Politics - Jason X

[HoonDing]

Only time I liked the French is when they smacked down those green hippie commies.

[injurai]

The French are alright. First to recognize the U.S. They live and breath the revolutionary spirit. Explored the new world. Revolutionized cuisine. Revolutionized urban planning. Pull their relative military weight unlike the nordies. Tolerant and modern but not so regressive that their brain falls out. Automotive industry not propped up on false admission ratings. Less exploitive of migrant workers to fuel a supreme position in the EU. Strong endowment to the sciences. France > Germany.

[Volourn]

Only reason the French sided with the US was simply out of spite of the British. LMAO

[Ben No.3]

Also, the French easily have the best national anthem and the best-looking flag anywhere in the world.

 

Vive la republique

[Gromnir]

Also, the French easily have the best national anthem and the best-looking flag anywhere in the world.

 

Vive la republique

 

can't say much 'bout the anthem, but their flag always struck us as being a bit, well, plain.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

"France > Germany"

 

I wish we could physically move both to the Middle-East.

[Ben No.3]

 

Also, the French easily have the best national anthem and the best-looking flag anywhere in the world.

 

Vive la republique

 

can't say much 'bout the anthem, but their flag always struck us as being a bit, well, plain.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

thought they adopted a different one after '45?

[Malcador]

Also, the French easily have the best national anthem and the best-looking flag anywhere in the world.

 

Vive la republique

Montenegro has the best anthem

[Gfted1]

Kinda looks like a baby hand holding that flag.  

[HoonDing]

Kinda looks like a baby hand holding that flag.

It's Trump.

[Hurlshort]

So how about that Miss Texas?

[SonicMage117]

Texas has the best women, I should know I married one

 

Texans are really their own though, they never hold back. When I got here it was like a different country. I appreciate that she did us proud by being so blunt and that's all I could ever ask. God bless Texas!

[Eumaios]

I haven't participated in an online political discussion in a long time, although I read them from time to time.  I've been a closet masochist since a misguided youth, I'm afraid.

 

I don't want to write a wall of text, and most of my comments may be taken as support for previous comments I've seen already.

 

1.  We must bring down the media.  No, that's not a knee jerk reaction.  I'm convinced that unbiased journalism was always a pie in the sky theory.  It's like communism or the perfect monarchy.  Proponents argue that it's doable but it just hasn't been done yet.  Yet.  The fantasy was at least tolerable when there was the pretense of unbiased behavior.  That illusion (and even in the good days it was illusory) is now gone.  Better to have new outlets making their biases apparent in order to know the slant of their coverage.

 

2.  For years, the media was in the hip pocket of the Democrats.  I know people argue against that fact.  Some of them are even foolish enough to believe themselves.  Now, however, the bulk of the media isn't in the pocket of the Democratic party.  It's become a monster in its own right, rampaging for its peculiar goals and causes.  This has not elevated the fortunes of the Democrats.  Yes, the media has managed to keep all of the many faceted flaws of the current president in the public's face, but when we're acclimated to hatred on all sides towards all sides, it won't matter that President Trump is reviled by the public.  Everyone else will be reviled too.  Even the usual truism that it doesn't matter who else is hated because the figure that matters is the president no longer holds true to the same degree and increasingly less as the trend continues.  The Trump presidency is probably the most significant of our lifetimes, but not for the reason some people believe.  People act like he's the disease, but he's just the latest symptom of a sickness that will continue to get worse if we don't accept treatment.  There will be no spoonful of sugar for the medicine we require.

 

3.  The Democrats might be able to ride Trump-hate to victory in 2018.  After all, a mid-term for an abysmal administration loathed by people across the political spectrum?  Life for the Democrats should be good.  However, the Democrats are carrying around an increasingly despised media, dragging behind themselves truly dismaying groups of anarchists, and begging for financial backing from tightening pockets.  They've got problems of their own.  It's true that more cash doesn't always mean election wins.  Just look at the last presidential election, but the Democrats can't count on Trump-hate alone.  It'll gin up their enraged and maddened base, but it won't help them with people who are worried about issues, one of which is fear of the Democrats' enraged and maddened base.

 

I won't make predictions about the election because at this point I literally don't think it matters much long term.  The short term can change, but unless we have at least some principled people willing to compromise in office, we're in deep trouble in our country.

[HoonDing]

"So how about that Miss Texas?"

 

Peggy Hill?

[Malcador]

So how about that Miss Texas?

She's in for some nasty messages I am guessing.

[SonicMage117]

I haven't participated in an online political discussion in a long time, although I read them from time to time. I've been a closet masochist since a misguided youth, I'm afraid.

 

I don't want to write a wall of text, and most of my comments may be taken as support for previous comments I've seen already.

 

1. We must bring down the media. No, that's not a knee jerk reaction. I'm convinced that unbiased journalism was always a pie in the sky theory. It's like communism or the perfect monarchy. Proponents argue that it's doable but it just hasn't been done yet. Yet. The fantasy was at least tolerable when there was the pretense of unbiased behavior. That illusion (and even in the good days it was illusory) is now gone. Better to have new outlets making their biases apparent in order to know the slant of their coverage.

 

2. For years, the media was in the hip pocket of the Democrats. I know people argue against that fact. Some of them are even foolish enough to believe themselves. Now, however, the bulk of the media isn't in the pocket of the Democratic party. It's become a monster in its own right, rampaging for its peculiar goals and causes. This has not elevated the fortunes of the Democrats. Yes, the media has managed to keep all of the many faceted flaws of the current president in the public's face, but when we're acclimated to hatred on all sides towards all sides, it won't matter that President Trump is reviled by the public. Everyone else will be reviled too. Even the usual truism that it doesn't matter who else is hated because the figure that matters is the president no longer holds true to the same degree and increasingly less as the trend continues. The Trump presidency is probably the most significant of our lifetimes, but not for the reason some people believe. People act like he's the disease, but he's just the latest symptom of a sickness that will continue to get worse if we don't accept treatment. There will be no spoonful of sugar for the medicine we require.

 

3. The Democrats might be able to ride Trump-hate to victory in 2018. After all, a mid-term for an abysmal administration loathed by people across the political spectrum? Life for the Democrats should be good. However, the Democrats are carrying around an increasingly despised media, dragging behind themselves truly dismaying groups of anarchists, and begging for financial backing from tightening pockets. They've got problems of their own. It's true that more cash doesn't always mean election wins. Just look at the last presidential election, but the Democrats can't count on Trump-hate alone. It'll gin up their enraged and maddened base, but it won't help them with people who are worried about issues, one of which is fear of the Democrats' enraged and maddened base.

 

I won't make predictions about the election because at this point I literally don't think it matters much long term. The short term can change, but unless we have at least some principled people willing to compromise in office, we're in deep trouble in our country.

Trump's doing a great job right now at this moment.. I think only a fool would deny that. While I'm not pro-Trump, I'm not anti-Trump either. I often wonder how much worse anyone else would be doing right now with everything going on.

 

As far as getting the president impeached or not voted in for a second term, I don't see that happening. Democrats simply don't have the numbers and even if they did, in the end I think they will be smarter than that. I mean, Trump has his issues but he's loud about them while Hillary just lied or would be very secretive.

 

Yes, there is alotta Trump-haters out there. I don't think Miss Texas is a Trump-hater as many people are calling her out as. I think they are happy to have anything they can against Trump

 

Same thing with Arnold Schwarzenegger and his youtube video calling Trump out. Obviously he is a Trump supporter and a friend of Donald Trump but you always see/hear rumors about somebody turning their back on Trump simply because that's what the hate train WANTS to believe. Alotta delusional peeps out there who refuse to accept that Trump even won the election (even a year later), they simply cannot move on I guess.

 

https://youtu.be/FN_YIBr0ELM

 

Anyways, I hope that truth doesn't start a war on here.

Edited September 11, 2017 by SonicMage117

[Hurlshort]

*snip*

 

Define media?

[ShadySands]

 

*snip*

 

Define media?

 

is it sad that my first thought was this

[Eumaios]

Can't win if you don't play.  Well... since winning isn't really my point:  I put myself out there, it's only fair that I respond to criticism.

 

Regarding your thoughts, SonicMage117, I actually agree that Trump has been remarkably better on the policy side than I thought he'd be, which was a pretty low bar.  However, he keeps saying crazy things.  It's hard to have a rational discussion with people who might listen to policy arguments when Trump manages to say things that reinforce so many folks' hatred of him.  On the other hand, to your point, there are people who will despise everything he says because they're bat-**** crazy with Trump-hate.  I don't know much about the Miss Texas thing, but people 'bravely' hating the current president is so common at events these days, I don't think of it much.  The poor bastard in Tiananmen Square... he was  brave.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

 

So, as to you, Hurlshot, I would still define media through common use as more or less larger print institutions (Washington Post, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal), the nightly news broadcasts (NBC, ABC, CBS), and 24 hour cable news (CNN, Fox, MSNBC).  However, even if we agree on broader or narrower terms, I don't think it really matters. Yes, there are counter examples, sometimes significant ones, to the proposal that the media (broad or narrow) is mostly hostile to the current administration.  Sure.  The left is adept at creating whole cloth arguments from the scraps of counter examples.  *shrug*  I still believe my larger points stands and perhaps is made worse by what is the inevitable factionalism (or tribalism as has become a trendy word) of the media.  People can pretend that media outlets, whether we cite facebook or NBC nightly news, are beacons of unbiased reporting.  That won't make it true.  On the other hand, I'm shadow-boxing here.  I can only reasonably infer so much from your reply.

 

As for the honorable former president Clinton, just because we can dance around the definitions don't mean the underlying ideas aren't real and serve as the basis for discussion.  ...And, assuming I'm an ignorant flat earther who perceives the media in a certain unfair light, you're still left with someone who believes that the media needs to be knocked off its perch and be forced to battle it out in the fray like think-tanks, advocacy groups, and political parties.  My particular view, even if it's vexxing or just plain wrong, has some cache with a large segment of the public.  That we can cite clearly more conservatively biased news outlets such as Fox news or even unabashedly conservative populist organizations such as Breitbart only reinforces my salient point that the media has become a political force with its own peculiar causes and goals.

[Hurlshort]

I agree with you that we should never look at any media outlet as unbiased. They all have their spin. There are tremendous flaws in the whole 24 hour news cycle that we are all subject to today. I just think the only thing worse than a society of biased journalists is a society without journalists at all. What do you replace it with? 

[Eumaios]

I agree with you that we should never look at any media outlet as unbiased. They all have their spin. There are tremendous flaws in the whole 24 hour news cycle that we are all subject to today. I just think the only thing worse than a society of biased journalists is a society without journalists at all. What do you replace it with? 

 

Oh, I wouldn't get rid of the media.  First of all, it's a freedom of speech issue.  I say let everyone be heard and folks can ignore sources they don't trust.  Second of all, to your point, we don't have a choice.  It doesn't matter if we say the New York Times is the 'media' or we get our 'eye-witness account' from cousin Ted who happened to hear it from a friend who knew a cop who heard about it on the police channel, we have to rely at some point or another on other people to supplement our knowledge.

 

I guess what it comes down to is that I just advise that people read or watch the source they enjoy, but take the news critically and realize there are alternate views and other sources.  The only thing is, if a news source literally lies (as opposed to shades meaning or fails to provide context) then you should probably not use that source for news.

[majestic]

The only thing is, if a news source literally lies (as opposed to shades meaning or fails to provide context) then you should probably not use that source for news.

 

That leaves no viable source of news because every news source in the history of ever at some point lied.

[Eumaios]

 

The only thing is, if a news source literally lies (as opposed to shades meaning or fails to provide context) then you should probably not use that source for news.

 

That leaves no viable source of news because every news source in the history of ever at some point lied.

 

Then hear them, triangulate, and try to find the truth as best you can. My point is that people should not take news outlets as being beacons of unbiased light. We still have to get info from somewhere. All are neither fair nor balanced. So, like I said, see individual outlets, by and large, the same way you see political parties, think tanks, or advocacy groups. I want to find the pivot point between being foolishly taken in by shills on one hand and refusing to believe anything I hear.

[Ben No.3]

 

Like that time they build concentration camps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

 

Or the time they created famines in India?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I guess Monarchism really is the freest method of organization.