Jump to content

US Politics: Follow the Money!


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Notone said:

He still gives Hannity and all the other ******** a stage to spread that Mueller Witch Hunt lie. If they were down to actually reporting facts it might dawn on enough of their viewers who they put in office. That bubble has to be destroyed. And I think that can only be done from the inside. That is of course in conflict with Murdoch's business model.

They'd probably just move on to the next huge media outlet that would fill the void. There was a lot of speculation that Trump was going to start his own conservative media company if he lost the election. I'm sure some other billionaire would be happy to slip in and capture the audience of fans angry with Fox's changes. 

There is a way you could be right though. Part of the power of Fox is that it's viewers don't consume a lot of media elsewhere. Furthermore, they've conditioned their audience to not trust other sources. This allows the bubble you mentioned to function, and for the blatant lies to spread. If Fox did as you say and normalized, it would be interesting to see how their lost viewers behaved. If they migrated to one giant media source, nothing would change, but if they started to behave like liberals and look at more competing sources, maybe you'd be right and the bubble would end. Unfortunately I don't think the latter is the most likely outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

As long as anyone has about a 40% base acceptability provided the economy is doing okay, chances are good this is the new normal in American politics. 

It's sad but true. And realistically, it won't change until there's an impetus for conservative candidates to revert to more normal times.

Sigh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Snip

I worked on a study in college in which we study the repetition of lies by major news network hosts. CNN and MSNBC's numbers were really low while Fox's were super high. The most common lie, IIRC, was that Obama held various forms of anti-white views, when all he ever really said was "everybody, try to be a better person." It was such a joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's sad but true. And realistically, it won't change until there's an impetus for conservative candidates to revert to more normal times.

Sigh

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's over, we had a good run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Scum government and scum ideology that allows people like them to get voted in. 

That country is bigoted as all fucking hell.

 

In fairness, Israeli nationalism isn't uniformly focused on oppression.

Their most recent elections produced, as usual, a coalition government. Israel's future with Palestinians is - not surprisingly - the most divisive political issue. Some believe the best way forward is to return to the problematic original borders that the UK partitioned. Others to assume that the Jewish settlements prove a successful conquest over the entire nation, and therefore Palestinians are citizens of a larger Israel. Others that Israel has conquered the entire nation and giving up the Sinai peninsula was a concession in exchange for expelling non ethnic-Jewish people from Israel.

But the "We get everything" message is very easy to tell. Political parties and groups agitating for more moderate stances argue among themselves about what such concessions will be. On the other hand, "We get everything" is simple, clear and easy to understand.

Israel's elections are always fraught with tension and violence and not all Israelis are proud to see Palestinians killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I worked on a study in college in which we study the repetition of lies by major news network hosts. CNN and MSNBC's numbers were really low while Fox's were super high. The most common lie, IIRC, was that Obama held various forms of anti-white views, when all he ever really said was "everybody, try to be a better person." It was such a joke. 

Yeah, it's not easy when the political fight isn't being fought on the same terms. One side is arguing fact, the other emotion. One side believes facts are authoritative, the other that they're optional.

There's also the fact that people who vote Trump know all of his flaws. They just don't care. They would care if Obama had done it, because he's black and a Democrat, but Trump is white and Republican so therefore it's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's sad but true. And realistically, it won't change until there's an impetus for conservative candidates to revert to more normal times.

Sigh

See if you claim that, you’re the problem. The assumption that these are abnormal behaviors rather than normal. This is normal, we can choose to behave abnormally and have a higher standard, historically that’s why we have a representative republic, but Trump and Trump supporters are better examples of the default normal human behavior we are hardwired to enact than leadership like obama or Roosevelt or Eisenhower.

weve been lucky to get abnormal leadership in this country, right now we are in a normal state and there is no Deus ex magical fairy reversion that will automatically happen in the cards. 

What you want is not automatic, what we have right now is automatic. If you’re waiting for automatic you’ve already lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Yeah, it's not easy when the political fight isn't being fought on the same terms. One side is arguing fact, the other emotion. One side believes facts are authoritative, the other that they're optional.

There's also the fact that people who vote Trump know all of his flaws. They just don't care. They would care if Obama had done it, because he's black and a Democrat, but Trump is white and Republican so therefore it's fine.


The best term for republicans is reactionaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Yukle said:

Why?

What appeals to you most of all?

Just the fact that he wasn't HRC was sufficient.  I wanted an outsider in Presidency, so once Cruz was toast, it Trump by default.  (Also preferred Sanders to Clinton, FWIW) Will vote to re-elect, as it currently stands.  Sure the budget is still a total fucking mess, but without a congressional majority for sensible spending limitations, it would be wasted effort to veto I suppose. 

The Clintons went from essentially broke to a 9 figure net worth and I rather doubt they came to that through honest work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

The Trumps went from essentially broke to a 9 figure net worth and I rather doubt they came to that through honest work...

Fixed that for you. So, Trump's corruption and dishonesty is a feature that you enjoy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Notone said:

The only person who can actually restore some degree sanity in the political discourse is Rupert Murdoch (or whoever buys Fox News off him). The irony being it was his creation Fox news that distorted that political discourse to the point it made Trump possible (I leave it to you to decide whether he took Trump into account when he started this Talk Radio On Screen). As long as Republican voters get their own truth and facts feeded to them (including Muller probe being a witch hunt) and reinforced ad nauseam I don't think you will get House Republicans to move against Trump.

The WSJ is at least to some degree calling Trump out on his BS, but Fox News has to follow.

Why would they do that though?

The entire point of what Ailes created is to do exactly what is happening now. To create a parallel narrative to the real news so that no Republican president can ever again be impeached. It's a propaganda outlet and it's doing a bang up job.

This is all working as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump helps sanctioned Chinese phone maker after China delivers a big loan to a Trump project

Trump stands to gain from an Indonesian project that got a $500 million loan right before he flip-flopped on ZTE.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/15/17355202/trump-zte-indonesia-lido-city

Quote

 

They appear to involve overruling his whole national security team’s assessment of ZTE’s role in the world. And it happened with no explanation, no background briefing, and seemingly no consultation with the relevant officials.

But it also happened the same week a Chinese state-owned company came through with hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, some of which will go to facilitate the construction of Trump-branded properties in Indonesia.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Just the fact that he wasn't HRC was sufficient.  I wanted an outsider in Presidency, so once Cruz was toast, it Trump by default.  (Also preferred Sanders to Clinton, FWIW) Will vote to re-elect, as it currently stands.  Sure the budget is still a total fucking mess, but without a congressional majority for sensible spending limitations, it would be wasted effort to veto I suppose. 

The Clintons went from essentially broke to a 9 figure net worth and I rather doubt they came to that through honest work...

How's that outsider doing with the FCC, EPA, Dept. Of Education, etc working out?  This dude is grabbing what he can and doubling down on fucking over the entire country in it will make a buck for the the elite.  

On a policy level, are you happy with what's happening?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Just the fact that he wasn't HRC was sufficient.  I wanted an outsider in Presidency, so once Cruz was toast, it Trump by default.  (Also preferred Sanders to Clinton, FWIW) Will vote to re-elect, as it currently stands.  Sure the budget is still a total fucking mess, but without a congressional majority for sensible spending limitations, it would be wasted effort to veto I suppose. 

The Clintons went from essentially broke to a 9 figure net worth and I rather doubt they came to that through honest work...

There has to be more to it than that. Especially your last sentence: Trump went bankrupt six times. He has a self-made fortune, and he refuses to disclose his tax returns. So I don't believe that's a valid reason for you, or it would also disqualify Trump.

At the very least, you know how the Clintons made their money. You don't know how Trump made his, because he refuses to disclose it. So I dispute that as being a valid reason.

If it's literally that you can't hack Clinton being a woman, then say it. If it was you don't agree with her policies, say which ones.

Similarly, you've already decided that you will vote for him again, and you don't know his opponent. To me, it feels like you actively support him for who he is and you're too afraid to admit why. So tell us, what makes him so great that you would defend such a despicable human?

Why aren't you at all bothered about the endorsement he got from the KKK that he refused to renounce?

Similarly, you haven't responded to any of my criticisms about him.

How do you justify this list, which I will copy and paste as I think it's insufficient not to respond to it?: 

The corruption, including all cabinet members who have been investigated so far being connected to Russia?

Corruption such as paying for access at Mar-A-Lago, and billing the Secret Service at outrageous costs so they've already exceeded their protection budget?

The nepotism? He has appointed inexperienced family members to government.

The justification of literal Nazis marching in the USA chanting, "Jews will not replace us!" (which seems very eerie now)?

The tax cuts for the wealthy?

The woman leading the education department who lacks an education?

The global warming denialist leading the EPA?

The comically stupid lies about his affairs, his voting record, his penis size?

His deranged call to Fox News which showed his unhinged mental state?

His insistence that a black, man was an illegitimate President?

His decision to leave the Iran deal, acting as though the USA - and only the USA - is allowed to have any vested interests?

What about the big beautiful wall that Mexico will pay for?

The free healthcare for everyone that he promised, that's better than the ACA?

Seriously, what are your responses? The burden of proof is on you, here, to justify why you would re-elect such a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Just the fact that he wasn't HRC was sufficient.  I wanted an outsider in Presidency, so once Cruz was toast, it Trump by default.  (Also preferred Sanders to Clinton, FWIW) Will vote to re-elect, as it currently stands.  Sure the budget is still a total fucking mess, but without a congressional majority for sensible spending limitations, it would be wasted effort to veto I suppose. 

The Clintons went from essentially broke to a 9 figure net worth and I rather doubt they came to that through honest work...

The Republican do have majorities in both Houses and it is odd how people really forget that.

What do you think they (Rs) will limit spending on? They want to butcher all the social program (which I do not understand how people who state to support Sanders seem alright with) and want to turn Social Security over to Wall Street. Then is when you will really think they will finally take a hard look at defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...