 hours ago, 213374U said:

It seems Corbyn himself doesn't believe that -- else he wouldn't have balked at the prospect of an early general election, twice now.

I suspect Corbyn is pretty keen on an election but the bulk of the rest of his party isn't. And it is a rare chance to humiliate the leader of his main rival party, end of the day most politicians are going to take that chance when offered before an election rather than taking the election without the ritual humiliation. Trouble being, of course, that many voters will be Single Issue when it comes to Brexit and assuming the Tories are the only big party to support leaving they will get all the Brexiteer votes while the remainers will be split. In a FPP system 40% of the vote is usually enough to win, and there could easily be 40% brexiteer vote.

3 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Why is an older Jacob Rees-Mogg throwing his daughter off the roof of Parliament?

(Just so much more class than dressing up in a trench coat and pushing someone in front of a train like that plebe Frank.)

 

[Guard Dog]

These are strange times when Ktchong and I are backing the same candidate. 

[Captain Corcoran]

So, I was wrong.  The map thing has some staying power.  lol  Of course, that's due to *Trump* keeping it in the news.  I think it was always a non-story, and it still is, but the press and Trump have made a career of trawling each other.  At this point, 'mapgate' (hahahaha  sorry) is a net neutral for the president.  Now, I think his crazy assed 'fight on all fronts on every issue' is a net loser, but he's got that already.  He had that before the last election.  To keep on with the clichés, it's already 'baked into the cake.'  Even if he mends his ways and stops doing it, he can't hope fully to remake that image.  If he becomes more strategic in picking his fights and laughs off some of the non-sensical crap that the press foists on him, he can improve that image marginally before the next election. I predict, if he does, he wins an electoral landslide.  He won't do that, of course.  Of course, the press has blunted its own authority by throwing away pretext of balance.

[Gromnir]

13 hours ago, Captain Corcoran said:

Of course, the press has blunted its own authority by throwing away pretext of balance.

which is complete irrelevant 'cause the issue at hand is honesty and factual accuracy. the press (discuss as if the press is a monolithic singularity is pushing past suspect into ridicule-worthy territory, no?) has always exhibited bias and spin to various degrees. admitted, particular post ww2 to pre-2000, mass media news sources at least attempted to keep overt bias to a minimum. this were especially true for radio and tv news 'cause radio and tv were/are technical public utilities and as access to such utilities were limited, different standards were imposed on tv and radio in the interest o' safeguarding the public trust.  

we can discuss that issue in another post or thread if you wish.  however, such is not relevant to present issue. red herring. 

is the press accurate reporting trump's foible? is they being factual accurate? which parties in the present kerfuffle is mendacious and dishonest? balance is not relevant to a question o' whether trump altered a map and what the forecasts for dorian were at the time trump made his alabama tweets.  press bias doesn't have any impact 'pon what the sharpie incident says 'bout the President's honesty and/or his shortcomings. the only reason so many is conflating the issue o' bias with accuracy is 'cause o' the disturbingly pervasive and insidious success o' the mind boggling stoopidity which is the alternative facts efforts from within the wh and supported by breitbart and other news *insert eye roll* organizations.

regardless, is comical how the press bias thing gets predictable play every time trump lies. just as we predicted earlier in this thread, trump and supporters retreat to the enemy of the people attacks on the press every time trump lies and such gets  accurate reports by press... which is disturbing and weird when you think 'bout it.

complain the press ain't accurate reporting both trump mistake and the trump follow-up efforts to defend? 

no.

complain the press ain't balanced.

...

uh, so what?

that said, the following is suggested reading for otherwise irrelevant:

https://web.stanford.edu/~ayurukog/cable_news.pdf

https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2009/iyengar-redmedia-bluemedia.pdf

second link is relative brief and covers similar territory. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps orwellian 2+2=5 is the only reason the story still has legs. sure, trump campaign selling trump markers for $15 is gonna get a reaction from a number o' news organizations, but how much more can be said 'bout trump's most recent attempt at gaslighting? the thing is, find out the noaa were directing employees not to contradict the President as o' september 1st is gonna keep story alive a bit longer than one might have expected. executive branch efforts to censor nws scientists is news even if trump were to abandon the fight over his mistake.

am nevertheless not seeing the larger story last much past the weekend. as improbable and disturbing as the sharpie bit would be if any other President in living memory attempted, this is ordinary in 2019. 

[Guard Dog]

As I have been saying, there are no good guys in American politics. The Republican Party is beginning to cancel it's Primary elections: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-in-three-states-cancel-primaries-and-caucuses/

The last Republican President, Ronald Reagan, once described the United States as that "shining city on a hill".  Not much luster left these days. Oh well. Sic transit gloria mundi. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Guard Dog
spelling

[Captain Corcoran]

There's a lot to unpackage in your post, Gromnir.  As an aside, I was going to refer to you as my alpha dog friend, but I was afraid it would seem I was mocking you.  I observe that you *are* an alpha male *and* I actually respect that.  No mocking, just a bit of wry humor.  Anyhow, should I be foolish enough to post late at night after my faculties might have been somewhat dimmed, I beg forgiveness in advance if the reference slips.

As to the studies.  Hmmm, I have degrees in both arts and sciences.  That doesn't make me particularly smart, but it does mean I've had to wade through a lot of research.  The former paper, regarding channel placement, seemed like something made for the publish or perish environment.  I mean, channel placement?  The second paper at least conducted its own experiment.  I don't concede that the studies accurately rebut my comments, but I also don't have any particular issue with them.  I guess using research from 2009 that references Keith Olbermann makes the former study a bit dated, but this is a political thread on a gaming forum. 

The idea of the press is absolutely relevant to the thread at large.  It would be insane to pretend that American politics (or any politics) aren't reliant on information and that information is supplied by media of various sorts.  You might think of my comments about the media as a defense of this silly mapgate thing, but you'd be wrong.  What I was conveying is that the media has lost a lot of cred with the public.  Now, assume that I'm just mad because the media is speaking truth to power.  Okay.  Assume that if you want.  It doesn't change that I'm convinced that the bulk of the media is biased to the left.  I also contend that all media is biased because I consider bias part of our human condition.  What I as an individual feel really *is* irrelevant.  Whether or not I accurately describe how the public at large and sizeable segments of the public feel... that's relevant.

However, if you want to pretend that the major nightly news and two of the three largest cable news networks aren't hostile to the president, keep on.  Convince everyone here if you will.  I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything.  I'm predicting, Gromnir, not convincing.  I'm assessing a situation, not trying to change it.  The public faith in the press has been on decline for years and that was *before* Trump took office.  Does anyone actually believe that the bulk of the press publishes or broadcasts only facts that have been established, verified, and vetted?  The press gets a bad name because *Trump* lied?  Brother, if you believe that, and here I'll channel you, "You is crazy."

All that said, I do find your post interesting and often funny.  ...And, if you come after me with hammer and tongs, I'll gladly play the straight man while you skewer me.  (No, that was not a sexual innuendo)

[Gromnir]

28 minutes ago, Captain Corcoran said:

 

However, if you want to pretend that the major nightly news and two of the three largest cable news networks aren't hostile to the president, keep on. 

again, irrelevant. whether or not you believe the source o' news is biased or hostile is complete immaterial insofar as the President's behavior and whether or not a news source accurate and factual reported Presidential and executive branch actions. keep coming back to media bias is red herring fodder in the present context although is complete according to our earlier and more recent predictions. this is what trump and trump supporters invariably do when confronted with trump lies and the President's indefensible double-down on such lies.

and if all you got from first paper is channel placement, am suspecting you didn't read beyond the abstract and conclusion. channel placement were what were new in the study and so there is a particular focus 'pon such. also, the channel placement findings were somewhat surprising given just how much such affected viewership. regardless, is a study specific o' changes to voter patterns during decade when fox news became something other than regional. fox started in 1996, but weren't available in major markets such as ny and los angeles for a number o' years.

"We compare a base case where Fox was available to cable subscribers in the 1997-2000 period according to the observed rollout pattern to a scenario where Fox was available exclusively to satellite subscribers and not on any local cable system."

channel placement were one aspect o' study, though admitted the only original aspect o' the work.

but again, am not gonna fall for obvious and transparent deflection. you wanna discuss media bias? knock yourself out. is indeed relevant to 2019 US politics, but is utter immaterial insofar as the President's dorian tweets and sharpie nonsense.  President's behaviour is indefensible, so deflect, deflect, deflect. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps am also not gonna get into personal qualifications and expertise. via a pm, back in 2000, we mentioned our occupation and university background to a fellow poster who promptly shared such info with seeming anybody who would listen. regardless, much o' our resume is a known quantity and multi-year absences from the boards has not resulted in any kinda functional reset. single pm were one o' our few board regrets, so am not gonna get into a battle o' duelling degrees and resume comparisons. gauche.

[Captain Corcoran]

Views of media bias have a direct impact on politics.  You seem to take my assessment of the situation as an argument about media bias.  I have no doubt the bulk of the media is biased.  They have made glaring mistakes and sometimes willful misstatements.  However, while we could discuss that, the point is that the perception of media malpractice will impact the election.

As far as the studies, I didn't read for detail, but I gave them a fair read.  I'm just not willing to invest in a proper assessment of them

  If folks here want to pretend that the media don't fit into the larger discussion, fair enough.  I'm not invested enough to argue over it further.

As for credentials... huh?  I've never betrayed a trust of something someone PMed me.  I've never betrayed a trust of what someone told me in person.  I don't ask for personal information but I still keep what I get in confidence in trust.  I will concede credential superiority to you.  I don't really care to win a credential argument, only to point out that I've had to assess a variety of research.  You honestly thought I was starting an academic e-pen measuring contest?  :faint smile with one raised eye-brow:

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Captain Corcoran said:

Views of media bias have a direct impact on politics.  You seem to take my assessment of the situation as an argument about media bias.  I have no doubt the bulk of the media is biased.  They have made glaring mistakes and sometimes willful misstatements.  However, while we could discuss that, the point is that the perception of media malpractice will impact the election.

 

still irrelevant as a response to posts 'bout trump's dorian behavior. keep repeating won't make more valid.

am honest baffled by the almost obligatory media bias response to trump mendacity. is as if trump supporters literal cannot help but focus on media bias when issue is Presidential behaviors accurate reported by press, and thus complete insular and discreet from questions o' press balance. 

tell us trump's russian collusion were a hoax. tell us how man-made climate change is fantasy. both such observations will have relevance in a thread 'bout politics in 2019. neither is meaningful as a response to posts 'bout trump's dorian behavior.

as for spontaneous sharing qualifications we cannot guess motivations. we observed we would not do likewise. we explained a bit o' the why behind why we won't. if such makes you think o' pens, then so be it.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Skarpen]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

still irrelevant as a response to posts 'bout trump's dorian behavior. keep repeating won't make more valid.

am honest baffled by the almost obligatory media bias response to trump mendacity. is as if trump supporters literal cannot help but focus on media bias when issue is Presidential behaviors accurate reported by press, and thus complete insular and discreet from questions o' press balance. 

tell us trump's russian collusion were a hoax. tell us how man-made climate change is fantasy. both such observations will have relevance in a thread 'bout politics in 2019. neither is meaningful as a response to posts 'bout trump's dorian behavior.

as for spontaneous sharing qualifications we cannot guess motivations. we observed we would not do likewise. we explained a bit o' the why behind why we won't. if such makes you think o' pens, then so be it.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, you can argue that it's irrelevant but it is. It's classic "boy who cried wolf" situation.

When you have a source that constatly lie and deceit about a person then how can anyone be surprised about people doubting the source when one time they told the truth?

If one week the source have to retract another russia hoax and the next they report about president supposed wrongdoing then how is it surprising people don't buy it immediately?

 

[Guard Dog]

Look, the "media" does not print, say, post things that are patently false.  Not the reputable kind anyway. Even Mother Jones and Michael Savage don't. Although all of them, from the high to low, do practice bias. Bias in tone. Bias in story selection. What is reported and what isn't.  CNN & Fox are the favorite targets but everything you hear on BOTH networks is ALL TRUE. It's just not all of the truth. They are selling a product. Like all good companies they are tailoring that product to a receptive audience. That product isn't facts. It's a narrative.  People tune in to the news not to be informed. They tune in to be told their preconceptions are correct. 

Don't get me wrong. Informing is part of it. There was no "media bias" when reporting on Hurricane Dorains track and cone. If a thing is a fact they will tell you it's a fact. Then the commentary will tell you what it means and that is bias by definition. Commentary is opinion. Nothing new there. Ben Franklin was doing it in the Pennsylvania Gazette all the way back in 1730. 

Now, here is the important part: ALL OF THIS IS OK. The "media" has no sacred duty to inform or be unbiased. They have no legal or moral obligation to inform. They are selling you something. Telling you a story. Buy it or don't. If you like Spiderman don't buy a Superman comic and then bitch that Spiderman wasn't given equal time. Caveat emptor. 

[ktchong]

 

Oh no, not Yeonmi Park as well, but she looked so innocent and purty and believeable!

Edited September 9, 2019 by ktchong

[213374U]

Certainly the media have no legal obligation to paint a complete, unbiased and relevant picture, but I would argue that there is at least a deontological imperative for them to do so. I've often heard the argument that the media is just a business and as such the only strict obligation they have is to make money, but that thinking is at the root of patently harmful ideas like market fundamentalism and shareholder primacy, both of which are factors in many of the problems facing us. Not to mention that it's a useless tautology.

Just remember next time you see a politician, a cop or a gov't worker do something unethical yet technically legal -- they are simply operating along the lines of that idea. Their own (pecuniary) interests trump everything else and the only red line is the letter of the law. No values or principles other than maximizing profits. Is that OK too?

Edited September 9, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯