Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bfng,

    i'll leave you with the last word as we're starting to talk around each other, but let's look at this statement:

    You're using the fact that trump isn't a typical politician as an excuse or justification for 'news' outlets being blatantly bias and negative.
    you're using some euphemisms here. he's not a "typical politician", for instance. to some extent, this is true: typical politicians will say technically correct things or be careful to craft their words so they're not caught blatantly lying.

    but Trump, having no sense of shame whatsoever, -will- blatantly lie. and he'll lie in a constant stream of tweets, each of which will be reported in the news.

    so the media will accordingly pick this up, and report on the lie, and this is now considered "negative".

    if Trump actually wanted less negative media, it would be very easy for him: he would merely need to stop tweeting. as a bonus: get staff to check to ensure he's not saying a blatant falsehood. it would certainly slow down the constant media churn. but that's not him. Trump -revels- in negative media, precisely because he believes it fires his supporters up. he has no interest whatsoever in being less inflammatory.

    Unless there were follow up tweets or comments from him actually making the claim, which is more than possible I have not followed every report/comment/tweet/response or what have you on that one? if so, then I apologize for the comment if its not true.
    you don't need to. i said he "heavily hinted" at it, which is a correct statement. it's also why he felt the need today to actually SAY that he doesn't have the tapes...because he said a while ago that he would make a grand reveal on whether or not he has tapes.

    so this will drive media articles into why Trump felt the need to heavily hint that he had the tapes in the first place, or why Trump wanted to dangle this out if he didn't actually have tapes, etc etc etc. which are all relevant questions.
    Last edited by astralis; 22 Jun 17,, 21:30.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
      and yes, the liberal bias is certainly a primary driver of it.
      Trump is no conservative.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...verage-is-neg/

        For the youngsters out there, once upon a time, CNN was pretty much down the middle. The fledgling network covered news — real news, not fake news — and worked hard to be on site wherever news was happening. When something happened, that was the place to go.


        I figured you would bring that up which shows how very far you are out from the middle. I can't stand Trump so does that make me a leftist? The fact that I have felt that way for 40 years still make me a leftist or just someone who recognized a supreme jackass back in 1975. Apparently I am not the only one to recognize that although most are later to it then me and some other New Yorkers.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by snapper View Post
          Trump is no conservative.
          Bingo. Someone gets it. Trump is, and has always, been about ratings and getting people to look at him. He would, and does, do anything that can garner attention over the decades. People are fools to think he is about America instead of the fact that he has been all about himself since a kid. He is an opportunist through and through.

          This is what he lives for...

          Muilenburg told reporters: "It was a terrific conversation. Got a lot of respect for him. He's a good man. And he's doing the right thing."
          Last edited by tbm3fan; 23 Jun 17,, 05:08.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            bfng,

            i'll leave you with the last word as we're starting to talk around each other, but let's look at this statement:



            you're using some euphemisms here. he's not a "typical politician", for instance. to some extent, this is true: typical politicians will say technically correct things or be careful to craft their words so they're not caught blatantly lying.

            but Trump, having no sense of shame whatsoever, -will- blatantly lie. and he'll lie in a constant stream of tweets, each of which will be reported in the news.

            so the media will accordingly pick this up, and report on the lie, and this is now considered "negative".

            if Trump actually wanted less negative media, it would be very easy for him: he would merely need to stop tweeting. as a bonus: get staff to check to ensure he's not saying a blatant falsehood. it would certainly slow down the constant media churn. but that's not him. Trump -revels- in negative media, precisely because he believes it fires his supporters up. he has no interest whatsoever in being less inflammatory.



            you don't need to. i said he "heavily hinted" at it, which is a correct statement. it's also why he felt the need today to actually SAY that he doesn't have the tapes...because he said a while ago that he would make a grand reveal on whether or not he has tapes.

            so this will drive media articles into why Trump felt the need to heavily hint that he had the tapes in the first place, or why Trump wanted to dangle this out if he didn't actually have tapes, etc etc etc. which are all relevant questions.
            I don't think we are talking around each other at all.

            the finding of the study, with CNN and the other than being more than 90% negative, shows a clear bias and an agenda.

            love him, hate him, what ever.

            the idea that he's 'different' does not explain it or excuse it.

            These are supposed to be 'un-biased' news agencies.

            I think the study shows what most people see. they are not.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
              I figured you would bring that up which shows how very far you are out from the middle. I can't stand Trump so does that make me a leftist? The fact that I have felt that way for 40 years still make me a leftist or just someone who recognized a supreme jackass back in 1975. Apparently I am not the only one to recognize that although most are later to it then me and some other New Yorkers.
              wait wait wait.

              so I post an article talking about how much certain 'news networks' are going negative on their coverage, and you are using that to state 'how very far out from the middle' I am? I figured you'd make a claim like that.

              then you you follow it with that question? 'does that make me a leftist because I hate trump'?

              personally I don't care who you like or dislike until you start a major news network and claim to be unbiased and then go on to be the exact opposite of that.

              and no, Trump is no conservative, he's no liberal, as far as I can tell he's what ever suits him best that day and what ever is to his advantage.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                and no, Trump is no conservative, he's no liberal, as far as I can tell he's what ever suits him best that day and what ever is to his advantage.
                "...what ever (sic) is to his advantage." I agree but therein lies the problem since he surely supposed to act in the best interests of the US as a whole.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                  GV perhaps, perhaps not.

                  Sticking to a strict definition of socialism i.e. 'a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.' there are no truly committed socialist governments among the major European powers. Yes, in terms of health care there are elements of socialist policies - to the extent that they have public (or mixed) health care systems but that is only one element of the economy in what are at heart highly diversified capitalist states.

                  Even most of the socialist parties in Europe have for the most part outgrown their strict socialist roots - notwithstanding the British Labor Parties most recent manifesto. Whatever policies they go into elections with none of them have moved to adopt sweeping socialist policies once in office. Hell not even in Greece! And every one of them has matching conservative parties deeply committed to the principals of free market economics.

                  If your looking for truly socialist economies you need to go fare afield to upcoming 'tiger' economies like Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe! (kidding)
                  Monash,

                  I agree to an extent, but I think you're missing the point. You're arguing that people are not anti-market for the purpose of being anti-market. Governments and people are both reflexively anti-market. It took centuries of major changes in politics and institutions to get a relatively small fraction of the world (the West) to embrace markets, in a limited and tenuous manner. Even the Western economies had a full-scale tilt towards socialism, which included nationalizing entire industries. The neo-liberal revolution rolled this back ever so slightly, but the majority of Western nations today still spend close to or over 50% of their respective economies. The majority of citizens are still lock-step behind hugely anti-market policies, like wind-fall taxes, rent controls, usury laws, gasoline price controls, minimum wages, maximum wages, etc.

                  So to describe the West, or any nation, as not willing to embrace a socialist policy, just for the sake of a socialist policy, strikes me as entirely incorrect. All nations will reflexively move in this direction. The nations that do not are curious anomalies in human history, NOT the norm. Again, within living memory, the West was locked into a life-or-death ideological battle with an ideology that absolutely thought profit was inherently evil, and allowing profit was inherently more evil than rounding up dissidents and sending them to death camps, and that collectivized agriculture was an awesome idea. Not only were we NOT the majority, we were vastly outnumbered.

                  I think nationalized health care is a great example of this. The arguments for nationalized health care are largely not the nuanced arguments of an economist. They are "it shouldn't be allowed to profit on healthcare," "everyone should have healthcare," and "healthcare is so expensive because we allow profits and marketing expenses." These arguments all apply to every single industry and are nothing more than standard anti-market arguments.

                  It's also important to note that the neo-liberal revolution in the West is an almost entirely spent political force, and that means Third-Way center-left politics are dying. The new left coalition relies heavily on students and young people and racial minorities. The majority of these new arrivals are self-identified socialists. That will move center-left politics even further to the left than they already are.

                  So, yes, I am totally willing to believe that entire nations will embrace socialism just for the hell of it. That's the norm, not the exception.
                  "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                  Comment


                  • GVChamp,

                    Governments and people are both reflexively anti-market. It took centuries of major changes in politics and institutions to get a relatively small fraction of the world (the West) to embrace markets, in a limited and tenuous manner.
                    eh...the definition of "markets" here is pretty tenuous if you're going to define that as "centuries". i mean, when were the principles of capitalism laid out? for that matter, capitalism itself is dependent on things like rule of law, property rights, etc.

                    you're right in that capitalism-- a completely unrestrained capitalism-- is as alien a concept to humans as completely unrestrained communism.

                    but the majority of Western nations today still spend close to or over 50% of their respective economies.
                    which should be an indication that a qualitatively different synthesis of capitalism and democracy is near impossible to achieve. basically, because humans are not the pure economic units of rationalism that create the building blocks of capitalism 101, some acceptance of "inefficiencies" in the system is required for the system to exist in the first place.

                    It's also important to note that the neo-liberal revolution in the West is an almost entirely spent political force, and that means Third-Way center-left politics are dying.
                    so it's important to see -why- Third-Way center-left politics hasn't captured the young. it's too simplistic to say that it's merely a reflexive return to old, bad habits. there's multiple good reasons for this-- off the top of my head, 1. the end of this current cycle of technological development means less economic gains, and less broad economic gains, than the beginning, 2. the easy gains of globalization have been tapped out, while many of the costs remain, 3. the huge preponderance of capital over labor that's inherent in current technology will also serve to concentrate wealth.

                    in short, it boils down to that current technologies and a global market tend to concentrate wealth, thus belief in the power of capitalism to lift all boats is weakened.

                    So, yes, I am totally willing to believe that entire nations will embrace socialism just for the hell of it.
                    i'm not particularly concerned by this if it's the socialism of the "shearing more of the sheep for wool" variety. capitalism will survive a few more percentages of "inefficiency", and this applies not just to tax rates but to things like, yes, nationalized healthcare. it's when it moves to the "let's kill the sheep", that's when it is concerning.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • I don't think capitalism is in any immediate danger of ending. However, given that your tax burden is probably going to increase by 30% once your political compatriots are finished, and your services will in all likelihood decline as your infrastructure and healthcare dollars as "equalized" to poorly functioning, low-income communities, you might want to reconsider how significant these choices are.

                      If your concern is political and social persecution, your political allies can only win by stoking racial resentment and resisting widespread social integration. They are in no way rational and will have no problem turning their focus on you if it nets them votes.

                      Again, not the end of the Republic by any means, but this isn't a preferable political outcome, and it's not going to be a fun time for me and probably not going to be a fun time for you, or any American on this board, unless either the Third Industrial Revolution or the Singularity happen in this time frame.

                      Most of my stable UMC friends think they are somehow going to get even more money, because they think "the rich" are just sitting on piles of money that can fund everything from Space Fortresses to heart transplants to everyone to free candy for Third World babies. It's not going to work out that way. They are mortgaging their already well-secured futures out of greed and fear.


                      They will probably come out okay. On the range of possible outcomes, anything that happens to them won't be terrible. But they are going to take a huge (25+%) quality of life hit.
                      Last edited by GVChamp; 23 Jun 17,, 17:12.
                      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                        so Trump being 'out of the norm' on his own excuses a couple of outlets that proclaim themselves to be 'news organizations' for having upwards of 90% of their coverage of him being negative.

                        I don't think so.
                        You're talking about Fox, et al, during the Obama Administration, right?
                        Or, is this a one-way kindda thing?
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                          Trump is no conservative, he's no liberal, as far as I can tell he's what ever suits him best that day and what ever is to his advantage.
                          Hang on a minute.
                          Conservatives aren't going to weasle out of this one that easily!

                          For the most part, Red states voted for The Trumpet and Blue states didn't.

                          Rednecks, bigots, racists, the NRA and the KKK love him.

                          Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are working with him in ways that are 180* from their relationships with Obama.

                          This week at least, he seems to want to slash social benefits from the poor so as to be able to hand sacks of cash to the rich while paying lip service to -- and blowing out in Reaganesque, if not Bushy term -- the notion of fiscal consevation.

                          Yep, he's 100% what passes for a conservative in Today's America!
                          Trust me?
                          I'm an economist!

                          Comment


                          • GVChamp,

                            However, given that your tax burden is probably going to increase by 30% once your political compatriots are finished, and your services will in all likelihood decline as your infrastructure and healthcare dollars as "equalized" to poorly functioning, low-income communities, you might want to reconsider how significant these choices are.
                            if you mean my tax burden will go from roughly 30% to 60%...i find that unlikely. if you mean it'll go from 30% to 39%...i find that a reasonable prediction, and nothing that will cause a dramatic decrease to my quality of living.

                            to put things in perspective, the "moderate" Jeb Bush proposed a set of tax cuts that would cost roughly 3.5 trillion over a decade, a price that would cost the same as all of Bernie Sander's economic proposals put together.

                            If your concern is political and social persecution, your political allies can only win by stoking racial resentment and resisting widespread social integration.
                            eh...i don't think you need my commentary to see the irony in this, given the current administration.

                            Again, not the end of the Republic by any means, but this isn't a preferable political outcome,
                            well, this is an improvement at least. if i recall correctly you were saying that we'd all be a hop, skip, and jump away from Sanderistas rounding everyone up for re-education camp.

                            overall, this talk of "socialism" this and "socialism" that in the American context is overblown. even if all the millennial progressive dreams (well, nightmare for you!) become reality-- and i highly, highly doubt that it will-- we'd end up with an administrative state/tax structure that would probably still be somewhat lower than the current OECD average (US tax burden is roughly 26%; OECD average is 34%; Sweden/France/Belgium is 45%).
                            Last edited by astralis; 23 Jun 17,, 19:37.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • Your tax rate might go up to 60% depending on your income level and your state!

                              An extra 9% is not trivial. I mean, it's trivial on the spectrum that includes "Nazi Germany" and "total collapse of the Western Roman Empire." For the businessman/nurse couples in my friend group, that's an extra $10,000/year. That's an awful lot of money, especially when they think they'll be getting money back from the government. They'll be making some real tough choices about what sort of lifestyle they want to live, and they'll still be better off than the Americans deciding whether or not air conditioning is really worth it when we try to do that whole "cut per-capita carbon emissions by 80%" thing.

                              This is what I expect to happen. I fully expect more political violence to happen but I don't expect it to affect me all that much: that's just reversion to the American mean after decades of relative calm. There is an outside chance of more extreme political activity, and I consider the Sanders-istas way more of a threat than the Trumpeteers.


                              Our household is budgeted to take that kind of a hit, and worse ones than that, but only in certain timeframes. Illinois' tax hike this year, combined with the expected property tax hike, is going to hit very hard. We will be getting no additional services for any additional dollars, and if anything the services we have will decline. I expect this to hold over the next 20-30 years.

                              EDIT: For reference, I expect the Illinois tax increase coming this year, which will still not fix our budget problems and will not be a permanent fix, to cost our household an extra $4,000. Already a long way to that extra $10,000! A lot of Chicago households have gotten big increases this year and really haven't seen anything yet because the CPS and other Chicago pensions are screwed. Of course, they want the rest of the state to bail them out, even though their property taxes are lower than everyone else's, but they have enough clout to demand the extra money.
                              Last edited by GVChamp; 23 Jun 17,, 22:52.
                              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                                the finding of the study, with CNN and the other than being more than 90% negative, shows a clear bias and an agenda.
                                I think one would find if they look back far enough they would see Trump going negative on the press first. That would be typical Trump MO. He will try to set the tone and he will try to intimidate. He did it with the Hispanic judge handling a law suit. He is doing it with Mueller right now. In another day and another time he would send Luca Brasi out to have a talk with you. So the fact that the press went negative on him is to be completely expected. Fight fire with fire.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X