Politics: The Undiscovered Country

[Gfted1]

The "media" are one of the most dangerous cabals on the planet.

[uuuhhii]

of course any media can not be believed without thinking

but since so many often refuse to use rational thinking one way or another

it is a moot point

Edited September 9, 2019 by uuuhhii

[Amentep]

16 hours 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.

To me, I think the point Gromnir is raising is this:

If the National Enquirer (Daily Mail, Weekly World News, or other local variants of tabloid sensationalism) reports that [Big Name Celebrity] is on their death bed, it doesn't mean that [Big Name Celebrity] isn't on their death bed.   The problem is that people are taking the idea of media bias and using it as an excuse to reject facts because of the source (particularly egregious when the facts are reported on by multiple outlets)

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

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.

Theoretically, as I understand it, lawsuits would be the remedy to media violations of the law.  Journalistic ethics would also require certain steps to be taken to ensure that all sides of the story are accounted for.

The problem (IMO) is that people have equated talking-head opinion shows with news.  Opinion shows are not news, will never be news and freedom of speech means that someone is allowed to hold and express their opinion provided it doesn't go into slander or making statements that incite crimes or otherwise do harm (like the proverbial shouting fire in a theater when there is no fire).  But because of the need for news networks to provide content, the easiest way to fill hours is with talking head op-ed shows.

[Skarpen]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Look, the "media" does not print, say, post things that are patently false. 

How was the "Trump have Russians co-signed his loans" not patently false? And also, how the term retracted is even a thing if media does not "print, say, post things that are patently false"? Please explain that more thoroughly.

[Gfted1]

Imo this is very similar to religion. These are institutions that lead humanity around by the nose for their own machinations, all the while we are thanking them and protecting them.   Eh, stupid is as stupid does.

[Captain Corcoran]

Whatever, Gfted1, you faithless bastard!  :huge grin:  At one point I considered being a priest.  I suppose getting married put a damper on that idea, eh?  I mean, if religion is the opiate of the masses, would that make priests drug dealers?

As far as the media discussion, like Trump, I'm a narcissist.  I appreciate attention, even if it's Gromnir's loving thumping.  I do wish we'd get away from Trump and talk about the Democratic field, but at least we're talking about something.

The thing is, Gromnir's wrong about discussing the press (I'm going to use press, media, and news pretty interchangeably and probably with number inconsistency) in regards to the hurricane.  It's absolutely relevant to the discussion, but not because I'm against what is, yes, a more or less monolithic press presence.  Trump does something that is probably silly and there's wall to wall breathless coverage.  The irony is, in regards to things he's done, this is probably one of the most serious.  He referenced danger to parts of the country that were not in danger.  That has real world ramifications.  Instead of focusing on his error as an error, we have people citing the law and acting as if he were going to be arrested.  It's like, "Call Mueller back, we have more to investigate!"  Then doddering ol' Mueller gets back in the saddle.

My point about all this isn't whether the president were or right.  My point is that he might actually net benefit from the way the coverage was done.  Don't believe me?  Fair enough.  The media at large relies on at least some trust.  It's like my numbered friend says, they have no obligation to do anything other than make money, but it would be good if they tried to be a little less biased.  I'm not advocating taking policy action against the press.  I'm merely assessing a situation as it exists.

Gromnir excels at taking a single line of text and leveraging it into an attack, and that's fair enough.  He's good at it and it's entertaining.  I hope it's nothing personal on his end, but we're all kind of these nameless internet figures so it's no big deal at the end of the day anyway.  I mean, calling me gauche kind of hurt, but I'm a big guy.  I can take it!  :wipes away a single manly tear:  I'm proud of my academic work.  I had a teacher in high school tell me I wasn't smart enough to go to college.  True story!

However, sometimes that ends up diverting away from the actual point.  In this case, it's not about deflecting from Trump's deficiencies.  It's about assessing how the coverage will impact the election.  Untangling my thoughts on that would be too much work and an even larger wall of text.  The essential point is, the left has to keep up the direct and personal attacks on the President at this point because it's essentially their committed strategy and the president will give them plenty of ammunition because he's apparently unable to stop.  On any given day, this might hurt or help the president but the lasting harm is done already and so it's 'baked into the cake.'

[Gfted1]

Whaaaaaa? Im not faithless, Im a Pastafarian. The rest of your post is accurate though.

[Hurlshort]

The Roman Catholic church is the only one that doesn't allow priests to marry, so Captain still has plenty of options. Also you can be a deacon, which is a step below but still performs many priestly functions.

[Amentep]

53 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

The Roman Catholic church is the only one that doesn't allow priests to marry, so Captain still has plenty of options. Also you can be a deacon, which is a step below but still performs many priestly functions.

C'mon, cult leader is the place to go for attention.  Sure its hard to start up, but face it - your word will be theophilosophical law if it works.

RE: Trump's weather map: IMO while silly of Trump there are 1,000s of projections run about hurricane's paths, and given its trajectory to FL I'm sure some of them had paths to Alabama on them.  Probably not in magic marker, though.

2 hours ago, Skarpen said:

How was the "Trump have Russians co-signed his loans" not patently false? And also, how the term retracted is even a thing if media does not "print, say, post things that are patently false"? Please explain that more thoroughly.

Personally I'd class The Last Word as a talking head op-ed, not a news show.  YMMV (and I confess to only a passing familiarity with the show as I've never watched MSNBC).  But to the larger point, press - even the old established press - have printed stories they've had to retract because they didn't hold up under scrutiny.  I suppose you could argue how involved the institution was in the publication with respect to culpability, but retractions aren't just for mis-identifying the third person on the left in a photo, or misspelling people's names.  No system or institution is infallible.

[smjjames]

@amentep: yeah, there’s so many projection types and overlays that they could easily have chosen something that gives it some plausibility without having to edit, which makes the whole thing even dumber. Hell, with a bit of searching (while checking NOAAs Trump butt kissing attempt. Turns out that the cone only hit Alabama for part of the timeline, not all of it) the archives, I found a few that had the cone clip the very southeastern corner of Alabama. 

[ShadySands]

I thought the problem was that he publicly mentioned Alabama when the longshot predictions of it hitting there were already discounted and thus potentially causing needless panic. Admittedly, I haven't been following it closely because I mostly don't care and have been trained over the past few years that this is completely normal and acceptable behavior.

 

[smjjames]

I can’t decide whether that second sentence is sarcasm or not.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/460567-trump-says-us-must-be-careful-about-admitting-people-from-bahamas

The Bahamas apparently has just joined the ranks of ‘s***hole countries’ in Trumps view 

[Skarpen]

46 minutes ago, smjjames said:

I can’t decide whether that second sentence is sarcasm or not.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/460567-trump-says-us-must-be-careful-about-admitting-people-from-bahamas

The Bahamas apparently has just joined the ranks of ‘s***hole countries’ in Trumps view 

Yeah. Making sure that dangerous individuals will not take advantage of the situation. What a crazy idea. Impeach now! 

[smjjames]

56 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Yeah. Making sure that dangerous individuals will not take advantage of the situation. What a crazy idea. Impeach now! 

Seriously skarpen, it's the Bahamas. Also, when coming into the US by air, Bahamas residents don't need a visa if they meet other requirements. If he is so concerned about terrorists from the Bahamas, maybe he should change that rule.

Edited September 9, 2019 by smjjames

[Skarpen]

16 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Seriously skarpen, it's the Bahamas. Also, when coming into the US by air, Bahamas residents don't need a visa if they meet other requirements. If he is so concerned about terrorists from the Bahamas, maybe he should change that rule.

Yes, as you noticed Bahamas residents. But there are other people that might try to get in taking advantage of the situation. Hence the checking of documents...

[Captain Corcoran]

It's funny.  recently, I had to write a letter for a friend asserting that he and his wife were in a genuine relationship and that they weren't trying to defraud the government.  Ridiculous since they've been married for a couple of years.  I had to get my letter notarized, which isn't all that weird, but because it went to Homeland Security, the guy at UPS required me to swear an oath to attest the authenticity.  lol  I've had to swear oaths before, say enlisting in the military and serving on a jury, but never when I notarized anything.   Surreal.  I'm not anti-immigration, but I *do* believe in upholding our immigration laws and fixing a broken system.  Unbridled immigration will break our backs.  You can't legislate a safety net over several decades and then make it available as a right the first second someone steps foot in your country.  It's not tenable.  That said, I think the administration should go to great lengths to aid the Bahamas.  They should also take utmost measures to ensure the legitimacy of the people who end up coming here.  Trump probably shouldn't have said anything about it because the first two could have been achieved without further comment.  That's how it is.  People who hate Trump's policies should be glad he crows about them because it'd be a hell of a lot harder to beat him otherwise.  Since the Dems are making disastrous policy proposals, they might well end up losing to arguably the most enduringly unpopular president of our lifetimes.

You want to know a real reason to attack Trump?  Domestic policy will right itself over time and, as long as the Republic holds, we can recover from even terrible policy.  Foreign affairs need stability.  I'm not talking a straight jacket.  Being unpredictable and striking a little fear into your global adversaries is perfectly good.  This debacle with the Taliban and Afghanistan is confounding.

EDIT:  It's true that I could be a deacon, Hurlshot, but my heart isn't in it now.  I'll settle for singing in the choir.  Maybe I'll join the Knights of Columbus?  They're allegedly paramilitary and dangerous according to some.  That could be cool.  :sarcastic smile:

Edited September 9, 2019 by Captain Corcoran

[Hurlshort]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Yeah. Making sure that dangerous individuals will not take advantage of the situation. What a crazy idea. Impeach now! 

Maybe he should just have those conversations with the people in charge of security and visas, instead of throwing it out to the media. As is, it looks like standard fear mongering to play to his voting base. But hey, it hasn't hurt him yet, so I'm sure it will just keep working. 

[smjjames]

Fearmongering Latin America or the Mideast I can get, but the Bahamas? That's like, fearmongering for the sake of fearmongering. I doubt the Bahamas are very high on the list of conservative amygdala triggers.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

52 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Fearmongering Latin America or the Mideast I can get, but the Bahamas? 

Take a guess what the general population of the Bahamas looks like.

[Malcador]

Americans scare so easily.

[Guard Dog]

Now this is scary stuff. Even a lifelong Democrat is worried about what the democrats (and Republicans thanks to the Orange Menace) are driving at. James Clyburn said he didn't think the Bill of Rights would even pass today. He's right. And that is a huge problem. 

https://www.msnbc.com/david-gura/watch/james-clyburn-not-sure-if-bill-of-rights-would-pass-today-68476997604

 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

Americans scare so easily.

Didn't use to be this way. But now? Yeah. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Captain Corcoran]

tl;dr: I’m a troll and so I will be disappointed if I don’t get some pushback to my arguments.

all;wysr (a little longer; why you should read):  this is an honest accounting of my reasons for why I will support Trump in 2020.  I will probably do something remarkably effective judging by the past… make a mild mannered and quiet case in person with people I think might be on the fence.  Completely upfront if somewhat diminished disclosure.

WARNING:  WALL OF TEXT

Trump's personality is his vulnerability.  He might win reelection, but I firmly believe he won't win it as decisively as he would had he more discipline.  I'd say chances are he'll lose this election, but he does have some natural instincts that are good.  It's just that he does everything by instinct and not all of them are sound.

…But why would *I* want someone like Trump to win this election?  Why would a deeply religious person want someone so flawed to win the election to represent us?  People like me, on the right, have thought that people on the left believe, by the mass, that the ends justify the means.  Trump is 'a bad guy' and so, while he fairly won the election (yeah, shut up, he did), abusing power and going outside ethical bounds is a legitimate response.  That's simply wrong.  In a republic, the means are the ends.  The process of governance is what prevents ad hoc and tyrannical behavior.  Now, I know some folks want to say that Trump acts like a dictator.  Foolish, but fair enough.  I would counter that he sounds far more like a dictator than Obama, but acts so far less.  Who are the people in the press being investigated?  When was Michael Moore literally thrown in prison for his leftist documentaries due to crimes that deserved and have previously warranted a slap on the wrist and a fine?  The absolute stupidity of acting like Trump is the next coming of Hitler is so stultifyingly silly it creates a barrier to reasoned discussion.

We can withstand four more years of Trump.  We can withstand four years of any of these candidates, even terrible ones (which is almost the entirety of the Democrats remaining on the field at this point).  What we cannot withstand is the erosion of our institutions by widespread and flagrant malfeasance in the bureaucracy.

I believe all of the above, but here's why I want Trump to win:  The left (politicians, the press, and woke segment of the public) is throwing *everything* at Trump.  The left doesn't just seek to destroy him.  It seeks to destroy his supporters.  It doesn't just seek to destroy his die-hard supporters.  it seeks to destroy anyone who makes the most fleeting supportive statement of Trump or any particular policy.  If these people succeed, the simmering stew of sepsis in our soul will continue until we get someone the same or even worse later.

At this point, I don't want Trump to succeed.  I want people who seek to destroy all honest debate to fail.  I want people to realize that trying to harm people personally will offend and terrify enough Americans that the backlash will be fierce.  Yep, scared Americans will decide the elections, but the swing portion isn't afraid of immigration.  (kind of ironic to make this argument)

It's funny, every election is the most important in a republic.  I've called some elections most important in the past, but always because of policy differences.  This is the first time I see the other side as an existential threat to the Republic.  ...And I'm not calling for outing or ousting anyone on the left.  Unlike a lot of my friends, I engage in extensive conversations with people who hold opposing views.  I have dear friends who hate Trump as much or even more than my alpha dog friend.

All that said, I've gone on quite a bit and so I'll stop for a while.  Time to 'head into the woodwork,' as they say, but perhaps still remain in company for a while longer.  Take any ‘thumbs up’ as acknowledgment of arguments rather than concession.

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Now this is scary stuff. Even a lifelong Democrat is worried about what the democrats (and Republicans thanks to the Orange Menace) are driving at. James Clyburn said he didn't think the Bill of Rights would even pass today. He's right. And that is a huge problem. 

https://www.msnbc.com/david-gura/watch/james-clyburn-not-sure-if-bill-of-rights-would-pass-today-68476997604

 

I have no doubts about this. There is a bunch of things that would not pass today like presumption of innocence etc. Practically you could forget about mostly all things that are rooted in Roman law.

[uuuhhii]

they choose to be scared

for a reason to support stupid things they say and do