- 26,830
- 38,449
Senator Elizabeth Warren
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 10,580
- 7,874
Irony is hard to see at times
- 146,982
- 179,117
So tiny hands is really telling his DOJ to investigate political opponents huh?
Man has really gotten the 3rd world despot playbook down pat
Must be some more nothingburgers on the way...
Man has really gotten the 3rd world despot playbook down pat
Must be some more nothingburgers on the way...
- 12,114
- 12,759
I will only refer to the president from now on as Hitler, cause he's German right? So Hitler is the president.
- 10,580
- 7,874
Waits for the inevitable "Is it illegal"
- 9,953
- 7,147
#whatsthedifference #wheresthelie
- 14,953
- 36,293
Statistics are amazing indeed, especially when they show the inconsistency of GOP voters. Many of them who opposed Obama's policies became supportive of them once a republican came to power (ACA, Syrian war). That's exactly what the article underlines.
- 70,049
- 24,223
da key segments is this.
The primary source of this breach, to make a long story short, is the US conservative movement’s rejection of the mainstream institutions devoted to gathering and disseminating knowledge (journalism, science, the academy) — the ones society has appointed as referees in matters of factual dispute.
Rush Limbaugh says US institutions constitute a universe of lies (with round corners).
RushLimbaugh.com
In their place, the right has created its own parallel set of institutions, most notably its own media ecosystem.
But the right’s institutions are not of the same kind as the ones they seek to displace. Mainstream scientists and journalists see themselves as beholden to values and standards that transcend party or faction. They try to separate truth from tribal interests and have developed various guild rules and procedures to help do that. They see themselves as neutral arbiters, even if they do not always uphold that ideal in practice.
The pretense for the conservative revolution was that mainstream institutions had failed in their role as neutral arbiters — that they had been taken over by the left, become agents of the left in referee’s clothing, as it were
there's 2 problems.
-da left is blind to their own bias, so when their point of views are expressed, they feel in their hearts they're being neutral... there's is no actual introspection of that anywhere in this article, except for da graph which is basically a Freudian slip
look how much BIGGER da overall left territory covers, and how anemic da center is compared to both right and left.
you can arguably say da left's media Monopoly CREATED da right's alternative media.
a simple solution would be to pass a law that forbids politicians/media left or right to lie in campaign ads, however because da US has a freedom of speech amendment, lying speech unless under oath is also protected.
not for nothing meth, but Rush Limbaugh has detailed this phenomenon your referencing in that VOX article years ago, albeit from da right's vantage point.
for folks who dunno, Rush Limbaugh preceded Rupert Murdoch by a decade plus "breaching" mainstream news in talk radio in da early 80's.
here's a salon article that basics buttresses my point and doves with da VOX article.
Rush Limbaugh gave us Fox News and the Tea Party: How his conservative media revolution wrecked Washington for good
In a new piece, Limbaugh extols his own legacy, blames Dems for DC dysfunction. Here’s why that’s rich
SEAN ILLING11.05.2015•11:33 AM •0 COMMENTS
Rush Limbaugh penned a column for the National Review yesterday. The piece is a kind of origins story, with Rush explaining – in characteristically self-congratulatory style – how he was just a humble entertainer looking to revolutionize the radio industry and moderate political discourse:
When I arrived in New York City 28 years ago to begin my national radio program, my objective was to have the most-listened-to show in the country. At that time, the national broadcast media included three television networks and CNN. That was it…No one had ever succeeded in syndicating a national daytime radio show, and I was predicted to fail, too.
You see, Rush wasn’t just a trailblazer, he was a much-needed counterbalance to the liberal mainstream media.
“I was the only conservative voice in national broadcast media,” he writes. So if you thought Rush was just a self-serving blowhard, a man choking the airwaves with his vapid and offensive commentary, well, you’re wrong. And if you thought Rush was deliberately poisoning the discourse by exploiting conservative angst for profit, you’re also wrong. Rush had higher intentions.
He wanted to engage serious conservatives in this country. And in the process, he says, he happened to launch a conservative-media revolution: “Today, there are more than 2,500 stations doing talk radio, the vast majority of which lean conservative. There is Fox News...There is the conservative blogosphere, and there are more conservative websites than you can count.” Rush built that. He made it possible.
What’s the greatest consequence of Rush’s noble mission, you ask? Obviously it’s “been the destruction of the Left’s national-media monopoly.” Before his revolution, Rush writes, the media was covertly biased. Now, however, the liberal media (which presumably includes everything but Fox and right-wing blogs and talk radio) has been forced “to abandon any pretense of objectivity and fairness and actively advocate on the Left’s behalf. This has led in turn to the hyper-partisan nature of our politics today [emphasis added].”
https://www.salon.com/2015/11/05/ru...media_revolution_wrecked_washington_for_good/
@rexanglorum since you are familiar with both sides you can basically make da case liberal blind spots in their traditional news outfits spawned da right.
from my personal experience, i can say once you discover da left agenda embeded in mainstream news, and no longer accept everything at face value anymore because of certain failings in being unbiased, and also are instinctively weary of da GOP, you've essentially ate da red pill.
da only thing other than passing a "no lying" law, this country needs a legitimate 3rd party to keep da other 2 in check.
Last edited:
- 146,982
- 179,117
Welp,you're getting an answer sooner rather than later...
They're trying their hardest to make the uranium deal into a big deal and using it to attack Mueller,they're not slick with the attempted sleight of hand at all
- 26,830
- 38,449
In order for an actual viable third, fourth, ... party you'd need to overturn Citizens United first. There's a 0% chance for other parties than the GOP and DNC to have any chance at flourishing with all the massive amounts of (dark) money involved.
- 70,049
- 24,223
do you know da origins of citizens united? once go to da granular level of it, its impossible to fight it cuz its Constitutional.
- 64,966
- 196,176
It is not Citizens Unties making third party runs hard. I swear I have had a draft of a post for Rip Sleazy explaining it but it is more structural than Citzens United. Also, I don't think people know how a true third option would function.
Second, Ninja, Citizens United can be overturned by another Supreme Court Ruling. New decisions can overturn old ones.
- 23,023
- 33,725
I love that the article had a little section on "what about, what about, what about" and here we are watching it in action
dacomeup
Supporter
- 26,580
- 37,510
The problem is that bias is human. Our own biases come through even in how we read and interpret statutes, opinions, etc.
What's unacceptable is flat out perpetuating lies. The right has made that into profitable "news coverage", playing on these fears that they're creating to galvanize their base. I think the novelty of this is overblown though, IMO. It's shifted in their targets but think about the lies and propaganda targeting a group of people like black people over decades and decades.
What's unacceptable is flat out perpetuating lies. The right has made that into profitable "news coverage", playing on these fears that they're creating to galvanize their base. I think the novelty of this is overblown though, IMO. It's shifted in their targets but think about the lies and propaganda targeting a group of people like black people over decades and decades.
- 26,830
- 38,449
Technically it can be overturned in a new ruling by the Supreme Court. Many in the GOP try to push for an overturning of Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges for example. It's more so impossible to fight it because that mass amount of money does not want to let go of its power by any means. With Gorsuch it's certainly not going to happen.
But it would at least help significantly right to try and even the monetary playing field a bit? Even if the third parties had good ideas and candidates I think they'd just get drowned out not only by money but also by a lack of confidence that voting for them would ever get anywhere. Ideally for a true multi-party system you'd practically need to drastically reform to whole existing system and rebuild it according to a European model.
- 64,966
- 196,176
If you look on Amazon, there are tons of political science about what went wrong with the right.I love that the article had a little section on "what about, what about, what about" and here we are watching it in action
All have a common theme that rich political opervatives have successfully pull off a form on brain washing on their base.
People think they are taking sense when in fact they just gotten good at repeating deflections.
Last edited:
- 70,049
- 24,223
virtually anything can be overturned like that.
do you know da origins of citizens united though?
like really read what happens...da spoiler is Hillary Clinton got a knack for making things worse for her party and politics in general
- 64,966
- 196,176
It would help, but Citizens United has to go for many more reasons besides getting more parties.
Second, their are plenty of Reforms that could make America's electoral system more representative, without having to moving to a parliamentary system.
I talk about some before but when I get time I will try to post a summary of them.
- 70,049
- 24,223
well someone needs a "news arbitor" thats equal parts conservative and equal parts liberal.
otherwise its up to everyone here to do it on their own.
this blurb can't be overstated.
Obviously it’s “been the destruction of the Left’s national-media monopoly.” Before his revolution, Rush writes, the media was covertly biased. Now, however, the liberal media (which presumably includes everything but Fox and right-wing blogs and talk radio) has been forced “to abandon any pretense of objectivity and fairness and actively advocate on the Left’s behalf. This has led in turn to the hyper-partisan nature of our politics today.
its not unlike da blame of da bloods falls squarely on da crips.
- 783
- 1,405
But it's more than bias at stake, here. You're right that there are very real ideological differences separating the left and the right and, of course, intra-ideological differences, as well. And you can make the case that, at base these conflicts really were reducible to mere "bias" (in the sense of prejudice against the alternative view points and underlying premises) until very recently.
But Robert's Vox essay points to something more disturbing. And that is this: there exists a political and economic incentive to not only deny the long-standing, agreed-upon epistemological foundations, on the one hand, and the role of the "referees" as arbiters of what we know, on the other, but also to insist that it is raw and naked power, and only power, that is the basis of social relations. If he's right, the far-right not only rejects the epistemological framework constructed over time, but actually rejects epistemology in and of itself.
I know how you feel about #45
ninjahood
, but I'm mostly curious about your thoughts on how to structure society: Do you want to live in a world in which: 1). everyone is armed with their own 'facts' whereby my 'fact's are no better than yours? 2). the way to resolve disputes over those facts is not through deeper engagement with how things actually work, but through raw power?
- 64,966
- 196,176
Bowe Bergdahl is one of the luckiest dudes on the planet.
- 10,580
- 7,874
The problem with this is people will still have the ability to ignore the side they don't agree with and focus on their preferred side.
- 64,966
- 196,176
We had an FCC rule saying news networks had to be more balanced in their coverage and discussions.
Guess which political party fought like hell to get rid of it and eventually succeeded?
I would love to have low level wonkish social science debates about the issues, especially economic ones. But again, the wonks are usually only welcome on the left because research doesn't back up the big GOP policy recommendations.
Fox News and AM radio is not some reaction to the "liberal media".
Guess which political party fought like hell to get rid of it and eventually succeeded?
I would love to have low level wonkish social science debates about the issues, especially economic ones. But again, the wonks are usually only welcome on the left because research doesn't back up the big GOP policy recommendations.
Fox News and AM radio is not some reaction to the "liberal media".
- 70,049
- 24,223
i presume they reject it because they already lived under it pre Rush Limbaugh's conservative media revolution is what they would say... remember back then there were only 3 broadcast lightly news channels..ABC, NBC, CBS
whatever they covered was da news, period..they were da standard bearers... essentially a Monopoly.
I know how you feel about #45
Do you want to live in a world in which: 1). everyone is armed with their own 'facts' whereby my 'fact's are no better than yours? 2). the way to resolve disputes over those facts is not through deeper engagement with how things actually work, but through raw power?
-Trump is just a brash, flamboyant NY a-hole to me, he doesn't offend me. lets not get it twisted, i don't agree with him 100%...his immigration stances that Tom Cotton is influencing him on is dead wrong IMO (luckily chain migration, etc. wont be killed..even GOPers know a vasst majority of em got here via family reunification)
1) da world already lived like this before Trump, i.e. Religion vs evolution...once again, as long as we still have da 1st amendment, your legally allowed to believe what you want if it isn't dangerous to other people physically (religious medical refusal is one caveat for example)
2) raw power is actually how things are done now and underpins everything in out society... because everyone got weapons of mass destruction, it forces us to come up with diplomatic solutions.
- 146,982
- 179,117
Diplomacy seems to be dead under the current regime
Similar threads
