The US Election 2016, Part IX

[BruceVC]

The funny thing is the media is held in such low regard these days the lack of endorsements is a positive to Trump's supporters.

Nah, the media isnt so bad 

 

GD  you just need to be selective in what you view and choose to believe, you can always verify stories and reporting perspectives  ?

[Pidesco]

The tendency there is today to discredit any media that doesn't agree with one's views is quite worrying. Basically, the standard position seems to be "why have facts when I have something in writing that agrees with me?". For instance, the need to do something about climate change is being sold down the river, in part due to this mentality.

 

If no one is to be trusted or respected, facts become relative, and Breitbart holds the same level of truthiness as Snopes, regardless of citations or empirical data provided.

 

An example in these very threads is the whole "Clinton has laughed at a rape victim" statement, which is easy to debunk, and has been debunked here, but that doesn't stop everyone and their mother of rolling out that utterly baseless statement again and again.

 

It's all an extension the talking head syndrome of TV journalism, as well, that has been repeatedly used in "balanced" reporting. You have an issue like climate change or vaccines or whatever, and the TV networks will report on it by providing two talking heads with opposing viewpoints. It appears balanced, but in fact it's one guy defending normal scientific discourse against a nutter who believes time traveling lizard people are behind it all. And supposedly this is ok because Einstein was once believed to be wrong or something.

[Guard Dog]

 

The funny thing is the media is held in such low regard these days the lack of endorsements is a positive to Trump's supporters.

Nah, the media isnt so bad 

 

GD  you just need to be selective in what you view and choose to believe, you can always verify stories and reporting perspectives  ?

 

That was an observation Bruce. I was not talking about my own opinions.

[BruceVC]

The tendency there is today to discredit any media that doesn't agree with one's views is quite worrying. Basically, the standard position seems to be "why have facts when I have something in writing that agrees with me?". For instance, the need to do something about climate change is being sold down the river, in part due to this mentality.

 

If no one is to be trusted or respected, facts become relative, and Breitbart holds the same level of truthiness as Snopes, regardless of citations or empirical data provided.

 

An example in these very threads is the whole "Clinton has laughed at a rape victim" statement, which is easy to debunk, and has been debunked here, but that doesn't everyone and their mother of rolling out that utterly baseless statement again and again.

 

It's all an extension the talking head syndrome of TV journalism, as well, that has been repeatedly used in "balanced" reporting. You have an issue like climate change or vaccines or whatever, and the TV networks will report on it by providing two talking heads with opposing viewpoints. It appears balanced, but in fact it's one guy defending normal scientific discourse against a nutter who believes time traveling lizard people are behind it all. And supposedly this is ok because Einstein was once believed to be wrong or something.

This is a very good post and offers some accurate insights, the paragraph below is particularly annoying  when people keep repeating it 

 

An example in these very threads is the whole "Clinton has laughed at a rape victim" statement, which is easy to debunk, and has been debunked here, but that doesn't everyone and their mother of rolling out that utterly baseless statement again and again.

[Guard Dog]

The tendency there is today to discredit any media that doesn't agree with one's views is quite worrying. Basically, the standard position seems to be "why have facts when I have something in writing that agrees with me?". For instance, the need to do something about climate change is being sold down the river, in part due to this mentality.

 

If no one is to be trusted or respected, facts become relative, and Breitbart holds the same level of truthiness as Snopes, regardless of citations or empirical data provided.

 

An example in these very threads is the whole "Clinton has laughed at a rape victim" statement, which is easy to debunk, and has been debunked here, but that doesn't everyone and their mother of rolling out that utterly baseless statement again and again.

 

It's all an extension the talking head syndrome of TV journalism, as well, that has been repeatedly used in "balanced" reporting. You have an issue like climate change or vaccines or whatever, and the TV networks will report on it by providing two talking heads with opposing viewpoints. It appears balanced, but in fact it's one guy defending normal scientific discourse against a nutter who believes time traveling lizard people are behind it all. And supposedly this is ok because Einstein was once believed to be wrong or something.

No argument here (except on that last part). It is ironic that in an age when factual information is easier than ever to obtain so much of it is dismissed because of the bias both real and perceived of the presenter. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but no it seems we are thinking we are entitled to our own facts as well. It's healthy when we disagree on policy, direction, possible future outcomes, when everyone understands the factual foundations the discussions are based on. But when we can no longer agree on what is and what isn't it becomes a problem.

 

The truth is the "media" is largely to blame for discrediting themselves. To take your example when they take two talking heads discussing an issue and one is rational and reasonable and the other blames it all on the lizard people it's a big middle finger in the face of everyone who actually has a reasoned opposition to whatever idea they are pushing. It's the media choosing which side they want to advance and insulting the intellect of anyone who disagrees. Which ends up driving rational and reasonable people to other news sources some now call disreputable like Briebart.

 

But it's more than just that. The "media" has dropped all pretense of impartial reporting of the news in this election. That is true. But they have a long history of trying to make their desired outcome happen through their reporting. Look at the fake news story CBS ran in 2004 about George W Bush not reporting for National Guard drill in the '60s. They actually went to air with a forged document in support of a false story. And what's worse they KNEW is was all bogus. I'll bet Walter Cronkite rolled over in his grave.

[Nonek]

I'd be interested to know what US posters think the farcical nature of these elections, and the utter unsuitability of either candidate is doing to the long term nature of their countries politics? Do you think that it will reinvigorate interest in the electorate, and spur them to take more of an interest in their governance, or conversely do you think that the unappealing nature of both candidates and campaigns will lead to a generation washing their hands of the whole tarnished business?

[Pidesco]

What exactly makes Clinton more unsuitable for the job than W, or her husband, or Obama, or Reagan?

[BruceVC]

What exactly makes a Clinton more unsuitable for the job than W, or her husband, or Obama, or Reagan?

Nothing, Clinton is one of the most qualified and experienced  candidates to ever try to win the presidency 

 

She is very suitable 

[Guard Dog]

I'd be interested to know what US posters think the farcical nature of these elections, and the utter unsuitability of either candidate is doing to the long term nature of their countries politics? Do you think that it will reinvigorate interest in the electorate, and spur them to take more of an interest in their governance, or conversely do you think that the unappealing nature of both candidates and campaigns will lead to a generation washing their hands of the whole tarnished business?

Well if you've been reading my posts you know what I think. Trump is a political neophyte who does not have the temperament, character, the education, or the experience to be a political leader and should not be anywhere near a positions of real power. He seems to have no idea what the President actually does and can't do and has no core philosophy that motivates him and drives his actions. He is wholly ill suited to be President.

 

Hillary Clinton is irredeemably dishonest and thoroughly corrupted. She embodies every negative quality of the cartoon caricature of a bad politician. She will say anything, stoop to any level, kill if needs be to obtain political power. And not to achieve any end in particular, just for it's own sake. She lies without even thinking and then denies ever doing it even when confronted about is. She is wholly ill suited to be President.

 

One of these two will be the next President, God help us, and we will all be damaged by that. Not from them. We've had bad Presidents before. They seldom do lasting harm. But the level of nastiness in the electorate against the folks voting the other way seems worse now than ever before. And the worst part is it is not done in favor of a candidate most of the time but in opposition of the alternative. And neither of these two are worthy of the passion and acrimony this is ginning up. And that is the saddest part of all.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'd be interested to know what US posters think the farcical nature of these elections, and the utter unsuitability of either candidate is doing to the long term nature of their countries politics? Do you think that it will reinvigorate interest in the electorate, and spur them to take more of an interest in their governance, or conversely do you think that the unappealing nature of both candidates and campaigns will lead to a generation washing their hands of the whole tarnished business?

It's always been a farce, it's just more obvious now. Won't really change because the system inherintly leads to this sort of thing.

[BruceVC]

 

I'd be interested to know what US posters think the farcical nature of these elections, and the utter unsuitability of either candidate is doing to the long term nature of their countries politics? Do you think that it will reinvigorate interest in the electorate, and spur them to take more of an interest in their governance, or conversely do you think that the unappealing nature of both candidates and campaigns will lead to a generation washing their hands of the whole tarnished business?

Well if you've been reading my posts you know what I think. Trump is a political neophyte who does not have the temperament, character, the education, or the experience to be a political leader and should not be anywhere near a positions of real power. He seems to have no idea what the President actually does and can't do and has no core philosophy that motivates him and drives his actions. He is wholly ill suited to be President.

 

Hillary Clinton is irredeemably dishonest and thoroughly corrupted. She embodies every negative quality of the cartoon caricature of a bad politician. She will say anything, stoop to any level, kill if needs be to obtain political power. And not to achieve any end in particular, just for it's own sake. She lies without even thinking and then denies ever doing it even when confronted about is. She is wholly ill suited to be President.

 

One of these two will be the next President, God help us, and we will all be damaged by that. Not from them. We've had bad Presidents before. They seldom do lasting harm. But the level of nastiness in the electorate against the folks voting the other way seems worse now than ever before. And the worst part is it is not done in favor of a candidate most of the time but in opposition of the alternative. And neither of these two are worthy of the passion and acrimony this is ginning up. And that is the saddest part of all.

 

GD lets say you had to define which candidate is worse in certain ways 

 

Dont you agree you would be  more embarrassed as a US citizen  under a Trump presidency? As you correctly say  " He seems to have no idea what the President actually does" ?

[Guard Dog]

Pidesco, Bruce, are your seriously asking that question? Do you read nothing that is posted here? Do you ignore the news about her? Nine election discussion threads, some 5k posts, hundreds of linked articles and hours of linked video and you still do not understand why Hillary Clinton is so fatally flawed as a candidate for the highest office in our Country? Bruce I already know you ignore any news story or fact you disagree with. You are the flip side of the same coin as the people you complain about.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I'd be interested to know what US posters think the farcical nature of these elections, and the utter unsuitability of either candidate is doing to the long term nature of their countries politics? Do you think that it will reinvigorate interest in the electorate, and spur them to take more of an interest in their governance, or conversely do you think that the unappealing nature of both candidates and campaigns will lead to a generation washing their hands of the whole tarnished business?

Well if you've been reading my posts you know what I think. Trump is a political neophyte who does not have the temperament, character, the education, or the experience to be a political leader and should not be anywhere near a positions of real power. He seems to have no idea what the President actually does and can't do and has no core philosophy that motivates him and drives his actions. He is wholly ill suited to be President.

 

Hillary Clinton is irredeemably dishonest and thoroughly corrupted. She embodies every negative quality of the cartoon caricature of a bad politician. She will say anything, stoop to any level, kill if needs be to obtain political power. And not to achieve any end in particular, just for it's own sake. She lies without even thinking and then denies ever doing it even when confronted about is. She is wholly ill suited to be President.

 

One of these two will be the next President, God help us, and we will all be damaged by that. Not from them. We've had bad Presidents before. They seldom do lasting harm. But the level of nastiness in the electorate against the folks voting the other way seems worse now than ever before. And the worst part is it is not done in favor of a candidate most of the time but in opposition of the alternative. And neither of these two are worthy of the passion and acrimony this is ginning up. And that is the saddest part of all.

 

GD lets say you had to define which candidate is worse in certain ways 

 

Dont you agree you would be  more embarrassed as a US citizen  under a Trump presidency? As you correctly say  " He seems to have no idea what the President actually does" ?

 

I will be equally embarrassed by either. Was I at all unclear? Well then let me be very clear: NEITHER DONALD TRUMP NOR HILLARY CLINTON IS QUALIFIED OR DESERVING OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

Got it? I'm afraid and can't dumb it down any further.

[redneckdevil]

I'd be interested to know what US posters think the farcical nature of these elections, and the utter unsuitability of either candidate is doing to the long term nature of their countries politics? Do you think that it will reinvigorate interest in the electorate, and spur them to take more of an interest in their governance, or conversely do you think that the unappealing nature of both candidates and campaigns will lead to a generation washing their hands of the whole tarnished business?

Well it's a whole cluster **** TBH. It's driving home to a lot of people that the media is not un-biased and depending on ur party is which news station to watch. It's also a election where 2 people are SOOO bad that people are voting to make sure the other one doesn't win, not that they actually think theirs is a good candidate. The ones who DO think theirs is an actual good candidate for the most part is being selective in what they hear and agree/disagree (aka meaning "it doesn't matter to me that such and such has done this bc the other has done so much worse!" or "what they doing isn't so bad or it's just lies even when it's there in their face"). This whole election has been dirty from both sides and each side doesn't wanna admit that theirs is dirty bc then they'd be "wrong" and not a "winner".

Then people gonna realize that their votes don't actually count and that it's up to the electoral college who wins, not the voters.

 

Also this is basically our national anthem when it's election time.

Edited November 3, 2016 by redneckdevil

[Pidesco]

Pidesco, Bruce, are your seriously asking that question? Do you read nothing that is posted here? Do you ignore the news about her? Nine election discussion threads, some 5k posts, hundreds of linked articles and hours of linked video and you still do not understand why Hillary Clinton is so fatally flawed as a candidate for the highest office in our Country? Bruce I already know you ignore any news story or fact you disagree with. You are the flip side of the same coin as the people you complain about.

 

I'm specifically asking what has she verifiably done that is worse than the Iran-Contra scandal, or the Iraq invasion, or the bombing of Yugoslavia.

[ShadySands]

That's not really a good question as you have to be in charge to get to that level of ****upery

[Pidesco]

That's not really a good question as you have to be in charge to get to that level of ****upery

 

If those behaviors are good enough for a President not to be impeached, what exactly do you think Clinton will do that's worse than that?

[ShadySands]

I dunno, I can't predict the future

 

My hope is that who ever wins would somehow manage a decent job but both candidates have a history of bad decisions so it's a small hope

[BruceVC]

Pidesco, Bruce, are your seriously asking that question? Do you read nothing that is posted here? Do you ignore the news about her? Nine election discussion threads, some 5k posts, hundreds of linked articles and hours of linked video and you still do not understand why Hillary Clinton is so fatally flawed as a candidate for the highest office in our Country? Bruce I already know you ignore any news story or fact you disagree with. You are the flip side of the same coin as the people you complain about.

No I dont ignore any news story I disagree with...whatever gave you that idea ?

 

I am the opposite, I only believe stories that can be proven or are irrefutably logical  

[BruceVC]

 

I'd be interested to know what US posters think the farcical nature of these elections, and the utter unsuitability of either candidate is doing to the long term nature of their countries politics? Do you think that it will reinvigorate interest in the electorate, and spur them to take more of an interest in their governance, or conversely do you think that the unappealing nature of both candidates and campaigns will lead to a generation washing their hands of the whole tarnished business?

Well it's a whole cluster **** TBH. It's driving home to a lot of people that the media is not un-biased and depending on ur party is which news station to watch. It's also a election where 2 people are SOOO bad that people are voting to make sure the other one doesn't win, not that they actually think theirs is a good candidate. The ones who DO think theirs is an actual good candidate for the most part is being selective in what they hear and agree/disagree (aka meaning "it doesn't matter to me that such and such has done this bc the other has done so much worse!" or "what they doing isn't so bad or it's just lies even when it's there in their face"). This whole election has been dirty from both sides and each side doesn't wanna admit that theirs is dirty bc then they'd be "wrong" and not a "winner".

Then people gonna realize that their votes don't actually count and that it's up to the electoral college who wins, not the voters.

 

Also this is basically our national anthem when it's election time.

 

Red...at least we can still get stoned 

 

That never lets us down 

[Chippy]

@ Pidesco & Bruce: You guys came out with this well thought out, provoking, and balanced argument - and then proceed to shoot yourselves in the foor a page later.

[BruceVC]

@ Pidesco & Bruce: You guys came out with this well thought out, provoking, and balanced argument - and then proceed to shoot yourselves in the foor a page later.

How did I shoot myself in the foot?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Then I'd rather have Trumps VP than Hillary.

Honestly I think Pence is almost as bad as Trump and possibly even more dangerous because he would be more likely to get the backing of his entire party (but then I really dislike Social Conservatives and think they're a threat to the country and harmful).

[Meshugger]

The lines have been drawn in the sand and all that, but for once in a long time someone from outside the political machinery has a chance to claim the presidency, and even challenging the current paradigm of globalism to boot. So why not?

[Pidesco]

Don't get me wrong, i think Clinton is horrible, just not any more horrible than, say, Reagan, who I've seen described in the same breath as Lincoln. I mean you have an entire country serially electing political ratbastards for office, at every level of government for literally decades, suddenly there comes one ratbastard that apparently is just too much, for no apparent reason.

 

You don't get to be fine with one corrupt politician enriching himself through elected office, and doing generally morally reprehensible things, while being outraged by another showing the exact same characteristics.

 

And note that Trump is despicable, corrupt and incompetent in ways Reagan, or Bush or Clinton were/are not.