Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2020, 06:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, how long are we going to stick to CDC guidelines with all the chaos that we see that's going on in hospitals today? We have a major crisis going on and we have a bunch of people with college degree's (governors, politicians, bureaucrats, medical professionals and so forth) sticking to rules that aren't working and depleting their ranks? Dude, a lot of people are going to die over emotional stupidity and inept leadership.

Yes, we have some people who are ignoring the science, showing bad leadership, causing people to lose their lives unnecessarily. That's mostly some Republican's fault. Thing is, there is a problem with the followers too. A lot of people are not following the science that is getting out in spite of Trump and company. These ordinary folk are killing not only themselves but many in their community as well. Enough medical professionals, coastal media and even some politicians are making the science crystal clear if you are the least bit willing to listen.

Too many people are sticking with the unravelling mentality. Selfishness is ranked over sacrifice for the common good. While everyone here pretty much agrees that the crisis has come, they don't learn from the theory, they cling to the old mindset regardless of what they supposedly learned from decades studying. It is time to come together, put America above themselves, and work to solve the major problems facing the culture.

Naturally, the selfish feel good about it. America be damned. It is all me me me.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-03-2020, 05:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Most of the human laws are the result of principles laid out as many as three millennia ago. Human nature has changed so little that Greek drama is still accessible. People still consult the Torah, the Buddhist sutras, or Confucius' Analects for fine points of life. I assume that you are part of the Judeo-Christian heritage, so I suggest that you consult clergy for some sound advice on how to deal with your anger.

I'm venting. I deal with my anger by venting. I'm also letting you know that this ain't over just because Trump was defeated. The Republican party has some sole searching to do because Republicans helped with his defeat. Republicans can't do that if they want to win and if they don't want to win or don't seem to care if they then were going to stop supporting them and support the party that does. It should be pretty easy to beat an elephant that's down to skin and bones, a donkey could do it. I think the Republicans forgot what the elephant represents. I don't know if any of you actually seen Biden while he was barely campaigning. I did every time that I tuned into Fox. He looked horrible with a very light campaign schedule and it was frequent. I think he's done within two years. I'm going by my mom but she wasn't the President of the United States. You know, if I had a lot riding on or reliant upon who won, I wouldn't vote for an elderly old man loses it (loses train of thoughts, forgets where he's at and then bumbles way through whatever it was he was trying to talk about or answer.

[Eric the Green]

(12-03-2020, 11:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2020, 05:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Most of the human laws are the result of principles laid out as many as three millennia ago. Human nature has changed so little that Greek drama is still accessible. People still consult the Torah, the Buddhist sutras, or Confucius' Analects for fine points of life. I assume that you are part of the Judeo-Christian heritage, so I suggest that you consult clergy for some sound advice on how to deal with your anger.

I'm venting. I deal with my anger by venting. I'm also letting you know that this ain't over just because Trump was defeated. The Republican party has some sole searching to do because Republicans helped with his defeat. Republicans can't do that if they want to win and if they don't want to win or don't seem to care if they then were going to stop supporting them and support the party that does. It should be pretty easy to beat an elephant that's down to skin and bones, a donkey could do it. I think the Republicans forgot what the elephant represents. I don't know if any of you actually seen Biden while he was barely campaigning. I did every time that  I tuned into Fox. He looked  horrible with  a very  light campaign schedule and it was frequent. I think he's done within two years. I'm  going by my mom but she wasn't the President of the United States. You know, if I had a lot riding on or reliant upon who won, I wouldn't vote for an elderly old man loses it (loses train  of thoughts, forgets where he's at and then bumbles way through whatever it was he was trying to talk about or answer.

Sole searching! That would be quite a feat! ha ha They have a long path to walk indeed if they are ever to be relevant again!

Biden's doing well. I think he will make it through 4 years, because according to my horoscope scores, Kamala will never be president. Well, we'll see if my prediction holds up.

[Eric the Green]

(12-03-2020, 03:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-02-2020, 02:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-02-2020, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-02-2020, 07:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't know.  2020 has a month left to run.  With Trump still entering the revenge and pardon phases, might we have still another month or two of disasters?  Perhaps he was a little early in blowing up 2020?

If Biden has a shot, it will be a gift from the Trumpster.  It's obvious that Trump pardoning everyone in his administration including himself is a call to arms, and Biden must answer with strength and not equivocate.  Will he? It's hard to say.

Biden has said that charges against Trump are up to whoever he appoints as attorney general and his Justice Department. I assume they might contest his self-pardon in Court, but there he has Barrett who would probably protect him. But Trump also has the state of New York to deal with.

Since when has sicking the dogs on political opponents been legal in this country? I know Obama did it and got away with it a few times. Being the the first black President had it's   SPECIAL perks. So, who is teaching is teaching who in the bigger cities with all the problems that we don't care if they ever receive help/ funding again? So, who is to blame for the situation that you find yourself in today? You do realize the blue media mogul's pretty much lit the fuse for a civil war that's going to occur in their cozy blue and neighborhoods back yards. It's smoldering but it's lit. Lets see, what could trigger a spiral of violence  today? An incident with a cop that results in the death of a black person any where in the United States of America. Why can't people who lost their businesses or homes or were injured during the violence get together and sue Facebook or Google these days? Oh, that's right, they have legal  immunity and First Amendment protections and rights and powers which nobody else has these days? Not even the President of the United States. We are awake, are you? I assume that you must view that as beneficial to today but probably won't when the Democratic party turns fascist out of necessity and begins killing people they can no longer afford to support. Where will be, we won't be defending old people like you living in a blue state. We have two groups of Darwin's. One is natural and the other is not. Eventually, the two groups are going to square off. One is going to win. Nature always wins. There's a lot of you and there's a lot of us and there are obvious differences between us right now. Ones free to do as it please right and the other is restricted by laws made by humans and the laws that come from above. That's where we're at right now. Are you familiar with the laws above? I haven't seen signs that you're familiar with them so I'll assume you're not familiar with them and leave it at that.

I know about spiritual laws, and they are in the Bible, but only if you read it with esoteric wisdom rather than according to what the typical Republican Christian preacher says.

But I guess our side outnumbers your side right now by several million. Now that the borders will be more open again, I guess that margin will rise. It was already rising. Your side has built some impressive walls, higher and more durable than the one Trump wanted Mexico to pay for. How long will they hold up against the majority will is the question. But in the previous civil war, our side beat yours by sheer numbers, as historian Shelby Foote related in the Burns Civil War series about the Grant vs. Lee battle. So it will likely be again, if it comes to that. Perhaps if necessary our two sides can work out some arrangement. I hope so.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2020, 03:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: We have two groups of Darwin's. One is natural and the other is not. Eventually, the two groups are going to square off. One is going to win. Nature always wins. There's a lot of you and there's a lot of us and there are obvious differences between us right now. Ones free to do as it please right and the other is restricted by laws made by humans and the laws that come from above. That's where we're at right now. Are you familiar with the laws above? I haven't seen signs that you're familiar with them so I'll assume you're not familiar with them and leave it at that.

The side that always wins is the urban, secular, roundhead faction.  With each crisis, there is a step further away from the Agricultural Age.  This time the support for the elitists and racists is questionable.  That aspect will either fade, or while it is still alive it will drag the Republicans down.  The crisis is apt to lead into another progressive period, much as it did last time.

This doesn't mean that the rural, racist, cavalier faction hasn't contributed to America.  That doesn't mean that they haven't been valuable at various times, that their traits have not contributed.  It just means that come the crisis, if they directly fight the roundhead faction, they lose.  If the last awakening of the 1960s was a time of significant cultural change, then the cavaliers lost that too.  Come the unravelling, well, they had their day.

Now there are things that the Republicans stand for that should be preserved.  A desire for small government and lower spending is natural enough, but right now it has been taken beyond the point of reasonable return.  In a crisis, you have to solve the major problems confronting the people.  You also have to keep capitalism working.  There is a fraction of truth in the old idea that what is good for General Motors is good for America.  Capitalism has to be represented and kept working.  Still, that too is an idea that has been taken too far in the unraveling.  It is time to come together and put the country ahead the desires of any special interest.

To contend to be a representative party of America, you have to have a big tent.  For a time the elites provided the money, the racists the votes, and the working man and minorities were schrod.  That alliance of elites and racists seems to be running into an unraveling end, into a crisis and regeneracy.  Problems with the culture which were long ignored are coming home to roost and must be addressed.  

If you think you will find answers on the bottom of your feet, indeed search your shoe's sole carefully.  Thing is, I'm inclined to be suspect of how the majority was kept big during the unravelling.  If you want a big tent, you will be in trouble as the elitist and racist elements that proved so important back then are fading now.  The more they cling to the old values, the faster the old values will discredit themselves.

Meanwhile, corporate interests have come to dominate many rural jobs.  If you want them to provide a good working stable job yielding a living wage, you can't go to the party of the elites.  They will push corporate interests ahead of the working guy's.  The Tea Party's original idea of separating the Republican Party from the elitist interest was sound.  For a while during the primaries leading up to the 2016 elections, the Republican establishment's candidates could not compete.  Still, the base fell in love with the biggest alligator in the swamp.  You have to be very careful who you come to follow to take Trump's place.

There is a place for the Republican Party.  It is just not what is was during the unravelling.  If you are to examine the soles of your shoes, ask how to further your real interests.  In abstract, the theory seems to predict the Democrats will again lose the support of the people come the next unraveling.  By then, the Republicans should have reinvented themselves.  I can't see exactly what the issues will be then.  Too many coasts flooding?  Too many places that were habitable becoming uninhabitable?  Too many people who have to find another place?  Too much stress on air conditioners leading to repairman becoming as stressed as medical personel are now?  Put America first?  Use force to defend resources that are becoming too rare?

But that dynamic hasn't spread yet.  We'll see what happens should it do so.

[pbrower2a]

(12-03-2020, 11:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2020, 05:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Most of the human laws are the result of principles laid out as many as three millennia ago. Human nature has changed so little that Greek drama is still accessible. People still consult the Torah, the Buddhist sutras, or Confucius' Analects for fine points of life. I assume that you are part of the Judeo-Christian heritage, so I suggest that you consult clergy for some sound advice on how to deal with your anger.

I'm venting. I deal with my anger by venting. I'm also letting you know that this ain't over just because Trump was defeated. The Republican party has some sole searching to do because Republicans helped with his defeat.

Quote:Some victories aren't worth what goes with them or the risks that they mandate. I never did any drag racing. 

Trump's 2016 victory was poisoned. Trump showed that there are people whose support is not good for sustainable politics. He also showed why previous government service is a viable criterion for finding suitable Presidents. Success in business is not a good model for the Presidency, as little of federal government activity operates on a profit-and-loss basis. After all, we don't want the government operating many profit-and-loss entities, do we? That's how North Korea operates, and government ownership and operation of profitable enterprises has proved a horrid model. (It's called Communism as in Marxism-Leninism). Although efficiency is a good thing, service matters more because the Presidency and Congress are elected offices. The People are the check on the potential misconduct of elected  officials through free and fair elections.

Quote:Republicans can't do that if they want to win and if they don't want to win or don't seem to care if they then were going to stop supporting them and support the party that does. It should be pretty easy to beat an elephant that's down to skin and bones, a donkey could do it.

This is almost an admission that the GOP has some big problems. First is Donald Trump, who thought that troublesome people such as overt racists could help him get elected more than they could hurt him. A basic rule is to not cultivate extremists and criminals as supporters. Second, the Republican Party has committed itself to an economic model losing support as its adherents die off. Young adults (under 40) don't like to be heavily in debt, don't like being at the mercy of landlords, and don't wish to be consigned to jobs too small for their spirits. 

Donald Trump acted as if he had no responsibility for the improvement of lives of those who did not vote for him the first time. Those people voted against him a second time if they didn't vote for him the first time.   

Quote:I think the Republicans forgot what the elephant represents. I don't know if any of you actually seen Biden while he was barely campaigning. I did every time that  I tuned into Fox. He looked  horrible with  a very  light campaign schedule and it was frequent.

FoX News is highly-manipulative journalism. It selects stories to prepare people for what follows (if it wants people to feel angry it may lead with some obscure story of violent crime (armed robbery at a gas station leads to a police chase). It gave softball coverage to Trump, and it can manipulate recorded sound and the lighting or angle to the detriment of Democrats. FoX is heavily analysis, and it willingly stretches stories. In the end it tells the truth when such is unavoidable. That is how Soviet media operated. FoX News loves to call itself "Fair and Balanced", which is far from its reality.

Let me give you an assessment of FoX News from a source that checks for bias:

[/url]

Quote:Media Bias: FoX News






RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting.
  

Analysis / Bias
According to a Pew Research Center survey “Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters” during the 2016 election. Further, another Pew Survey indicates “When it comes to choosing a media source for political news, conservatives orient strongly around Fox News. Nearly half of consistent conservatives (47%) name it as their main source for government and political news.”  

Fox News typically looks at the issues from a conservative perspective and also has a number of on-air personalities that are strong supporters of Trump, such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Tomi Lahren. FNC typically skews conservative as there is less criticism of Trump, therefore the majority of stories are pro-Trump.

In review, FNC publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “’They Wanted It to Blow Up’: Limbaugh Says Success of Trump-Kim Summit Caught Media Off Guard” and “Tucker: 2016 Russia Collusion ‘Witch Hunt’ Now Extends to Jill Stein.” When it comes to sourcing they typically utilize pro-Trump pundits such as Rush Limbaugh who has a very poor record with fact-checkers, as well as credible sources such as the Wall Street Journal. Fox News is also known to publish right-wing conspiracy theories, although after being sued they retracted the story. FNC has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.

A factual search reveals several failed fact checks by news hosts.

• Says John Bolton “fundamentally was a man of the left.” – PANTS OF FIRE
  
  
• “The president said he’s going to bring in 250,000 (Syrian and Iraqi) refugees into this country.” – PANTS ON FIRE
  
  
• “Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns.” – PANTS ON FIRE
  
  
• “NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” – PANTS ON FIRE
  
  
• Obamacare is “one big fat VA system.” – PANTS ON FIRE
  
  
• Says Marie Yovanovitch was “dishonest” when she claimed under oath that she never personally responded to an email from a Democratic staffer. But “in fact, it turns out that she did respond.” – FALSE
  
  
  

Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 9/19/2020)
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/

FoX News does not have the excuse of a thin budget and time constraints for reporting. It has excellent resources for reporting breaking news and fact-checking stories. Fact-checking may be unglamorous, but it is one way to keep stories from being manipulated. It has good graphics for relaying information in a form that many people find more digestible. (Yes, statistics are valid news). It has the time available for doing stories in depth as does... even PBS would envy. It has reliable advertising sources. FoX News could do news very well if it so dedicated it. Regrettably it works to support one side of the political spectrum.

Factual reporting is at best 

MIXED

which, in view of FoX News' resources, is inexcusable. "Low" refers often to entities such supermarket tabloids with blaring headlines about celebrities or pseudo-scientific 'discoveries'. If someone discovers it in the house of someone well-off, "The maid reads it". 

Mixed reliability from a news source is worthless.  

Media Bias/Fact Check gives a "mixed" assessment to CNN for interpretation of the news, and sees CNN largely on the Left, largely for facile interpretations of fact. Basically, I wouldn't trust CNN as a primary solurce of news, either. Breaking news? Fine. It is about as good as one gets. Its journalists know where the stories are (and FoX is good at that, too. CNN and FoX News both have lavish resources at their disposal. What they do with those resources is a different matter. 

Here's a Media Bias/Fact Check assessment of CNN:

Quote:  In review, CNN presents straight news coverage with a left-leaning bias in story selection that is often critical of the right. For example, during the 2016 Presidential Election [url=https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pew-research/]Pew Research concluded that the majority of CNN stories covering President Donald Trump were negative. While less dramatic, Pew also determined that more stories were negative toward Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

Editorially, CNN’s programming almost exclusively favors the left. For example, a typical panel discussion will feature 4 to 8 guest commentators with one being a Republican, such as Rick Santorum. This creates a situation where left-leaning voices drown out the right. 

CNN typically utilizes loaded emotional words in sensational headlines such as this: Trump pounces on Justice Department report findings. They usually source their news properly through credible reporters/journalists and through hyperlinking to credible media sources. However, CNN has failed several fact checks from Politifact. It should be noted that these fact checks were almost exclusively from guests on their numerous talk shows and not from the reporting of actual news, which tends to be factual. TV hosts have also failed fact checks by IFCN fact-checkers. Further, CNN has retracted published stories that have been deemed as lacking evidence. Finally, CNN has published misleading information regarding GMOs that utilize loaded fear-based headlines such as this: FDA allows genetically engineered ‘Frankenfish’ salmon to be imported to US. CNN has also utilized known purveyors of pseudoscience as experts on discussion panels such as the Food Babe.

A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 44% of CNN’s audience is consistently or mostly liberal, 40% Mixed and 20% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that CNN is preferred by a more liberal audience.

Failed Fact Checks

• “I was able to go and buy an automatic weapon … Most people can go out and buy an automatic weapon.” – FALSE
  
  
• “1 percent of candidates that (the National Rifle Association) endorsed in 2012 won.” – FALSE
  
  
• “ISIS lures women with kittens, nutella.” – MOSTLY FALSE
  
  
• “Trump’s claim that there are 13 Democrats on Mueller’s team is also false,” – FALSE
  
  
• Coronavirus: Facial Hair Recommendations Not Shared By The CDC – FALSE
  
  
• If President Trump decides to deploy the U.S. military domestically, he would be “mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.” – False (Corrected)
  
  
•  “Greenland’s ice sheet has melted to a point of no return, according to new study” – Low Scientific Credibility
  
  
  

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks. (5/16/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 09/22/2020)
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/  

Wise people cite CNN no more readily than they cite FoX News, and for good reason.    

Here is a chart (there are several available) that assesses where the news source is, its validity, and its usefulness. 






  Toward the top are good sources of  raw news (AP and Reuters news wires) that comes without identifiable bias because of strict standards of reporting and a 'blitz' style. Should the story be about a fire that kills a large number of animals at an animal shelter the story wouldn't tell us about all the lovable puppy-dogs and kitty-cats who perished so horribly.  You can figure that out yourself, or else it is something that (should the story be taken up by Channels 4, 5, 9, or 11 in the Twin Cities, one of the news anchors might say something to that effect. ABC, CBS, and NBC News are toward the center and top of reliability and accuracy because they have copious resources (ad revenues) and mass audiences who would stray if the news reporting went too far in one direction or another. PBS and NPR go slightly to the Left, perhaps because they have more intellectually-upscale audiences... and in view of the Trump Presidency, highly-educated people who tend to despise a politician who disparages formal learning tend to sway to the Left. If the President were a left-wing populist disparaging economic elites for faring too well, then the intellectual-friendly media would be on the Right.


Most big-city newspapers, whether something decidedly Left as the Washington Post or Right such as the Dallas Morning News, are in the green rectangle of utility. News with a specialized audience (such as the Wall Street Journal) is here. Because investors, executives, and managers are the constituency of the Wall Street Journal it skews to the Right, but it is an excellent source for economic news that has more relevance to such human concerns as paychecks, such as yield curves, the money supply, and of course industry trends. Very in-depth reporting (it may be third-hand news, but it can set public policy, is here. Cite sources in this category and you will be fine. 

The yellow rectangle is heavier on analysis (and it has some overlap into the green triangle), but the less newsy it is the more likely it splays out to the Left (Slate) or Right (the Weekly Standard). Closer to the center are TIME, USA Today (not particularly biased, but not much is in it), Forbes, and Fortune. Draw your own conclusions. 

The further that one gets from raw news, the more likely one is to either end up with media that confirm one's bias (MSNBC and Daily Kos on the Left and  FoX News or One America News on the Right). You might impress people who already believe you with this material, but I would avoid discussing it with people that you don't know well. MSNBC may be better than FoX News because it fact-checks extensively, but it is obviously biased against anyone on the Right. Such was so before Trump.  It did go more toward the center as it started plugging Never-Trump types... but who knows how long that will last?

CNN isn't as extreme as FoX News, but as Media Bias put it, it is awful. I would not advise anyone to rely upon CNN as an exclusive source of news. As for citing the Washington Times or Huffington Post -- find a different source if you want credibility. 

In the red category are fecal media -- sleazy publications such as the London Daily Mail (not news) and of course such tabloid rags as The Globe and the National Enquirer   

Quote:I think he's done within two years. I'm  going by my mom but she wasn't the President of the United States. You know, if I had a lot riding on or reliant upon who won, I wouldn't vote for an elderly old man loses it (loses train  of thoughts, forgets where he's at and then bumbles way through whatever it was he was trying to talk about or answer.

I have my misgivings about the durability of any politician already older than life expectancy when born. See also Chuck Grassley, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell. Joe Biden has a problem with stuttering, and once he gets through it he is fine. But a 78-year-old Joe Biden is far preferable to a 73-year-old Donald Trump who never grew up and who has some hideous health habits. I see a rigidity of mind that one associates with the senile, fanatics, and extreme narcissists  (Trump is all three) or people on the autistic spectrum (I have been told of my rigid behavior).

I regret that you cannot see what I see in Donald Trump; if you did, you would have never voted for him. I can as easily hit him from a traditionalist viewpoint in his connections to mobsters, his contempt for people who have endured some misfortune, his misogyny, his serial fornication, and his disdain for objective science and legal precedent. To this I contrast the President that he most derided, Barack Obama, who was a model of a fine conservative President except for one thing: not being a conservative. Otherwise the next successful conservative President will be much more like Barack Obama than like Donald Trump. I found myself using conservative arguments against Trump, one of which was that Joe Biden is a devout Christian with a conservative lifestyle and a respect for American armed service personnel, past (veterans) and present (active duty). Ordinarily the more conservative Republican gets an edge on that... not this time!

Do you not believe me? Obama may be unique as a President, but someone has to be most similar to him in temperament, overall competence, and political strengths and weaknesses. Neither he nor Eisenhower was much of a populist; they both had much respect for legal precedent and diplomatic formality; they didn't get into squabbles with the Armed Services and intelligence services; they had very conventional lives; they appealed to the educated people of the times. Both are Reactives, and among Reactive types they are the only ones worth trusting: the mature ones who have no desire to use their power and influence to settle scores. (The ones who use their power to settle scores are very bad figures, whether Ferenc Szalasi on the Right or Matyas Rakosi on the Left. One was a fascist pig culpable as a Nazi puppet for delivering Hungarian Jews to their deaths in Auschwitz and other Nazi murder camps, and the other was "Stalin's finest Hungarian pupil" who butchered plenty of Hungarians on Stalin's behest and his personal fears of potential rivals). Yuck!  

Quote:When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS. 

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once 

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red. 

Much changed in the sixty years between the elections of 1952 and 2012 or the fifty-two years between the elections of 1956 and 2018, depending on your taste. In general the states that voted for Obama also voted for Eisenhower. Indeed, Obama in 2012 won only one State (Hawaii, which wasn't voting in the 1950's) and Dee Cee (ditto) that Eisenhower did not win twice. The matchup to any electoral winner is typically to blowout landslides, but Obama's wins match more closely those of Ike in the 1950's than to anyone else, including FDR in 1936, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984. This says something about the states (Maine and Vermont, the only states that voted against FDR in 1936 are now reliably Democratic, as are the single states that Nixon {Massachusetts] and Reagan [Minnesota]) than about Obama, but it is remarkable that Ike won Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the two states not in the South that Herbert Hoover did not win in his 1928 blowout and Minnesota, Reagan's only loss in 1984... twice. Ike must have been the best Republican fit ever to Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island over nearly a century beginning in 1928.  

Ike did badly in the South, where segregationist attitudes were still strong except (oddly) Tennessee, which was then probably the most progressive state in the South. Both won Virginia for the first time for their respective Parties in their first elections. After Ike, Virginia went for the Democratic nominee for President only once (1964, the LBJ blowout) until 2008... and after 2008 Virginia seems to be spiraling out of reach for Republicans. 

[TnT]

I've kept the MediaBias.com chart handy for a couple years now. It's an excellent source when I read something that I'm skeptical of at first glance. Also, it's a good source when I'm curious about what's going on, opinion-wise, in various corners of the bedlam. I despair when I realize that our friends on the right, by far, get their info either from the lower right or from the fetid cesspool of misinformation that is the internet.

[pbrower2a]

(12-04-2020, 06:44 PM)TnT Wrote: I've kept the MediaBias.com chart handy for a couple years now.  It's an excellent source when I read something that I'm skeptical of at first glance.  Also, it's a good source when I'm curious about what's going on, opinion-wise, in various corners of the bedlam.  I despair when I realize that our friends on the right, by far, get their info either from the lower right or from the fetid cesspool of misinformation that is the internet.

Worth remembering: Google, Facebook, and Twitter are not news sources. Social media is no better than the supplier, and unless your friend really is a professional journalist, the best that one can get is eyewitness accounts. So if someone actually has an eyewitness account of an event -- fine. But if someone says "I saw this on the Internet", let alone "Some people say...". Third-hand material from InfoWars or Breitbart is no better than the original mierda del toro. 

OK. I have a bias because of an education that tells me that the common person rarely has a novel idea. Maybe a unique experience, but that is it. I may have come up with a conclusion much like that of some philosopher (Hegel and Schopenhauer often popped up, as I found, when I offered some pretense of brilliance)... but one might as well read Hegel or Schopenhauer as to rely upon me. So before I say anything that isn't obvious opinion, I try to look for a source. Hegel and Schopenhauer have more credibility than I do.  I have only a BA degree. The best that I can do is to simplify... which might be of value. Popular Science is far more accessible than Scientific American.     

The splaying of opinion to the Left and Right itself demonstrates the polarization of America into hostile, exclusive camps.  With this chart we have an objective guide to what is useful and reliable... and what isn't. I have become chary of citing the Huffington Post and Daily Kos just because they are available without a paywall and have the ring of truth to me. Even if CNN isn't particularly extreme in its bias it is awful. 

All sources are not equal. We all have an obligation to identify our sources as if we were in Academia if we are to have credibility on something not strictly personal, right?  

I am not afraid to ask the question "What is your source?" "My friend Gary Smith/Lois Garcia/Terry Suzuki" just isn't good enough for me. Most people are honest, but they are all too often naive about their sources.

[pbrower2a]

[pbrower2a]

This is from 2016, which was from before Trump was elected President. The same person, Vanessa Otero, is behind this chart as well, but here complex analysis is on the top.  



Some media have entered, and some seem to have dropped out. CNN and USA today are 'better than nothing, as are most local TV stations' news. 

We might see the alignment of media shift after Trump is off the scene.

[David Horn]

(12-04-2020, 06:44 PM)TnT Wrote: I've kept the MediaBias.com chart handy for a couple years now.  It's an excellent source when I read something that I'm skeptical of at first glance.  Also, it's a good source when I'm curious about what's going on, opinion-wise, in various corners of the bedlam.  I despair when I realize that our friends on the right, by far, get their info either from the lower right or from the fetid cesspool of misinformation that is the internet.

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair: you can't convince someone of something if his very being is dependent on not believing it.  Too many people have consumed the Kool-Aid by the gallon.  That it's less true on the left doesn't mean it never happens there either.  We're all wading in our own personal swamp: deep, shallow or otherwise.  I do the best I can to keep mine drained, but good intentions aren't really enough these days. It's wise to have a sanity check once in a while.

[pbrower2a]

The opinion journals are almost naturally biased. Although the purer news sources tend toward the center, those sources of grist for debates cleave anywhere but the center. Trying to put together a center-tending opinion journal would make one neurotic. It is impossible to reconcile diametric opposites. If one sees someone who supposedly reconciles extremists of the extreme Left and Right, as was so with Otto and Gregor Strasser (the Nazis who wanted emphasis on the 'socialist claims of Nazism while seeing Jews as rapacious degenerates incapable of being genuine socialists, then such suggests the similarity of extremists.

[Bob Butler 54]

I would emphasize the difference between a scientific and a political world view. To a scientist, a flaw in a theory, observations of reality not matching what is observed, is an opportunity to refine the theory. If you have a political world view, your politics define how you see the world and what goals you seek. If the facts oppose the theory, you disregard the facts.

[pbrower2a]

(12-06-2020, 08:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would emphasize the difference between a scientific and a political world view.  To a scientist, a flaw in a theory, observations of reality not matching what is observed, is an opportunity to refine the theory.  If you have a political world view, your politics define how you see the world and what goals you seek.  If the facts oppose the theory, you disregard the facts.

Political science is an oxymoron. If the statistical evidence refutes a pet theory, then genuine science requires that one either cast out or revise the pet theory. A few decades ago it was a common myth among liberals that crime was the result of oppression and poverty.. and the rage that one could reasonably expect by people who have experienced far too much for their delicate sensibilities. Maybe some who saw the connection between poverty (a result of limited opportunity and genuine hardships) saw the connection between poverty and crime and thought something like "there but for the Grace of God go I".

Crime was not a conscious choice; it was a consequence of what The Man (white oppressors) did, and not personal choices. Studies of offenders and non-offenders since showed:

1. Criminal offenses are strongly linked to personality types that might consign people to criminal ways of life: borderline personalities and pathological narcissism, extremist ideologies, and of course sociopathy and psychopathy.

2. The criminals were a small subset of the population, but the offenders did huge numbers of crimes. The rate of solving some crimes (burglary) is so low that burglars are typically arrested for some other offense that is easier to solve (like rape). Burglars are often rapists, so burglars are often caught for rape; in the event that rape can't be proved in a court of law, then maybe burglary can. Most offenders are one-person crime waves.

3. Plenty of people in even the poorest locations are non-offenders. Many people in the most impoverished locations choose honest work, even the most humiliating and most exploitative (like domestic service) and follow the rigid rules that their employers establish. People can adapt to extreme inequality (which may be the result of privileged narcissists and sociopaths setting the rules as political figures, which is itself a different story. Many people thoroughly hate their lives but do not lash out at Humanity as a whole for institutional abuse and economic exploitation. Some people take the necessary and appropriate response to such: rebellion against exploitation and abuse.

4. Borderline personalities and sociopaths can come from non-poor families. Such people are often headed down the social scale because middle-class life depends heavily upon emotional stability and because sociopaths are usually bad news in business. (Sociopaths might be effective salespeople, but they create trouble by misrepresenting merchandise, embezzling money, padding expense accounts, cheating on taxes, and other such malignant behavior). Such people as Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski and abortionist-assassin Paul Hill, cannibal Geoffrey Dahmer, Scott Peterson, and the Enron crew came from middle-class backgrounds. Some of the nastiest of Holocaust perpetrators in central Europe came from aristocratic families who had all of the advantages.

Donald Trump may have been deprived of something in childhood, like genuine love (not the buy-a-kid-out-of-trouble sort) and firm direction, but the more we see of him the more of us see a monster devoid of empathy, loyalty, fairness, and respect for those who disagree. (See how I respond to Classic X'er: I see that he has some problems, and that his dealings with the defeat of his idol Donald Trump fits the Kubler-Ross model of grief. I have been there on literal deaths and I figure that his attitude to the defeat of Donald Trump is similar to my response to his seemingly-impossible victory).

Oh, character is everything? Well, maybe there are physical causes and family dynamics, and poverty certainly makes raising children far more difficult. But not impossible! I've met migrant farm workers who live in poverty and economic insecurity... and I would trust them far more than I would trust meth fiends with the care of children. It helps that lead has been removed from gasoline and is no longer available in residential paint (environmental lead causes learning difficulties and a loss of impulse control, both of which have legitimate connections to criminality. "Character" may have gone out of fashion as something hard to define, and the character appropriate for getting along as a servant and for being an executive are very different. Class is real in what is now one of the most economically-polarized societies in the world. Economic inequality in America has approached levels characteristic of plantation societies, military dictatorships, and almost those countries in which some royal family owns the oil resources that are the primary source of national income, and such reflects the character of America's economic elites and the politicians that those elites want making the big decisions on our supposed behalf.

[Eric the Green]

(12-06-2020, 08:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would emphasize the difference between a scientific and a political world view.  To a scientist, a flaw in a theory, observations of reality not matching what is observed, is an opportunity to refine the theory.  If you have a political world view, your politics define how you see the world and what goals you seek.  If the facts oppose the theory, you disregard the facts.

There is a middle ground there

How we see the world and goals we seek are important facts about ourselves. But to achieve any goals, it helps to take account of other facts.

Trump and his followers are an example of having goals, but not accounting for facts. But if we have such a goal as stopping pollution or helping people out of poverty, because we value Nature and People and want the best for them, then facts are useful in determining the best way to proceed and gauging how we are doing.

[David Horn]

(12-03-2020, 03:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Since when has siccing the dogs on political opponents been legal in this country? 

H-m-m-m.  If anything, this is a Republican tactic.  Nixon used it extensively.  By proxy, Reagan did too, though less than Nixon.  But Trump is the champ.  He doesn't like illegal immigrants: he has them placed in cages, takes their children from them, and disappears them in the dark of night. Under Barr he's used the Justice Department as a personal attack dog, and let's not forget his use of unmarked Federal "law enforcement" personnel to take on demonstrators -- even totally peaceful ones.

I can go on ...

[pbrower2a]

This is literal.



Somewhere in Kukluxistan in the early 1960's.

[pbrower2a]

[pbrower2a]

Champ and Major might cause Donald Trump to feel unwelcome in the White House. German Shepherds can be wonderful pets. Even so, you behave in their presence or you will be in deep trouble. 

I wonder why Donald Trump has never had a pet dog... could it be that dogs see through him?

[Classic-Xer]

(01-04-2021, 12:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

I assume that you don't know that it is unconstitutional for a court to change state election laws. You have to be more careful about what you post that could make you look like a Nazi supporter. So, what did the Nazi's do after they were elected? Trump is going to push it to the limit which he has the legal right to do and you and Biden are going have to suck it up and accept it for now. As I recall, you had some Nazi's in your family right. I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree. So, you must be OK with laws being broken by Democrats. That's good, you keep doing that and thinking that way because that's what we need to see more of by the Democrats.