haha wpQuote:
I presume that much of the vitriol you all seem to be reading in my posts is the result of your own personal bias.
I think this is a fair statement.
Printable View
haha wpQuote:
I presume that much of the vitriol you all seem to be reading in my posts is the result of your own personal bias.
I think this is a fair statement.
No, it's not. You said I now know that news source isn't for me. If we were talking about one rogue news agency, then sure it's easy to cry bias and move on to another source. But when the entire mainstream media is cancer ridden, then it's not so easy. Now I have to go digging around for news sources, I can't just click the top article on google news.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Ok, this is natural bias. But that isn't what's going on. Perhaps my problem is when that bias is a consequence of conflict of interests... for example, when the author is a subordinate to someone else's agenda.Quote:
Everyone comes from a perspective, and everything we say and do is colored by that perspective.
AlterNet and Reuters spind to mind immediately. This taken from Reuters' website...Quote:
Ball's in your court to serve me some unbiased news, then.
That's a good starting point for a discussion on what I mean by an "unbiased news source". I understand journalists have opinions, of course they do. But their JOB is to report news, not share their opinion. It is their JOB to find neutral language to achieve this goal. If they cannot do this, then they suck at their job. Or, they have a conflict of interest.Quote:
Reuters would not be Reuters without freedom from bias. We are a “stateless” news service that welcomes diversity into our newsrooms but asks all staff to park their nationality and politics at the door. This neutrality is a hallmark of our news brand and allows us to work on all sides of an issue, conflict or dispute without any agenda other than accurate, fair reporting. Our customers and our sources value Reuters for that quality and it is one we all must work to preserve.
We must always strive to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Allegations should not be portrayed as fact; charges should not be conveyed as a sign of guilt. We have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side.
Ethical journalism is an impossible goal? Well I'll just give up wanting it then. I'll also give up on democracy and a free society while I'm at it.Quote:
Yes, I know. It's a thing that is noble to strive for, despite it being an impossible goal.
It should be trusted to be factual and accurate, that's the entire point of news.Quote:
Yes, of course. No single source is to be trusted for anything. Duh.
You're making it too easy for them. Of course people can put their personal bias to one side. You cannot eliminate it completely, but you can be skilled with language to ensure a neutral tone. THAT is ethical journalism, and it's not an impossible dream.Quote:
No, they can only choose to highlight or suppress their bias; they cannot eliminate their bias under any circumstances.
This is actually a very good example of what I mean. Yes, I did say that there are probably unnecessarily many countries in the world, there would be several big positives about having less. I think I went even into some detail on why, especially economically, it would make a lot of sense. Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings. For example, I was not aware that Stalin, Hitler and Mao were ever the elected leaders of a world government. I have definitely not asserted anything about doing things my way, I just objectively looked at the pros of having a more uniform governance, less overhead and vastly larger economies of scale. If I had been in Stalin's place I doubt I would have been able to weed out all the corruption and diminish the power of the oligarchs without any governance education or experience, but on the other hand it's hard to imagine how things could have turned out worse. They might have, but I'm not exactly sure why and how. Your only criticism has been "fascist!" and other indirect ad hominems.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm sure I don't need to point out no one has claimed that. Dude, I don't find you frustrating and annoying because you're boastful and snide, I do it because you keep twisting words, misrepresenting other people's views and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your cemented worldview. Just look at this post. Half of it is telling you "no I did not say that". If your argument is that concentration of power leaves more avenues for abuse of power, you could have just said that and I might have agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Even if I agreed that it makes economic sense (it doesn't), you still haven't explained how your preferred policy of a single homogenized super government wouldn't lead to starvation, oppression, and massive widespread death. That's what happened whenever someone else tried that. What's your plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
On one hand, it's possible that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's possible that you are absolutely clueless with regard to history and human behavior. And that this utopian fantasy you have is born out of uninformed ignorance and naivete. That's why I said in my post that one of the two explanations for this opinion is "hopeless irreparable ignorance"
The other explanation, "pure malevolence" stems from the possibility that you DO know what you're talking about. You're just deluded into believing that your particular playbook would not result in the hell-on-earth that everyone else's has. And that's a really really dangerous brand of evil.
Those are the ONLY two explanations for your opinion on this. So don't tell me that I'm twisting your words when you've cornered yourself into a finite number of interpretations.
If you think a factual historical account of what happened every other time someone tried to implement your ideas is a "red herring", then you're the worst kind of evil.Quote:
Your only response was and is to ridicule the idea by strawmen and red herrings.
Of course you'll never admit to being a fascist. No one has ever tried to run a campaign on 'fascism'. No one has ever gotten a positive response by saying "Hey, here's a great fascist idea...". But your proposal of a single government, consumed by egalitarianism, and governing all people by "the same laws", is literally a fascists wet dream. If you can't see that, it's because you're the kind of evil soul who thinks that his ideas would work, and that the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were just symptoms of a poor implementation.Quote:
Your only criticism has been "fascist!" and other indirect ad hominems.
It's precisely what you claimed.Quote:
I'm sure I don't need to point out no one has claimed that.
Fine, you didn't say it in those exact words. But that's the argument of a semantic prick. What you said was that a single planet-wide nationality would solve the world's economic problems and eliminate military conflict. The only question now is, why in the world do you think that?Quote:
Dude, I don't find you frustrating and annoying because you're boastful and snide, I do it because you keep twisting words, misrepresenting other people's views and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your cemented worldview. Just look at this post. Half of it is telling you "no I did not say that".
Either A) you were just ignorant and misinformed about human beings and history. or B) You're a delusional megalomaniac who thinks he has the answers to all the world's problems.
So which is it? Ignorance or fascism?
I said let your knowledge of that news agency's bias sink in and color all the other news you get from them. (If I said the other thing, then fine, that's an option, if the news source is particularly terrible, e.g. mainstream sources.)Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you have identified that mainstream news gets to be mainstream because it is more about entertainment than news, then you're stating the problem in a manner which implies the experiment to solve the problem, which is excellence in thinking.
Your final point is always true. No single source can ever be taken as conveying knowledge. Realizing this as pertains to news means you're maturing in your ability to root out when someone is trying to manipulate you in subtle ways, and that's a good thing. Excellent towning.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There are terribly biased news sources and accidentally biased news sources. I'm introducing "accidentally biased" to address your next point, and to acknowledge that it's not appropriate for me to place intentional and unintentional bias under the same umbrella.
OK, I'll look into them more seriously. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I would say that actively trying to eliminate bias qualifies as ethical journalism. However, it doesn't change the biases I listed earlier, which cannot be eliminated. Let's call these "accidental biases," or perhaps "incidental biases," and put them on a lower, more acceptable tier of bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Don't be petulant, ong. The world doesn't owe us an easy time of anything, but throwing our hands up because life is challenging isn't a favorable long-term plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Noble goals are the most worth striving for, whether or not their ultimate realization is possible. The act of reaching for the top, for constant improvement, is the awesome, practical goal.
Yes, but that sentiment ignores that news is gathered and presented by fallible, biased humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I've expanded on some things and changed my position on how we categorize different levels of bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It takes intellectual effort on both sides to approach the "factual and accurate" standard. The news agency needs to actively attempt to eliminate all possible biases, but there are biases which cannot be eliminated. The consumer of news needs to be vigilant to find news sources which are doing the above, while not ignoring that there are always biases which spin the telling of every story.
So this philosophical tangent has been nice for forum-filling, but I don't see where you've addressed what was brought up originally as the issue.
Is it accidental, or intentional bias to ascribe the "gun control = nazism" meme to Alex Jones, and not one of the other dozens of pundits and historians who have made the same parallel?
Is it news reporting, or propaganda to cherry pick a baseless conspiracy theorist as your opponent
You're not going to get anywhere with this sort of language and finger pointing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Believe me. There's a super duper smart economist I love to read, yet he thinks in these terms outside his domain. He says silly things like Trump is evil because he praised a dictator. The bitch of a position one puts himself in when he calls somebody evil is that he had better damn sure be right, because if he's not then he looks like a fool, just like that economist I described looks like a fool to people who don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Where am I trying to get to?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I am damn damn damn dog diggity damn sure I'm right on this.Quote:
when he calls somebody evil is that he had better damn sure be right, because if he's not then he looks like a fool,
A single planet-wide government governing all people as a single homogenized group??? Can you imagine a worse kind of hell?? I mean seriously now. What Cocco is saying is literally dangerous. And I really don't care if he's offended by the language or the finger pointing, or if anyone else around here find the tone toxic. This point has to be made.
Now I don't expect Cocco to relent in any way. But it's just slightly possible he will think twice before making this proposal to anyone else in his life. It's just slightly possible he reflects silently on what he's proposed and says "Shit, they already tried this in Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and probably a dozen other places and all they have to show for it is widespread abject poverty and some 100+ million gravestones"
If not, then it's just slightly possible that someone who found themselves nodding along with Cocco's post has now been pulled back from the brink of insanity and realized "Oh yeah, that sounded good, but now I see that Cocco's idea ignores basic human nature in a way that is profoundly dangerous"
The worst thing that could happen is to treat that opinion with any respect, or dignity. It would be terrible if we sat around here discussing the pros and cons, and then refined the idea into something we think might actually be implementable. And then some of us go off and convince two friends that its a good idea. Then they go out and convince two friends. And suddenly these ideas seep into the public discourse. And that eventually seeps into policy. And then all it really takes is one hellbent ass hole to gain some influence and then boom....society goes down the fucking toilet.
I know the timing sucks because everyone here is on an "I hate Banana" kick and is flat out determined to force themselves to disagree with whatever I say. But that's not going to stop me because this point has to be made.
Cocco's ideas can NOT be allowed to propagate.
They're evil
I can go on for days about the problems of government, and how those problems escalate as government grows and centralizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
However, I think it is important to point out that the historical examples of "evil" in big government appear to emerge from things other than big government. They appear to more deeply emerge from a popular belief of social justice. More specifically, it is the belief that there is a group of people that should be denied their freedoms at any cost, and that doing so is better for the collective. This theme is at the core of Nazism and Communism and virtually all genocidal totalitarian peoples. This manifestation of atrocity appears to be unique to societies that organize around such social justice ideals.
Yet that doesn't mean that other "softer" ideals can't also end up with the same result. One could argue that we have that in small doses today and that it undergoes power creep. Something like taxation may be a philosophical equivalent to social justice, each differing at the core only in their yield curves of how atrocity emergent from them develops.
So, I'm saying two things here:
(1) If Cocco is not the kind of guy who thinks that some people should be mistreated for the promise of bettering other people, then he is NOT explicitly like the evil Nazism or Communism or related others.
However, (2) a "soft form" of this can possibly exist as the type of collectivist ideals we have today, like that which manifest when people think it's fine and dandy to use government force to collect revenues for welfare.
It is possible that both of these end up in the same place, but the historical evidence shows that the former is obviously "evil", while the latter is up in the air.
In short, what I'm saying is as awful as big government is, it might not be big government alone that leads to true evil, but the popular belief of social justice at any cost that does.
Stalin wanted to feed people in his cities. So he went out to the farms, and took all the grain. then the farmers starved to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Cocco has already posited a scenario where one part of the world might need oil, and the government could just take it from another part of the world and give it to them.
that might sound good. But this kind of redistribution generally leaves everyone with nothing. So we're seeing parallels between Cocco's utopia, and the utopian visions that killed hundreds of millions of people.
I've given Cocco the chance to address this. What does he intend to do with the 25% of the population that refuses to abide by "same rules" as everyone else? So far there hasn't been an answer to that, but it's not hard to imagine that there are really only two potential solutions here. 1) social justice at any cost, or 2) Kill all the muslims.Quote:
In short, what I'm saying is as awful as big government is, it might not be big government alone that leads to true evil, but the popular belief of social justice at any cost that does.
Democrats hate science
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...n-science.html
discuss....
That video is from december
LOL, some things truly don't changeQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Good riddance to a cuck called Ryan
Rats leaving the sinking ship.
What's the sinking ship?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The one that's about to get hit by a blue wave
I'm not sure to whether be happy or sad, because most of them blue commies appear not to have learned their lesson the last time
Sadly, it is now more apparent than ever that you guys are a one party system. Not even Coke and Pepsi; more like Coke and Diet Coke. No one will choose diet when you can have the full fat; both kill you anyways.
It also happens to be that your foreign and domestic policy is demonstrably dictated by a TV show, which is hilarious, ironic, tragic and terrible at the same time.
These are quite interesting times.
It's gonna be interesting for sure. I don't have a position yet, probably because most of what's out there is not very good analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Essentially what makes midterm elections turn out the way they do is where on the spectrum we are between "anti-president enthusiasm" and "the goodness of the economy". The way things are now, it is really hard to tell which will be more powerful. There is a degree of anti-Trump enthusiasm in the Democratic base, but depending on how well perceived the economy is, that enthusiasm will grow or diminish enough to create a blue wave or nothing of the sort.
If I have to bet on it, I would say signs are that there will not be a blue wave. But I'm not certain enough about it to express a position.
It will be interesting to see a blue wave and the reaction of the newly sore losers who were just calling the previous losers sore losers.
To be fair, I think this short sighted vengeful-in-victory shit is awful and just foments a more partisan atmosphere.
Sadly for everyone, Trump's best hope now is war.
It's a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
weak sauce demagogueryQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
First of all, if the President didn't consume any news, you'd be saying some pretty foul things about him. So let's start this by agreeing that it IS important for the President to consume news. Why? Because it's a connection to popular opinions and the will of the people.
As you know, various news sources lean in various directions. But Trump's voting base comes from one direction. So it's not really surprising that Trump would listen more intently to voices that are coming from the same direction as his voting base. That's what elected leaders do. It's called fucking Democracy man!
That doesn't mean that he only gets his news from one source. That's a wild and incendiary inference. In fact, in a different news cycle you might be bitching about Trump being 'thin-skinned' over something CNN said about him. Well how the fuck would he know about it if he's only watching FOX?
Now because you can point to a handful of times that Trump's tweets echoed an episode of Fox and Friends doesn't mean that it's compelling any substantial developments of policy that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Tweeting isn't the same as lawmaking!!
Maybe Trump just has a favorite show. he's a human being just like you and me. And why wouldn't F&F be his favorite show? The curly haired guy and Trump have been friends for a long time. And Ainslee's legs.....mmm
Often when confronted by a fork in the road, where the ego must either rationalize something ridiculous or admit a thing it believes is wrong, the ego rationalizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Consuming news is different than watching a show and executing their sole advice, time and time againQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Plus, you are the president. You have all the news at your disposal at all times from your own private sources. You are supposed to know what is going on much better than any TV show* out there.
* Notice I said "TV Show" and not "News Show"
Totally coincidental, I'm sureQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Agreed. And if someone in power was watching a single news source and "executing their sole advice" it would be a problem. However, if someone merely has their policy leanings influenced by public opinion, or has questions raised that are cogent to policy-making, then it's not a problem. You're conflating the two just so you can create a statement that sounds "true enough" and use it to attack the political opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
That's called demagoguery
FalseQuote:
Plus, you are the president. You have all the news at your disposal at all times from your own private sources.
Even so, how do you propose the president find out what his constituents think about what's going on?Quote:
You are supposed to know what is going on much better than any TV show* out there.
LOL, wake up dude. It's 2018. There is no longer a line between "news" and "analysis and commentary". That's not a problem isolated to Fox.Quote:
* Notice I said "TV Show" and not "News Show"
If you're suggesting that Trump took military action against a hostile nation just so he could distract from a public relations nuisance then you're playing a retarded correlation/causation game that you really should be ashamed of. If you're suggesting that he couldn't formulate that idea on his own, but instead did it because he saw someone say it on TV, then you should probably just withdraw from this discussion because it's clear you aren't willing to keep your opinions within the realm of sanity.Quote:
Totally coincidental, I'm sure
First we need to establish he does watch it religouslyQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...hile-president
https://www.axios.com/trump-tweets-f...810e6ff35.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.331849053a1f
I know you hate Vox, but here goes. Broken clocks tend to be right twice a day. At the 3:31, earnhard or whatever her name is says this
Same thing she said in the other video I linked. Take a guess as to what Trump did next in every case she or some of the others on the panel say(s) this.Quote:
So what does the president need to do to change the narrative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1d7UvKWh6M
And I swear to god I did not know about this video until today. But there were countless examples of this exact phenomenon out there, in plain view except for those who literally refuse to see. It's not like it's the Zapruder film either
Here are just a few samples you can continue refusing that happened, as apparently they are not "reality" nor "within the realm of sanity"
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...htmlstory.html
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/1437...ox-and-friends
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...trumps-reality
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ck-loop-216248
You've never heard of the Presidential Daily Briefing right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I hope that is not news to you, but you act as if you have no clue as to WTF it is
I didn't claim Fox News is not news. They themselves know and admit this full wellQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The news part of the name is just some cruel irony on its audience
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-Entertainment
https://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=27363
Is watching Fox and Friends the only way he can do this? Oh, here's a clue: it's a rhetorical question bananaQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Why? Was that in dispute? "religiously" is your word. You're using it to conjure up images of inescapable ritual and faith-based reverence. And you're doing that because you feel it makes Donald Trump look stupid, pliable, and brainwash-able. I'm willing to establish that he watches "often", or even "very often". But please leave all that other shit at the door.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Again you're using your own words to convey a chosen meaning designed to fit into your chosen echo chamber narrative. I don't believe I've said that I "hate" Vox. I find them to be a peddler of demagoguery lacking in journalistic integrity. That's different. The video you've posted is a clear example of this.Quote:
I know you hate Vox,
For example: Trump once tweeted a message of congratulations to F&F for winning some award or in some other way being recognized (by someone other than Trump) as being the "most influential show". Mr. Vox decided to play fast and loose with the facts there and say "Trump called F&F the most influential show". (0:48)
Ok...I'll guess.Quote:
Take a guess as to what Trump did next in every case she or some of the others on the panel say(s) this.
Did he draft, sign and implement an executive order?
Did he direct leaders in congress to change their legislative trajectory?
Did he authorize the use of military assets?
Did he appoint someone to a job who wasn't being considered otherwise?
Did he fire someone for reasons that were only reported on F&F?
I'm running out of guesses here.....
Let's see....I'll try one more.....did he maybe put out a tweet that said something along the lines of "here's something on TV that I liked"
I've seen it before. After all, how could I judge Vox if I never actually pay attention to them? Similarly, I would ask you how much Fox News you watch. And if it's not much, on what basis are you criticizing them?Quote:
And I swear to god I did not know about this video until today.
This "phenomenon" can be observed in virtually every single news-consuming citizen on earth. Pick a person. Any random person off the street. Then evaluate their facebook page and internet history. See what they've "liked", reblogged, retweeted, linked, DVR'd etc. Vox could make a "zomg he's brainwashed" video about almost anyone.Quote:
But there were countless examples of this exact phenomenon out there,
Every single one of those examples references Trump's use of twitter. None of those examples show a correlation between a F&F story and a changing of Trump's policy agenda. All you've demonstrated is that Trump likes a show that presumes to speak for his constituents. By acknowledging their message, he's speaking to his voters and saying "I'm listening".Quote:
Here are just a few samples you can continue refusing that happened, as apparently they are not "reality" nor "within the realm of sanity"
If you're going to leap from there to a position in which you believe that Trump wakes up every morning not knowing what the fuck he's gonna do until he gets his priorities from F&F, then you have left the realm of sanity.
Movium el goalposticusQuote:
Your original statement says that Trump already has "all the news". As evidence you've cited an intelligence briefing. Not the same thing.
I asked you a non-rhetorical question that you completely evaded with this bullshit, non-sensical answer.Quote:
Is watching Fox and Friends the only way he can do this? Oh, here's a clue: it's a rhetorical question banana
https://i.imgur.com/Ky91e6C.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Note the second bullet point. Turns out it's possible for that particular word to mean something different than actually religion related.
Nice strawman attempt tho
Is this another Mandela effect on my part for not having been around in a long time? Cause I can quite vividly recall you claiming all sorts of shit about vox. I could search, but FTR's search function sucks and I'm too lazy to give a fuck, so I'll gladly take your word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ironic word used there. We'll address that later.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quite the same as I think about Fox mostly. I even posted a thread on here uttering my dislike on Fox. Sure you can find it if you need any reference.
The video I posted is an example of Trump's behaviour. How Fox & Friends is currently affecting legislation in your country.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yeah about that. That's why it's called a feedback loop. You are kind of making vox' point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is the loop in action
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-fox-fr...uential-755116Quote:
President Donald Trump favorite Fox & Friends has been named 2017's most influential show in media by news and opinion blog Mediaite, probably because the president himself tweets, talks about, and cites the show so often on his Twitter account.
I don't think I have to explain this in any more detail as it should be overwhelmingly an obvious point, even to you
I'm sure if I analyze the minutiae I could come up with a million examples of when he did, rather than just last week's one(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm sure someone else is doing that at the moment though ...
Oh would you look at that! A nicely written article on this subject! And "old" too!
https://www.thenation.com/article/th...s-fox-friends/
Just for shits and giggles, here's another recent example
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/08/60061...ite-tv-channel
Quote:
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And reports he watches on "Fox & Friends" actually influence policy.
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "FOX & FRIENDS")
PETE HEGSETH: We talked about this group of migrants, 1,200 marching to America...
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Just last week, after a segment on a caravan of Central American migrants, President Trump called his defense secretary to the White House. And he's now deployed National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. Fox News may be the most important news organization in America right now simply because it has a devoted audience inside the Oval Office of one. David Folkenflik is our media correspondent and our resident Fox expert. He told me what the president sees when he turns on the network.
I hate Fox News.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...nt-154830.html
In the meantime, they have just dropped all pretense and just tripled down on their *actual* demagoguery. I already linked to the why they themselves do not consider themselves to be a news organization, not gonna do so again as there is no use
He's the goddamned president. The one who holds the nuke codes. He should know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I just gave another which wasn't. I can go on, but there is no needQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I just gave one that showed exact correlation between Fox and Friends saying and Trump doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is the tough part. I could wager that not all republicans favor Faux, but the overwhelming majority who watch Fox are republicans. Like 99:1.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That is the only rational conclusion one can take, judging by how he behaves himself. One morning he has position A on a subject, by night it's B, by next morning it's C and by lunchtime that day it's position D, and yet his base will argue everytime he has any one of those positions that that was his exact position all along! It's simply amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is the president's job description:Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In those roles, he should be the one making the news. As such, he should not have any god damned time left to watch TV, let alone TV shows pretending to be news shows.Quote:
The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.
As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
If he needs to know what is relevant to him, what is actually going on, you know, the stuff that news doesn't know, that 's why he has the President's Daily Brief. He does not need to be told, ever, WTF is going on NOR how to act on anything by Fox News/& Friends.
I wonder if you actually know the distinction between the two. Please enlighten us with your ever expanding wisdom. Do remember that time is precious and should be spent doing actually useful things, particularly when you are the president of any random country.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What question? Like, really, 'cause I missed it apparentlyQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Nonsense. You know exactly what you were doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Did I use the word "hate" or not? Why is this important to you? Isn't "peddlers of demagoguery without journalistic integrity" enough?Quote:
I can quite vividly recall you claiming all sorts of shit about vox.
You kinda didn't. You just kinda said "But I think Fox is demagogues"Quote:
Ironic word used there. We'll address that later.
Which legislation exactly? I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that says Trump did something he wouldn't otherwise have done but for F&F. You just keep presenting instances of a F&F piece leading to a tweet or statement of some kind. I really can't state it more clearly than I already have. So, I'll just quote myself here:Quote:
The video I posted is an example of Trump's behaviour. How Fox & Friends is currently affecting legislation in your country.
Quote:
Every single one of those examples references Trump's use of twitter. None of those examples show a correlation between a F&F story and a changing of Trump's policy agenda. All you've demonstrated is that Trump likes a show that presumes to speak for his constituents. By acknowledging their message, he's speaking to his voters and saying "I'm listening".
"action" is kind of a loaded term here. Trump likes a show. That makes the show influential. That's why Trump likes it. etc. etc. So what? What outcome has that led to that you object to?Quote:
This is the loop in action
It should be obvious to you that Vox was playing fast and loose with the facts. And regardless, you still have NOT demonstrated any obvious consequence to Trump liking a show. Why is this so much worse than if his favorite show was 60 Minutes, or HeeHaw?Quote:
I don't think I have to explain this in any more detail as it should be overwhelmingly an obvious point, even to you
That's a cop out. What you're really saying here is "yeah Banana, you're right. Trump watching F&F hasn't led to anything more than tweeting. I can't think of or find a single example of when a F&F story compelled Trump to take an action he wouldn't have otherwise taken. There really is no evidence that Trump is a blank-minded idiot who needs to be spoon fed his priorities from a bimbo, a square, and a guy who looks like a cabbage patch doll"Quote:
I'm sure if I analyze the minutiae I could come up with a million examples of when he did, rather than just last week's one(s).
I call FOUL on this! The article opens with a few paragraphs about how Bannon is a jerk. Then goes on to call F&F "news for dummies". Where in this article are you seeing a direct causal link between a F&F story and a change in policy?Quote:
A nicely written article on this subject! And "old" too!
this is the closest I could find:
It doesn't actually "demonstrate" any fact though. That sentence just contains a link to yet another story about a correlation between F&F and Trump's tweets.Quote:
These people have substantial influence over the president’s policy agenda and day-to-day priorities. That is not a conspiracy theory but a demonstrable fact.
Are you really suggesting that if Trump had heard about the immigrant caravan from CNN, that he would have done something different? Or that he wouldn't have heard about the caravan had he not watched F&F that day? Is that what you're suggesting? Seriously?Quote:
Just for shits and giggles, here's another recent example
You're not telling me anything other than "Trump watches TV". You haven't demonstrated, at all, how it's influencing his thinking. Again, Fox is speaking, ostensibly, for Trump voters. When he acknowledges them with a tweet, he's saying "I'm listening". To infer anything beyond that, without a shred of evidence, is outside the realm of sanity.
I'm not going to play the "who's a bigger demagogue" game with you here. I'm just going to say that if what you're implying with you're use of, and emphasis on the word "actual", is that Vox is NOT demagogue-ing, then you've left the realm of sanity.Quote:
In the meantime, they have just dropped all pretense and just tripled down on their *actual* demagoguery.
Know better than to what? Retweet things? Than to watch TV? Then to acknowledge his constituents when they speak to him?Quote:
He's the goddamned president. The one who holds the nuke codes. He should know better.
Explain to me why Trump tweeting something he saw on F&F is not simply an acknowledgement of "i'm listening". Explain to me why it just HAS to be caveman-Trump saying "Mmm, me like TV. Pretty girl say laws. Me go make what she say. Oooga booga"
No...you didn't.Quote:
I just gave another which wasn't. I can go on, but there is no need
.Quote:
I just gave one that showed exact correlation between Fox and Friends saying and Trump doing
No...you didn't
That's kinda my point. People who vote for Trump-- republicans-- watch Fox. They watch Fox because they like what Fox says. When Trump watches Fox, he hears what his voters like. Why do you have a problem with that?Quote:
This is the tough part. I could wager that not all republicans favor Faux, but the overwhelming majority who watch Fox are republicans. Like 99:1
You have yet to show any "rational" link between a F&F piece, and a change in Trump's "behavior". I'll say it again. You're playing a really juvenile correlation/causation game that you really should be ashamed of.Quote:
That is the only rational conclusion one can take, judging by how he behaves himself.
^Demagoguery. Right there. You should go ask David Pakman if you can be on his show.Quote:
One morning he has position A on a subject, by night it's B, by next morning it's C and by lunchtime that day it's position D, and yet his base will argue everytime he has any one of those positions that that was his exact position all along! It's simply amazing.
I'm stunned right now. Are you saying Trump is not making the news? Are you really saying that?Quote:
In those roles, he should be the one making the news.
I'm further stunned. If you're saying that you think it's best that the President not consume news media, you've left the realm of sanity. Even Washington read newspapers for fuck's sake!Quote:
As such, he should not have any god damned time left to watch TV, let alone TV shows pretending to be news shows.
If you're saying that news media and the Presidential Daily Brief are redundant, please cite your source. Does the PDB tell Trump how his voting base *feels* about what's going on?Quote:
If he needs to know what is relevant to him, what is actually going on, you know, the stuff that news doesn't know, that 's why he has the President's Daily Brief.
can you demonstrate, a single instance where Trump wouldn't have known something if he wasn't watching F&F? Furthermore, can you demonstrate a single instance where Trump acted differently than he otherwise would have had he not seen something on F&F? The only exception to that obviously being tweets. Even in the case of tweets though, that's not an act influencing policy. It's simply an acknowledgement of "I'm listening"Quote:
He does not need to be told, ever, WTF is going on NOR how to act on anything by Fox News/& Friends.
Since time is precious, why don't you just cite me a source that says the PDB tells Trump how popular opinion is reacting to current events.Quote:
I wonder if you actually know the distinction between the two. Please enlighten us with your ever expanding wisdom. Do remember that time is precious and should be spent doing actually useful things, particularly when you are the president of any random country
Really? You quoted it! Here it is again:Quote:
What question? Like, really, 'cause I missed it apparently
How do you propose the President remain in touch with popular opinion regarding current events and government policy?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ignatures.html
FUCKING DO IT!!
Some commie propaganda for y'all
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsand...6956956427908/
That "Happiest Country" study is the biggest, smelliest, most disgusting lie going right now. Seriously....it's just garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
How about they do another study.....
Go to Finland, stop people on the street, and ask "Would you like it if we moved you, your family, and your job to the United States right now?"
If you get more than 30% to say "no", I will suck Bernie Sanders' taint.
Deal. I'll even throw in some listerine.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Suicide rates per 100,000...
UK - 6
USA - 10.1
Finland - 16.5
That one was 2005, I found a more recent study though from 2015...
UK - 7.4
USA - 12.6
Finland - 14.2
Ok Finns are getting happier, it seems. Still, happiest? If you ask the happy people, sure.
I figured this out before anyway. High suicide rate means more dead unhappy people, or less alive unhappy people. So... makes sense that Finland turns up a happy place.
The premise is solid. Scandinavia includes some of the most freedom oriented policy in the world. I'm not sure why the rest of the video discussed policies that aren't those policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
UK so low only because Brits only feel okay when y'all depressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The Pareto distribution is legit. 20% of Fins might do 80% of the good in Finland. If policy is to take a bunch from those 20% and give to the 80%, the average "happiness" might go up. Sounds like a plan! A few problems though: it's not sustainable, and it's incredibly unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My complaint was with the specific instrument used to measure "happiness" in the first place. They asked people to imagine a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is the worst possible life in your country and 10 is the best possible life in your country. Then they asked people to rate their own life on that scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Cracked bullshit
If you have a boatload of egalitarian policies, then EVERYONE has the "best" life. That doesn't mean it's actually all that good.
Imagine if your 1 to 10 scale were a ladder. In Awesome-land, the ladder is really tall and there are large spaces between rungs. In Egalitarian shit-holes, the ladder is really short and the rungs are very close close together. The short-ladder countries can create the illusion of prosperity by showing A) almost everyone is near the top and B) mobility is really high. But those are only illusions because A) Everyone is ALSO near the bottom, and B) mobility is really easy when the rungs of the ladder are so close together.
In other words a 5 in America might be a 7 in Finland. That doesn't mean that the Fins are "happier".
He hasn't, and he won't.
Are you saying NK won't ever cease its nuclear testing, or that NK won't ever get rid of all of its nukes?
Economic policy is a reaction / control between what is wanted and what is available, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Economic policies are temporary by the nature of people changing their values over time, right?
So what do you mean by sustainable?
Or what does it matter if something is temporary, but works for a while?
Which one fits the definition of denuclearize?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Whichever one Trump can claim as victory, even when it is just promised and doesn't really happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'd say they both do, but after you said what you said I had a sudden realization that we might be talking about two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I don't think NK is going to give up its nukes. I do think NK is going to give up its nuclear ambitions (i.e. its R&D). Lots of people have been calling the latter denuclearization, though I see now how that term is very ambiguous and a better one could be used.
The play between what is wanted and what is available is a great way of describing economics in its most fundamental terms. Policy is, as you say, something implemented based on desires and constraints.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'd say that's true. It kinda has to be true.Quote:
Economic policies are temporary by the nature of people changing their values over time, right?
Perhaps a decent way of describing what I mean is when there isn't good enough reason to think that a system is fragile, then a system is (as far as can be known) sustainable. I think the Scandinavian welfare system is fragile, which means that even though it looks like it might be working now, effects occur that result in unraveling.Quote:
So what do you mean by sustainable?
I'd say that's fine if it's meant to work for a while and meant to be temporary. I don't think the welfare systems we're discussing fall into those categories.Quote:
Or what does it matter if something is temporary, but works for a while?
Courage: noun. Fucking a rich guy for personal gain, getting it, and then demanding more money.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...hollywood.html
I'm shaking my head here West Hollywood. Shame.
Roseanne's show got some buzz when it first came out. But I haven't heard anyone talk about it since. Probably because it wasn't Hannity-like enough to either engage the right, or piss off the left.
Then that fat harpy said some mean things on Twitter.
Now count how many times you hear her now cancelled show called "alt-right".
b b but I posted about it. It was pretty good too, shame to hear it's cancelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I can't believe they cancelled Roseanne after Wanda Sykes' racist tweet! She was just the "consulting producer"!
https://i.redd.it/6jrqjmnksu011.jpg
So......who does steal wallets??
That's enough critical thinking from you, mister!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I just can't shake the feeling that the entire tone of this story would be 180 degrees different if the driver was black.
It doesn't actually mention race in the story, but there's just no way he's black.
http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/06/...uch-worse.html
Whites are truly the most oppressed race in the history of america. Maybe ever.
The sad thing is I just want to know what scene the left part is from.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Tbf that's about as long as the Germans thought they were on top for.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I thought it was from a movie. The girl looks like Emma Roberts, who was fantastic in The Blackcoats Daughter. Turns out it's just from some russian girls instagram.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BcxriKhlSWs/
I like her, she's not taking any shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=173&v=jaJA86axZ8A
She's a low IQ individualQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Waters 2020!
She is too old to get pregnant I think.
Trump will/has done more to fire enthusiasm in democrats than any democrat could/would.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Cmon man, you're smarter than this...
I'd say the media has done more to move people who have acknowledged that the media is trying to mislead them from the Democrats, and also the media has done more to move people who have not acknowledged that the media is trying to mislead them towards the Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Wait, how does realizing Fox News is a propaganda machine turn people into R voters?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's not the media who is separating kids from families, holding them in 'camps', making them swear allegiance to a flag Orwell style, and putting them on trial.
Seriously, (most) people fucking hate that and they're going to remember it in November.
No they won'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's the media making you think there are people that disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nobody wants kids to be mistreated. Everybody wants it to not happen and much has been done to try to make sure it doesn't.
I believe YOU don't want kids to be mistreated, but the actions of your government suggest applying that same moral to EVERYONE is being generous. It's hard to see this as some unintended side effect of immigration policy. It wasn't happening under Obama (at least not on a large scale), but now it's happening under Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So do you think this is all just a big mistake or accident? And if it is just a mistake, then how does a mistake like this happen - i.e., when someone says 'let's jail these illegal immigrants', doesn't someone else ask 'what about the ones with kids?' And if they don't ask that then why aren't they getting sacked?
It's not new with Trump. And "it" isn't even what "it" is supposed to be. The media has reported a bunch of false things and has certainly not reported any of the facts of how things work and who does what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So it was happening on a large scale before and no-one was bothered by it?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This sounds to me like another excuse. Anything that makes Trump look bad is characterized as 'fake news'. He just can't lose this way, it's perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What are these 'facts' to which you have access I wonder? Can I ask how you obtained them and what makes you believe they are more credible than the 'news'?
The media that constructs popular narratives is certainly not bothered by things Democrats do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Fox News is constantly bothered by Dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If this were going on under Obama, I'm about 150% sure that they would have been decrying his lack of 'family values' and making all the stink they could. Since that didn't happen, we're left with the options that either the family separations didn't happen under Obama but are happening now, or that they aren't happening now either and are just something made up by the non-Fox news people.
Fox would. When it comes to television, almost all of the media is Democrat media. Fox is the one out.
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and also not correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
For christ's sake man....in order to criticize Trump...the pulled out photos from border facilities taken in 2014. HUH?????
And please stop making it sound like things are barbaric down at the border. They aren't. You make it sound like it's Poland in the 1940's down there. There's a 'zero-tolerance' policy, and no one ever said it was going to be all sunshine and rainbows. No one is getting beaten. No one is getting tortured. No one is being forced to carry bags of wet salt in the hot desert sun. Families are getting separated because the parents are being charged with a crime. That's what would happen to your family, if you committed a crime.
If you're worried about your family being separated, the solution is simple. Don't commit crimes.
Seriously, it's that simple. Just play by the rules, and no one will bother you.
Take your libtard-demagogue hat off for a minute and think critically now. What would happen if we gave these people a pass, enforced no consequences, and sent them on their merry way all in the name of family unity? Seriously think about the answer to that.
You would be sending a message that says crossing illegally into America is risk-free as long as you bring kids. That means that families who are caught can just keep trying until they succeed at entering the country. It means that immigrants are incentive-ized to bring children on a life-threatening hike through the desert. It means that the cartels and the human traffickers now have the means and motive to further exploit children.
It means that we weren't really enforcing the border at all.
And I clearly remember Fox News bitching about that.
Did somebody write something below my post? All I can see is a big empty space.
I guess ignoring me is easier than contending with a logical argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But if you ever do pull your head out of the sand, I'd very much like your answer to this:
Quote:
What would happen if we gave these people a pass, enforced no consequences, and sent them on their merry way all in the name of family unity?
He does bring up the important point that the media used photos that were taken from when Obama was president and claimed they were from when Trump is president.
How known is that fact? Did it get any play outside of the small corner of the conservative media?
I hope she never opens a pickle jar again. I hope she has to spend the rest of her life asking a man for pickles.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...cant-open-jars
Bitch ain't even American!!!
Two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
(1) At first it was funny. Now Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real mental health problem that we need to address.
(2) Frankly, I'm not interested in reading her article, but I skimmed. Looks to me like it *could* be satire. I mean, who says this with a straight face?
Quote:
I didn’t want Trump to win – he’d grabbed women by the pussy and...
That won't happen until there is a drug for it. They don't change the DSM without a profit incentive.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
uhhhhhh....shitloads of people man.Quote:
(2) Frankly, I'm not interested in reading her article, but I skimmed. Looks to me like it *could* be satire. I mean, who says this with a straight face?
For a lot of people voting isn't just about policy or politics, it's about values. I would wager a guess the percentage who vote mainly based on values is somewhere between 60-80%
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
It's just, that line, is just, so, weird.
It's like her subconscious stepping forth. Who hasn't grabbed a woman by the pussy? When that tape blew up it had to do with people imagining a certain context that allowed them to say it was non-consensual and stuff. But this chick doesn't even go there and just says that grabbing by pussy (something everybody does) is bad.
Would make for neat satire, I guess, but is probably just emergent from very lazy braining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What the hell are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
heh
You don't know either huh? ;)
Sometimes the pussy just falls into your hand.
I like how wuf answered the non-bolded part and completely ignored the bolded partQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
LOL where do you even get this shitQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I did answer it. I don't know what is happening, and neither does the media that is misleading people on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Glad I wasn't the only one who thought:Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
hmm... have I grabbed a woman by the pussy? No... I'm fairly certain that all of the times I was directly interacting with a pussy, "grabbing" wasn't going on, there.
It's a terrible point, anyway. It assumes that the woman whose pussy Trump allegedly grabbed wasn't into it. Maybe she was. I don't know.
I wouldn't want most people I meet to grab me by the dick upon meeting. However, there are some whom I'd simply love it if that was our standard greeting. Maybe less so since I'm not single and haven't been for years, but if I was... Helloooooo, Nurse!
Had a conversation at the poker table recently.
Food and drink service in this card room is shockingly slow, even when they don't lose your order. It's been a prominent topic of complaint for quite some time now. [I'm turning into a degenerate low stakes reg, but that's another story]
The problem is that as waitstaff positions go, this one is the nut low. It's a small clientele. Most regs don't drink much. They pool tips. Etc. And there are better jobs out there. I can't drive a mile right now without seeing a half dozen "help wanted" signs. So this place is woefully understaffed, and service suffers. You can't do anything about it. The servers they do have do their best. They're not bad people. They're just tasked with the impossible. There's bottled water in the vending machine about 20 steps away from the table, so I manage to not be one of the complainers.
We decided that the problem is Trump. He's running the economy too fucking well, and there is too much competition for talent. So a place like this with shitty work and low pay can't run effectively. It was better under Obama, when there were fewer jobs and talented people had to do shitty work for low pay.
The problem is also Trump in that illegal alien labor has been vanishing after he got elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Of course, illegal aliens being an important source of labor is a problem of a broken immigration system (and probably broken domestic family).
The takeaway: immigrant labor is super important in the contemporary world. Though Trump's strategy of creating an upright and fair system is a good one, a bad side-effect has been downward pressure on what GDP could potentially be due to significant reduction in certain types of labor typically done by illegal aliens.
No such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You can not name an occupation in America that is not staffed, in the vast majority, by American citizens. The notion that "immigrants do the jobs American's don't want to do" is demagogue bullshit purveyed by the left to justify open border policies. It's a scare tactic. They want you to worry yourself sick about "who's gonna mow the lawn??"
A god damn 12 year old will mow the lawn, ok. Tell him to put down the fucking X-box and get his ass outside.