Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is strictly my opinion. The question in the Quinnipiac poll is leading you to an answer and uses loaded language.
Starting a question out with "do you agree with president trump" is a terrible line of questioning for reasons I hope don't need to explain and the word "enemy" gives the reader of the poll the wrong information. Most republican don't have any faith in the media - they don't literally think they are at war with the media.

The question could be more direct and get better answers. I think that is obvious.

The Gallop poll I posted it asked 2 questions (in a series of other questions about the government/economy)
Do you view socialism positively?
Do you view capitalism positively?

Definitely not leading or using loaded language - It could be more direct and specify in economic terms but that is really not that bad. Most people know what these terms mean.

Thanks for proving your opinion is based on something you didn't even read then. Trump was in no way mentioned, this was the question:

Which comes closer to your point of view: the news media is the enemy of the people, or the news media is an important part of democracy?

You're just trying to handwave away politically inconvenient results by insisting its loaded, when nobody was forced to answer enemy. To take a page out of your book, most people know the historical context of a term like "enemy of the people". Yet instead of going neither 51% decided with "most people" knowing what it meant to go with enemy of the people.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.

High officials and bureaucrats usually get to keep their clearance in case they're needed again, for example some classified project they were on is brought up and the government needs to ask them questions. It's much easier to leave their papers open (and just not send them classified material they don't need) than it is to go through the whole process again if they're needed a few years later.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.

High officials and bureaucrats usually get to keep their clearance in case they're needed again, for example some classified project they were on is brought up and the government needs to ask them questions. It's much easier to leave their papers open (and just not send them classified material they don't need) than it is to go through the whole process again if they're needed a few years later.

It also allows for them to get jobs related to their field at private entities that deal with classified material. Someone commented yesterday that you also are obliged to report when refiling for security clearance that you've had it revoked--which seems like the kind of spiteful trash this administration is quite fond of.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.

High officials and bureaucrats usually get to keep their clearance in case they're needed again, for example some classified project they were on is brought up and the government needs to ask them questions. It's much easier to leave their papers open (and just not send them classified material they don't need) than it is to go through the whole process again if they're needed a few years later.

It also allows for them to get jobs related to their field at private entities that deal with classified material. Someone commented yesterday that you also are obliged to report when refiling for security clearance that you've had it revoked--which seems like the kind of spiteful trash this administration is quite fond of.

Yes - but that is pretty stupid. No one should work for a media outlet after they leave government and have access to secret information. That is what I am talking about. I don't care if that is how it has been done in the past - it needs to change across the board.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.

High officials and bureaucrats usually get to keep their clearance in case they're needed again, for example some classified project they were on is brought up and the government needs to ask them questions. It's much easier to leave their papers open (and just not send them classified material they don't need) than it is to go through the whole process again if they're needed a few years later.

It also allows for them to get jobs related to their field at private entities that deal with classified material. Someone commented yesterday that you also are obliged to report when refiling for security clearance that you've had it revoked--which seems like the kind of spiteful trash this administration is quite fond of.

Yes - but that is pretty stupid. No one should work for a media outlet after they leave government and have access to secret information. That is what I am talking about. I don't care if that is how it has been done in the past - it needs to change across the board.

He only has access if people send it to him. It is only legal to send it to him if he needs to know. So, since he is not a member of the government and short of him needing to be brought back for a specific reason, it would be exactly the same as sending that information to anybody without security clearance.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.

High officials and bureaucrats usually get to keep their clearance in case they're needed again, for example some classified project they were on is brought up and the government needs to ask them questions. It's much easier to leave their papers open (and just not send them classified material they don't need) than it is to go through the whole process again if they're needed a few years later.

It also allows for them to get jobs related to their field at private entities that deal with classified material. Someone commented yesterday that you also are obliged to report when refiling for security clearance that you've had it revoked--which seems like the kind of spiteful trash this administration is quite fond of.

Yes - but that is pretty stupid. No one should work for a media outlet after they leave government and have access to secret information. That is what I am talking about. I don't care if that is how it has been done in the past - it needs to change across the board.

That's not how it works.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.

High officials and bureaucrats usually get to keep their clearance in case they're needed again, for example some classified project they were on is brought up and the government needs to ask them questions. It's much easier to leave their papers open (and just not send them classified material they don't need) than it is to go through the whole process again if they're needed a few years later.

It also allows for them to get jobs related to their field at private entities that deal with classified material. Someone commented yesterday that you also are obliged to report when refiling for security clearance that you've had it revoked--which seems like the kind of spiteful trash this administration is quite fond of.

Yes - but that is pretty stupid. No one should work for a media outlet after they leave government and have access to secret information. That is what I am talking about. I don't care if that is how it has been done in the past - it needs to change across the board.

That's not how it works.

It's exactly how it works. Hes worked on the trump investigation in the past. So the investigating team can consult him and expose him to secrete information - not to mention details of the investigation. Yeah - hes a huge critic of trump and works for a news agency. If you don't see how that is improper. There is no helping you.

Having a security clearance =\= having access to documents. That’s not how it works.

If you can’t get the basic issue of how a clearance works right, it makes sense that the rest of the argument is completely wrong.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's exactly how it works. Hes worked on the trump investigation in the past. So the investigating team can consult him and expose him to secrete information - not to mention details of the investigation. Yeah - hes a huge critic of trump and works for a news agency. If you don't see how that is improper. There is no helping you.

You not understanding =\= me being wrong.

Unless you can prove he's leaking classified information, you have no cause to remove his security clearance. And given that we know members of this administration are improperly handling information it's funny that you're up in arms about someone critical of the administration having potential access to information.

It's exactly how it works. Hes worked on the trump investigation in the past. So the investigating team can consult him and expose him to secrete information - not to mention details of the investigation. Yeah - hes a huge critic of trump and works for a news agency. If you don't see how that is improper. There is no helping you.

Yep, and here's where we're at - it's "improper" to criticize the president and you should expect every abuse of power if you dare speak out against him.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is strictly my opinion. The question in the Quinnipiac poll is leading you to an answer and uses loaded language.
Starting a question out with "do you agree with president trump" is a terrible line of questioning for reasons I hope don't need to explain and the word "enemy" gives the reader of the poll the wrong information. Most republican don't have any faith in the media - they don't literally think they are at war with the media.

The question could be more direct and get better answers. I think that is obvious.

The Gallop poll I posted it asked 2 questions (in a series of other questions about the government/economy)
Do you view socialism positively?
Do you view capitalism positively?

Definitely not leading or using loaded language - It could be more direct and specify in economic terms but that is really not that bad. Most people know what these terms mean.

Thanks for proving your opinion is based on something you didn't even read then. Trump was in no way mentioned, this was the question:

Which comes closer to your point of view: the news media is the enemy of the people, or the news media is an important part of democracy?

You're just trying to handwave away politically inconvenient results by insisting its loaded, when nobody was forced to answer enemy. To take a page out of your book, most people know the historical context of a term like "enemy of the people". Yet instead of going neither 51% decided with "most people" knowing what it meant to go with enemy of the people.

Nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Most Americans know nothing about any of this stuff. The phrase means nothing to them. It can be interpreted in a lot of ways. Also - the term "the media" is a pretty nonsensical term too. Does that include all media? The mainstream media? Social networks? Twitter? Tabloids? How about Ben Shapiro? I don't think 51% of Republican think Ben Shapiro is an enemy of the people - they love him. It's a nonsensical question. It is designed to get the reaction it did. Which is why it's crap.

You know what, I am pretty sure close to 100% Americans would say yes to? Do you believe the first amendment which protects the right to free speech, expression, religion, and the press, and assembly. Is essential to democracy?

So what does that this result even mean? It is quite literally just telling you republicans don't like the main stream media because it is left slanted. Everyone already knows this. It really does show though - how team based the politics of this nation are.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.

https://poll.qu.edu/search-releases/search-results/release-detail?ReleaseID=2561&What=&strArea=;&strTime=28

Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.

It's a completely natural question.

Enemy (of the people) is the word Trump used. It's impossible to ask people what they think of that by asking a different question.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's exactly how it works. Hes worked on the trump investigation in the past. So the investigating team can consult him and expose him to secrete information - not to mention details of the investigation. Yeah - hes a huge critic of trump and works for a news agency. If you don't see how that is improper. There is no helping you.

You not understanding =\= me being wrong.

Unless you can prove he's leaking classified information, you have no cause to remove his security clearance. And given that we know members of this administration are improperly handling information it's funny that you're up in arms about someone critical of the administration having potential access to information.

LOL no! The president has a responsibility to protect secrete information. He doesn't have to prove anything. You know why? Because hes the President.

Improperly handling information like...storing secrete documents on your person cell phones and servers? Come on man...that is too easy. Plus - I am not really up in arms about it - I don't even really consider this important news at all. The president removed access to secrete information for someone who no longer works in government....Wow - don't care - he shouldn't have access anymore anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.

https://poll.qu.edu/search-releases/search-results/release-detail?ReleaseID=2561&What=&strArea=;&strTime=28

Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.

It's a completely natural question.

Enemy (of the people) is the word Trump used. It's impossible to ask people what they think of that by asking a different question.

That is out of context - you know full well he is talking about the mainstream leftist media. Not assaulting free speech or freedom of the press.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump military parade cost foreceast rises to almost a cool hundred million

Trump should just let us Russians handle this as well. We organise the best parades in the world for significantly less money.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's exactly how it works. Hes worked on the trump investigation in the past. So the investigating team can consult him and expose him to secrete information - not to mention details of the investigation. Yeah - hes a huge critic of trump and works for a news agency. If you don't see how that is improper. There is no helping you.

You not understanding =\= me being wrong.

Unless you can prove he's leaking classified information, you have no cause to remove his security clearance. And given that we know members of this administration are improperly handling information it's funny that you're up in arms about someone critical of the administration having potential access to information.

LOL no! The president has a responsibility to protect secrete information. He doesn't have to prove anything. You know why? Because hes the President.

Improperly handling information like...storing secrete documents on your person cell phones and servers? Come on man...that is too easy. Plus - I am not really up in arms about it - I don't even really consider this important news at all. The president removed access to secrete information for someone who no longer works in government....Wow - don't care - he shouldn't have access anymore anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Quinnipiac poll had some interesting bits in regards to the media, 51% of Republicans seem to agree with Trump that the media are the enemy of the people. With 13% being on the fence. Pretty incredible.

https://poll.qu.edu/search-releases/search-results/release-detail?ReleaseID=2561&What=&strArea=;&strTime=28

Kind of an odd question though isn't it? Enemy is a loaded word. Regardless of what trump said.

It's a completely natural question.

Enemy (of the people) is the word Trump used. It's impossible to ask people what they think of that by asking a different question.

That is out of context - you know full well he is talking about the mainstream leftist media. Not assaulting free speech or freedom of the press.

When did the mainstream leftist media lose the freedom of the press?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump military parade cost foreceast rises to almost a cool hundred million

Trump should just let us Russians handle this as well. We organise the best parades in the world for significantly less money.

Have seen some really nice Russian parades. Saw one showing off the new T-14 tank - look awesome. Unfortunately - we can't pay our servicemen with Vodka. . J/K. Everything is more expensive here - have to pay for permits/security/medical personnel in case a a homeless person passes out in the heat/ insurance/ ect.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump military parade cost foreceast rises to almost a cool hundred million

Trump should just let us Russians handle this as well. We organise the best parades in the world for significantly less money.

You think it would be more with all the break downs and stuff

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Most Americans know nothing about any of this stuff. The phrase means nothing to them. It can be interpreted in a lot of ways. Also - the term "the media" is a pretty nonsensical term too. Does that include all media? The mainstream media? Social networks? Twitter? Tabloids? How about Ben Shapiro? I don't think 51% of Republican think Ben Shapiro is an enemy of the people - they love him. It's a nonsensical question. It is designed to get the reaction it did. Which is why it's crap.

You know what, I am pretty sure close to 100% Americans would say yes to? Do you believe the first amendment which protects the right to free speech, expression, religion, and the press, and assembly. Is essential to democracy?

So what does that this result even mean? It is quite literally just telling you republicans don't like the main stream media because it is left slanted. Everyone already knows this. It really does show though - how team based the politics of this nation are.

So now you want to say most Americans know nothing about this stuff, but they are knowledgable enough on the intricacies of socialism and capitalism as pure systems in the socioeconomic sense that their opinion on that matter counts? That hole just keeps getting deeper by the looks of it.

Well then, I'm glad you think that 51% can distinguish between Bennie Shapiro and CNN, how does that change anything about them then viewing at least part of the media establishment as the enemy of the people? How does then just thinking it about a part make that kind of rethoric any better? I'm pretty sure the brutal dictators that used the term also didn't include their own media outlets.

It quite literally tells me that 51% of Republicans consider a significant part of the media an enemy of the people and that 49% doesn't. But keep handwaving away support for that totalitarian terminology. An Ipsos poll tells us 80% of Republicans consider the media biased towards the left, but if that's what people mean to say how come there is a 30% difference between those polls? It seems at least a decent chunck of the difference seems to understand the difference between enemy and bias.

The point about the enemy of the people is that it's a standard charge used by populist leaders.

The core concept of populism is to divide the nation into the "real people" -- who of course are the ones who support the populist leader -- and the false people who are the enemies of the real people.

Only the true folk are actual members of the nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHB0A7eAXMI&t=1s

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Most Americans know nothing about any of this stuff. The phrase means nothing to them. It can be interpreted in a lot of ways. Also - the term "the media" is a pretty nonsensical term too. Does that include all media? The mainstream media? Social networks? Twitter? Tabloids? How about Ben Shapiro? I don't think 51% of Republican think Ben Shapiro is an enemy of the people - they love him. It's a nonsensical question. It is designed to get the reaction it did. Which is why it's crap.

You know what, I am pretty sure close to 100% Americans would say yes to? Do you believe the first amendment which protects the right to free speech, expression, religion, and the press, and assembly. Is essential to democracy?

So what does that this result even mean? It is quite literally just telling you republicans don't like the main stream media because it is left slanted. Everyone already knows this. It really does show though - how team based the politics of this nation are.

So now you want to say most Americans know nothing about this stuff, but they are knowledgable enough on the intricacies of socialism and capitalism as pure systems in the socioeconomic sense that their opinion on that matter counts? That hole just keeps getting deeper by the looks of it.

Well then, I'm glad you think that 51% can distinguish between Bennie Shapiro and CNN, how does that change anything about them then viewing at least part of the media establishment as the enemy of the people? How does then just thinking it about a part make that kind of rethoric any better? I'm pretty sure the brutal dictators that used the term also didn't include their own media outlets.

It quite literally tells me that 51% of Republicans consider a significant part of the media an enemy of the people and that 49% doesn't. But keep handwaving away support for that totalitarian terminology. An Ipsos poll tells us 80% of Republicans consider the media biased towards the left, but if that's what people mean to say how come there is a 30% difference between those polls? It seems at least a decent chunck of the difference seems to understand the difference between enemy and bias.

I'm pretty certain most Americans don't actually know the origins of the term "enemy of the people" - most if you say enemy of the state - they will think of Will Smith. Some might even think of trumps comment and just agree with it. It is a dumb questions - there is no doubt the question is rigged to get the reaction it did - so people will look at their poll. This is how most media works today. It is mostly click-bait. Technically - it might actually be the downfall of society. So maybe they are onto something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point about the enemy of the people is that it's a standard charge used by populist leaders.

The core concept of populism is to divide the nation into the "real people" -- who of course are the ones who support the populist leader -- and the false people who are the enemies of the real people.

Only the true folk are actual members of the nation.

I just want to help you understand something.
4/10 americans don't even know what Auschwitz is. I've seen a poll that I can't find that actually suggest even less believe the holocaust actually happened.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/15/602666011/survey-holocaust-is-fading-from-american-memory

You have to design a survey to the level of intelligence/knowledge of your target populations. This is beyond them. Enemy of the people does not mean the same thing to them. Because they have never heard the term before.

Are you saying that Trump supporters are stupid and ignorant, so this was an unfair question?

Or do you mean all Americans?

I don't understand what your claim is meant to mean. It seems extraordinary.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Most Americans know nothing about any of this stuff. The phrase means nothing to them. It can be interpreted in a lot of ways. Also - the term "the media" is a pretty nonsensical term too. Does that include all media? The mainstream media? Social networks? Twitter? Tabloids? How about Ben Shapiro? I don't think 51% of Republican think Ben Shapiro is an enemy of the people - they love him. It's a nonsensical question. It is designed to get the reaction it did. Which is why it's crap.

You know what, I am pretty sure close to 100% Americans would say yes to? Do you believe the first amendment which protects the right to free speech, expression, religion, and the press, and assembly. Is essential to democracy?

So what does that this result even mean? It is quite literally just telling you republicans don't like the main stream media because it is left slanted. Everyone already knows this. It really does show though - how team based the politics of this nation are.

So now you want to say most Americans know nothing about this stuff, but they are knowledgable enough on the intricacies of socialism and capitalism as pure systems in the socioeconomic sense that their opinion on that matter counts? That hole just keeps getting deeper by the looks of it.

Well then, I'm glad you think that 51% can distinguish between Bennie Shapiro and CNN, how does that change anything about them then viewing at least part of the media establishment as the enemy of the people? How does then just thinking it about a part make that kind of rethoric any better? I'm pretty sure the brutal dictators that used the term also didn't include their own media outlets.

It quite literally tells me that 51% of Republicans consider a significant part of the media an enemy of the people and that 49% doesn't. But keep handwaving away support for that totalitarian terminology. An Ipsos poll tells us 80% of Republicans consider the media biased towards the left, but if that's what people mean to say how come there is a 30% difference between those polls? It seems at least a decent chunck of the difference seems to understand the difference between enemy and bias.

I'm pretty certain most Americans don't actually know the origins of the term "enemy of the people" - most if you say enemy of the state - they will think of Will Smith. Some might even think of trumps comment and just agree with it. It is a dumb questions - there is no doubt the question is rigged to get the reaction it did - so people will look at their poll. This is how most media works today. It is mostly click-bait. Technically - it might actually be the downfall of society. So maybe they are onto something.

Trying to throw it on ignorance doesn't make it any better. And again with the handwaving, you think people don't know anything about this but are qualified to speak on the pros and cons of capitalism and socialism when most Americans have only the most basic of grasps of those concepts heavily influenced by what they think it means? Hell people think this is capitalism, when pure capitalism is so different. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too between polls.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump military parade cost foreceast rises to almost a cool hundred million

Trump should just let us Russians handle this as well. We organise the best parades in the world for significantly less money.

You think it would be more with all the break downs and stuff

There have never been breakdowns or any irregularities during parades. Only during practices, which is why they practice first before they hold the parade 'for real'. Practice, as with many things, is the key to having a good parade. As are a good marching tune, snazzy uniforms and a brisk pace in perfect synchronisation. Also, a good parade has a big finale, such as a prototype of amazing new technology (such as the Armata) or a massive nuclear missile.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.

High officials and bureaucrats usually get to keep their clearance in case they're needed again, for example some classified project they were on is brought up and the government needs to ask them questions. It's much easier to leave their papers open (and just not send them classified material they don't need) than it is to go through the whole process again if they're needed a few years later.

It also allows for them to get jobs related to their field at private entities that deal with classified material. Someone commented yesterday that you also are obliged to report when refiling for security clearance that you've had it revoked--which seems like the kind of spiteful trash this administration is quite fond of.

Yes - but that is pretty stupid. No one should work for a media outlet after they leave government and have access to secret information. That is what I am talking about. I don't care if that is how it has been done in the past - it needs to change across the board.

You seem awfully vested in making sure that secret things governments do stay secret. Governments are the enemy of the people, I want to know ever dark little secret the government does, so I can vote and keep them from doing said bad things...

Ultimately these types of covert activities are hold overs from a time when humanity was much quicker to invade and slaughter their neighbors than they are today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Most Americans know nothing about any of this stuff. The phrase means nothing to them. It can be interpreted in a lot of ways. Also - the term "the media" is a pretty nonsensical term too. Does that include all media? The mainstream media? Social networks? Twitter? Tabloids? How about Ben Shapiro? I don't think 51% of Republican think Ben Shapiro is an enemy of the people - they love him. It's a nonsensical question. It is designed to get the reaction it did. Which is why it's crap.

You know what, I am pretty sure close to 100% Americans would say yes to? Do you believe the first amendment which protects the right to free speech, expression, religion, and the press, and assembly. Is essential to democracy?

So what does that this result even mean? It is quite literally just telling you republicans don't like the main stream media because it is left slanted. Everyone already knows this. It really does show though - how team based the politics of this nation are.

So now you want to say most Americans know nothing about this stuff, but they are knowledgable enough on the intricacies of socialism and capitalism as pure systems in the socioeconomic sense that their opinion on that matter counts? That hole just keeps getting deeper by the looks of it.

Well then, I'm glad you think that 51% can distinguish between Bennie Shapiro and CNN, how does that change anything about them then viewing at least part of the media establishment as the enemy of the people? How does then just thinking it about a part make that kind of rethoric any better? I'm pretty sure the brutal dictators that used the term also didn't include their own media outlets.

It quite literally tells me that 51% of Republicans consider a significant part of the media an enemy of the people and that 49% doesn't. But keep handwaving away support for that totalitarian terminology. An Ipsos poll tells us 80% of Republicans consider the media biased towards the left, but if that's what people mean to say how come there is a 30% difference between those polls? It seems at least a decent chunck of the difference seems to understand the difference between enemy and bias.

I'm pretty certain most Americans don't actually know the origins of the term "enemy of the people" - most if you say enemy of the state - they will think of Will Smith. Some might even think of trumps comment and just agree with it. It is a dumb questions - there is no doubt the question is rigged to get the reaction it did - so people will look at their poll. This is how most media works today. It is mostly click-bait. Technically - it might actually be the downfall of society. So maybe they are onto something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point about the enemy of the people is that it's a standard charge used by populist leaders.

The core concept of populism is to divide the nation into the "real people" -- who of course are the ones who support the populist leader -- and the false people who are the enemies of the real people.

Only the true folk are actual members of the nation.

I just want to help you understand something.
4/10 americans don't even know what Auschwitz is. I've seen a poll that I can't find that actually suggest even less believe the holocaust actually happened.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/15/602666011/survey-holocaust-is-fading-from-american-memory

You have to design a survey to the level of intelligence/knowledge of your target populations. This is beyond them. Enemy of the people does not mean the same thing to them. Because they have never heard the term before.

I don't put any stock in those polls. 350 million people and usually they only survey about a million and then try to claim that X about of the rest also agree because evidence. It's bad science.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Are you saying that Trump supporters are stupid and ignorant, so this was an unfair question?

Or do you mean all Americans?

I don't understand what your claim is meant to mean. It seems extraordinary.

Honestly I do think people who don't know what the holocaust was, are pretty ignorant. The argument is - if you ask a question that people don't understand in a poll - you are going to get some weird answers. Honestly don't think there is much correlation between party affiliation and ignorance. The easiest way to say it is - Americans in general - know less about the rest of the world than people in the rest of the world know about America. This includes current events and history. That is just my opinion - but I am fairly certain "enemy of the people" is not a term most Americans have heard of.

 Togusa wrote:
I don't put any stock in those polls. 350 million people and usually they only survey about a million and then try to claim that X about of the rest also agree because evidence. It's bad science.

Err, what? No. Representative sampling is just basic science and experiment design. As long as you are ensuring that your sample is in fact representative of the population then surveys will get sufficiently accurate results to be useful. A survey of 1 million people is more than enough to make this work unless there is bias in how the 1 million people are selected.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Are you saying that Trump supporters are stupid and ignorant, so this was an unfair question?

Or do you mean all Americans?

I don't understand what your claim is meant to mean. It seems extraordinary.

Honestly I do think people who don't know what the holocaust was, are pretty ignorant. The argument is - if you ask a question that people don't understand in a poll - you are going to get some weird answers. Honestly don't think there is much correlation between party affiliation and ignorance. The easiest way to say it is - Americans in general - know less about the rest of the world than people in the rest of the world know about America. This includes current events and history. That is just my opinion - but I am fairly certain "enemy of the people" is not a term most Americans have heard of.

It's a term that Trump uses fairly often.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Are you saying that Trump supporters are stupid and ignorant, so this was an unfair question?

Or do you mean all Americans?

I don't understand what your claim is meant to mean. It seems extraordinary.

Honestly I do think people who don't know what the holocaust was, are pretty ignorant. The argument is - if you ask a question that people don't understand in a poll - you are going to get some weird answers. Honestly don't think there is much correlation between party affiliation and ignorance. The easiest way to say it is - Americans in general - know less about the rest of the world than people in the rest of the world know about America. This includes current events and history. That is just my opinion - but I am fairly certain "enemy of the people" is not a term most Americans have heard of.

ig·no·rant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

The first sentence of the above is about the most accurate thing I have seen you post so far on this page of the thread.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Here is the real question - why is it news that someone no longer in government and works for a news channel lost their security clearance? He shouldn't have one anyways. LOL. Luaghably stupid stuff here.

Gonna break my standard of ignoring him to point out something:

He's against it if it's the press. But I bet the guys that work in the defense industry he's OK with them still having theirs.