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.
SnakePlissken wrote: If the NY Times and the WaPo..actually start attempting to report the news instead of being in the business of manipulating public opinion, i would be happy to take a fresh view of them. But right now, they are really the poster children of yellow journalism. And its hard take anyone seriously that uses them to advance an argument, as though they were unbiased.
Edit..For some reason my quote attempt failed.
Don't worry, everything you just wrote proves that no one can taking anything you've said or will say seriously.
Also, you clearly have no idea what yellow journalism actually is.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
whembly wrote: My take away is that Trump has 99 problems... but racism/anti-gay ain't one of them.
I mean, seriously, Trump fething settled his civil lawsuit for $25 MILLION dollars!
I've been laughing about it for days, like Monty Burns. "What was I laughing about? Oh yes, Trump blatantly showing how obvious his lie about not settling lawsuits was, and being shown to be guilty of an actual honest to god scam."
The only time I've stopped laughing about that is when I've thought of Trump backing away from 'lock her up' and 'repeal and replace'... with 24 hours of the election. I mean god damn, there's playing 60 million people for idiots, and then there's doing it Trump style.
Then I stop a realise the people in Syria are really fething boned, and the US is about to commit to a tax plan that makes stable fiscal policy impossible, and it stops being funny, and becomes really sad. And then Trump tweets some baby tears about Mike Pence being respectfully challenged by the cast of musical, and I start laughing again.
It's going to be a strange 4 years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 15:36:17
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Relapse wrote: This election had the worst choice of candidates ever, bringing out the worst in both sides.
People keep saying stuff like this, but just read this forum. The 'insidious evil of the left' was just used in an actual, meant to be serious post. This is the world we live in now, people believe totally fething bonkers gibberish about the other side.
I'll tell you right now, 2020 will be a long, slow slog from here*, but when we get there, the left will hate whoever the right puts up, and the right will hate whoever the left puts up. It will be nasty, and much of it will be very stupid. And like this time people will blame it on the presidential candidates alone, and pay no attention to the structural issues driving it.
*Albeit occasionally hilarious, because truly Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
Yeah, but both candidates were shockingly bad.
Trump, an outsider, exposed the GOP for the hollowed out shell of a party that it is, and Clinton represented the worst excess of a corporate elite that is light years away from the people that the Democrats used to represent.
We live in an age of anti-politics, and the nation got the candidates it deserved....
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
SnakePlissken wrote: If the NY Times and the WaPo..actually start attempting to report the news instead of being in the business of manipulating public opinion, i would be happy to take a fresh view of them. But right now, they are really the poster children of yellow journalism. And its hard take anyone seriously that uses them to advance an argument, as though they were unbiased.
Edit..For some reason my quote attempt failed.
Funny. You have yet to say the information in the articles is false. But tha's because your argument rests on getting others to distrust the outlet and by extension the facts reported.
That's propaganda 101. Calling something biased again and again just doesn't make it so.
You obviously loathe the outlets because of their editorial pages. Fine. But don't hate them because they report inconvenient facts. If you don't like the facts reported either cocoon yourself in the right wing echo chamber (and yes their is a left wing echo chamber as well) or (and this is what I recommend) actually try to understand what those facts mean. Be critical. Let the new knowledge help shape your view. In other words, learn.
Whatever you do, don't be these guys desperately trying to explain away good news beacsue it doesn't fit their marching orders:
<iframe class="video-embed" src="https://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/11/06/43023/fnc-fnf-20151106-only271000_octoberjobsreport" width="480" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen scrolling="no"></iframe>
And just as an aside.... Personally, I hope Trump gets his Trillion Dollar Infrastructure plan passed. I hope that does help the economy (it would) and I hope it pushes unemployment even lower. Direct government spending is the most effective way of creating jobs and helping the economy in the short run. And the snarky part of me wants it to pass and be succesful because it will be the final nail in the coffin of right wings "government doesn't help" nonsense.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
"You can hate Islam without hating 1 billion people. Just the same way you can hate Christianity without hating all the Christians just like you can hate atheism without hating all the atheists."
"There's a difference between hating the religion/ideology and hating all the people who believe in that religion/ideology."
How are these two statements different?
Sorry, screwed up my quote. Made it seem like his words were mine, which made the whole thing read very strangely. It's fixed now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: You can still even be tolerant of people who follow those religions and still hate the religion.
"You're fine, but I hate one the most important parts of your life, even though I have no clue how it actually applies to your life" is totally fething bonkers nonsense.
You don't have to "love" anyone to avoid being bigoted, you simply have to be tolerant OR have well considered reasons for being intolerant.
Obvously it's Christians who use 'love'. You've assumed this also applied to non-Christians, for the reason of feth knows why.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 15:52:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Relapse wrote: This election had the worst choice of candidates ever, bringing out the worst in both sides.
People keep saying stuff like this, but just read this forum. The 'insidious evil of the left' was just used in an actual, meant to be serious post. This is the world we live in now, people believe totally fething bonkers gibberish about the other side.
I'll tell you right now, 2020 will be a long, slow slog from here*, but when we get there, the left will hate whoever the right puts up, and the right will hate whoever the left puts up. It will be nasty, and much of it will be very stupid. And like this time people will blame it on the presidential candidates alone, and pay no attention to the structural issues driving it.
*Albeit occasionally hilarious, because truly Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
Hey man, I got to live with that "gift". Its bad enough that IF he freezes federal hiring, it will be right as I try to put my degree to use but Gen. Mattis might have his political career ruined by a rubber stamp president.
However, he has proven that money isn't necessary to become president (ironically) and that if you are smart you can just camouflage inside of stupid statements to gain the White House. Meaning that any American can become president now, no matter how inexperienced you are and how little you understand about the position your trying to gain, as long as you also pander to people you are good to go.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a pity that they couldn't have had some serious analysis of both candidates in the run up to the election, instead of turning a blind eye to the Clinton bid...
You simply don't know what you're talking about. The New York Times covered Clinton's email scandal endlessly., far out of proportion with the scale of the underlying issue.
There was countless pieces written in actual leftwing media asking why the Times covered the issue as much as conservative media. The general answer was that a bunch of Times reporters had been covering accusations against the Clintons since the 90s, so it was either second nature by this stage, or some kind of personal commitment to finally find something after years of looking. Others pointed out that the Times assigned 20 journalists to Trump and 20 to Clinton, with Trump there was a new scandal every day, so a different story on Trump every day. Clinton had the email thing and accusations about the Clinton Foundation, and so those reporters simply reported on those two things every fething day of the campaign, even when there was nothing to say on them - it was a product of the structure of how paper covered the campaign.
Whatever the actual reason was, claiming the Times cast a blind eye on the Clinton email scandal is massively misinformed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: you're looking at the numbers though, you have to look at the pretty picture and all the red on the map. Look at the large land area that's red.
who needs facts & data when there's a picture?
Heh, I'm just a management accountant and a fairly old school, simple one at that. All I do is look at two numbers and note if one is bigger than the other, and if it is by a lot. I'm not really cut out for this new infographics age where big pictures give people big impressions that don't actually match the numbers behind them.
People keep saying that. And they keep writing little narrative pieces about why it is true. Some of these narratives sound rather neat and complete, like yours did below.
But they miss that politics is basically the practice of writing little narratives that almost always very artificial. To get to a real understanding of what's happening we can't just repeat the narratives that were sold on the campaign trail, but ask why those were the narratives that caught on.
The moment I still can't get my head around is Clinton going out to Pennsylvania, telling the people there that the coal mining jobs aren't coming back and instead they need to find new jobs for the area (she proposed to make it a new hub for clean energy manufacture). This fairly unsurprisingly pissed off a lot of people in Pennsylvania, but at the same time people still believed she was less honest than the guy who was telling an average of two dozen lies a day.
Exactly why the narrative you described came to believed, despite reality is the real, big question of this election.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 16:07:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: "You're fine, but I hate one the most important parts of your life, even though I have no clue how it actually applies to your life" is totally fething bonkers nonsense.
It's not my fault you can't separate disliking something someone believes and disliking the person.
I'll keep that in mind any time you talk about a specific ideology, belief or set of values that you're not separating those concepts from the wider community.
Obvously it's Christians who use 'love'. You've assumed this also applied to non-Christians, for the reason of feth knows why.
No, we were having a discussion about religion and bigotry and you decided to bring up Christians loving homosexuals.
It's not the same as you claimed it was because bigotry is not about loving, it's about irrational intolerance or hatred.
Anywho, I just had a look at your posting history and saw your hobby is apparently residing in the off-topic forum of a toy soldier forum, so I don't feel it's a good use of my time discussing this further with you.
If you want to label lots of people bigots for having well considered opinions on different religions, ideologies and so forth... well, I guess that's up to you.... sounds like a slightly bigoted thing to do though.
Sorry my post was harsh, I do have sympathy for people who will be living with that gift, such as yourself.
Thing is, at this point I see Trump as just another Republican, albeit one who's got no interest in hiding the con job.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Sorry my post was harsh, I do have sympathy for people who will be living with that gift, such as yourself.
Thing is, at this point I see Trump as just another Republican, albeit one who's got no interest in hiding the con job.
I'm confident so too. So I do get 4 years of rubbing it in my family's face (both sides) as Trump does none of what he said he would do, double awesome because Dems can't be blamed this time. Even if I'm not a Dem, I'm not Repub either.
whembly wrote: My take away is that Trump has 99 problems... but racism/anti-gay ain't one of them.
I mean, seriously, Trump fething settled his civil lawsuit for $25 MILLION dollars!
I've been laughing about it for days, like Monty Burns. "What was I laughing about? Oh yes, Trump blatantly showing how obvious his lie about not settling lawsuits was, and being shown to be guilty of an actual honest to god scam."
The only time I've stopped laughing about that is when I've thought of Trump backing away from 'lock her up' and 'repeal and replace'... with 24 hours of the election. I mean god damn, there's playing 60 million people for idiots, and then there's doing it Trump style.
Then I stop a realise the people in Syria are really fething boned, and the US is about to commit to a tax plan that makes stable fiscal policy impossible, and it stops being funny, and becomes really sad. And then Trump tweets some baby tears about Mike Pence being respectfully challenged by the cast of musical, and I start laughing again.
It's going to be a strange 4 years.
"Strange", we can deal with. "Strange", we've seen before. If "strange" is all we get, then we can chalk this up to "what did you expect?". It's the "darker" tones coming into focus with Trump's nascent administration, a la Sessions and Bannon, that worry me. There's potential here for "strange" to turn into, well, diabolical and oppressive. Vigilance will be required. There's a not-too-subtle dictatorial undertone to Trump. It was there in his business dealings, the primary, the POTUS race and it's popping up now during the transition.
After seeing certain members on this political microcosm of a board absolutely buying into the right's and Trump's snake oil pitch that's been peddled over the last half dozen plus years, it's only natural that a larger portion of the American electorate would buy into the lies and huckstery as well. A slick-as-it-gets NY billionaire real estate developer and reality show host pulled off the biggest carnival barker-like scam I've ever seen. The time was right, he saw his opportunity and he played the gullible like a fiddle as they swallowed it whole.
You're worried about Syria? I'm worried about our standing in the world, global stability, economic health, environmental rape, minority oppression...God, what a list. Anyways, the positive side of things is that I view Trump and his ilk as the dying of a dinosaur. It's going to die, no doubt, it knows it and it's going to go out with a lot of thrashing. Hopefully the mess it leaves won't be irreversible.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 16:28:27
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It's not my fault you can't separate disliking something someone believes and disliking the person.
I am not seperating the two because the distinction is bs.
It's not the same as you claimed it was because bigotry is not about loving, it's about irrational intolerance or hatred.
I explained to you why love applied for the Christian comparison, and why it does not apply to your opinion of Islam. And yet you keep trying to score some kind of point by continuing to misunderstand my statement, once again for reasons of feth knows why.
Anywho, I just had a look at your posting history and saw your hobby is apparently residing in the off-topic forum of a toy soldier forum, so I don't feel it's a good use of my time discussing this further with you.
I'm actually doing this while painting up some chaos spawn for my Lost and the Damned, for Epic Armageddon. That's what my actual hobby is. Not that that has anything all to do with whether my point was correct or not.
If you want to label lots of people bigots for having well considered opinions on different religions, ideologies and so forth... well, I guess that's up to you.... sounds like a slightly bigoted thing to do though.
Thing is, an opinion isn't well considered just because its holder decides it is. Of course everyone always thinks their own opinions are well considered. If they didn't they wouldn't hold the opinion, they would instead say 'I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm just gonna keep silent on this'. So the issue becomes whether you hold a well considered opinion on Islam, or whether you just think you do. And given I already pointed out to you the diversity of Islam (from Wahhabists to Sufis, from the Gulf States to South East Asia) that makes it just about impossible to hold a single belief on the whole of the religion, and you completely ignored that, its obvious that not only do you not understand the diversity of Islam, you also have no interest in finding out.
So it's clear your opinion is not well considered, and that you have no interest in making your opinion better considered, but you want to hold it anyway.
Anyway, tootles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm confident so too. So I do get 4 years of rubbing it in my family's face (both sides) as Trump does none of what he said he would do, double awesome because Dems can't be blamed this time. Even if I'm not a Dem, I'm not Repub either.
Yeah, there are bright sides here. There's the I told you so stuff. I mean so far we've got to have I told you so's on not locking up Clinton, not repealing and replacing ACA, the Republican congress not fighting Trump... it's like week 3 and there's already been enough I told you so's that I've forgotten a few. So on the simple level of intellectual flattery there is at least some good to be found.
But there's more value in Trump's hopeless political skills than just making ourselves feel good. Somehow Republicans escaped the Bush debacle with their party battered, but able to rebound in just two years. Running a repeat of the same but with Trump at the helm might finally, properly expose the con, in a way that Republicans can't just paper over.
EDIT - Oh yeah, another I told you so was settling on Trump university.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 16:34:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: bs back to you good sir. You can hate Islam without hating 1 billion people. Just the same way you can hate Christianity without hating all the Christians just like you can hate atheism without hating all the atheists.
You somehow feel confident passing a sweeping judgement on all of Islam. Whether this is because you are unaware of of diversity of belief, from Wahhabism to Suffi islam, or the range of cultures holding to some form of Islam, from the Gulf states to South East Asia, or because you just don't care... I guess it doesn't matter much. Either way the act of trying to pass judgement on the whole of something so complex is bigotry.
There's a difference between hating the religion/ideology and hating all the people who believe in that religion/ideology.
This is effectively the same thing as the social conservatives claiming they can love gay people while hating their relationships. Its a crock.
It's not a crock it just requires people to acknowledge that ideas =/= people. A Christian can be prohibited from condoning homosexuality due to his/her religious beliefs but still treat any LGBT individual he/she meets with civility and kindness. Avoiding sinful behavior while also forgiving trespassers and loving your neighbor is a core tenet of Christianity.
BigWaaagh wrote: After seeing certain members on this political microcosm of a board absolutely buying into the right's and Trump's snake oil pitch that's been peddled over the last half dozen plus years, it's only natural that a larger portion of the American electorate would buy into the lies and huckstery as well. A slick-as-it-gets NY billionaire real estate developer and reality show host pulled off the biggest carnival barker-like scam I've ever seen. The time was right, he saw his opportunity and he played the gullible and like a fiddle as they swallowed it whole.
Those guys buy in to whatever is being sold by the latest Republican to come along. It's always a con, but this time the con is obvious to the point where it's being revealed before Trump has even taken office.
I mean its one thing to buy snake oil, find it doesn't work and get suckered in all over again the next time a different snake oil salesman comes along. We all fall for that scam on something*. But it's quite another thing when the snake oil salesman is giving you the finger and calling you a sucker as he drives out of town, and you see all the other snake oil salesmen lining up to help this guy (the other snake oil salesmen are the GOP in congress, who are not stopping Trump in any way but falling in line... the analogy kind of falls apart there a bit).
* I mean, I've gone along to each new alien film and each new Ridley Scott film, thinking maybe this one will be like a return to the glory days. Hell, I even bought my ticket for Prometheus, a new Alien film by Ridley Scott, and was somehow surpised when it was terrible. We're all suckers for something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: It's not a crock it just requires people to acknowledge that ideas =/= people. A Christian can be prohibited from condoning homosexuality due to his/her religious beliefs but still treat any LGBT individual he/she meets with civility and kindness. Avoiding sinful behavior while also forgiving trespassers and loving your neighbor is a core tenet of Christianity.
It's a crock because what is an abstract idea to one person, is a core part of another person's every day lived experience. Imagine someone telling you that set of beliefs you base your life around are evil, but that they have nothing against you personally. Or someone telling you that the most important relationship yo have, the one you are building your life and family around, is a sin, but they have nothing against you personally.
It's an obviously ridiculous thing. But people believe it, because they don't understand that what is merely an abstract concept to them, is actually a key part of other people's lives.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 16:46:06
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: "You're fine, but I hate one the most important parts of your life, even though I have no clue how it actually applies to your life" is totally fething bonkers nonsense.
It's not my fault you can't separate disliking something someone believes and disliking the person.
I'll keep that in mind any time you talk about a specific ideology, belief or set of values that you're not separating those concepts from the wider community.
Obvously it's Christians who use 'love'. You've assumed this also applied to non-Christians, for the reason of feth knows why.
No, we were having a discussion about religion and bigotry and you decided to bring up Christians loving homosexuals.
It's not the same as you claimed it was because bigotry is not about loving, it's about irrational intolerance or hatred.
Anywho, I just had a look at your posting history and saw your hobby is apparently residing in the off-topic forum of a toy soldier forum, so I don't feel it's a good use of my time discussing this further with you.
If you want to label lots of people bigots for having well considered opinions on different religions, ideologies and so forth... well, I guess that's up to you.... sounds like a slightly bigoted thing to do though.
Religion is an abstract. It has no form or action unto itself to dislike. It only exists as interpreted and acted upon by individuals. That is the only tangible part of religion we can judge. What you are really saying is that you hate the religion as put into practice by individuals.
Your argument is no different than if I hated christianity for the inquisition. Or for kids who have committed suicide as a result of gay conversion therapy. It would be lunacy. There is no connection between the abstract (religion) and the actions of individuals.
Why should I not hate Christianity if its adherents have done and do such horrible things? Because that would be me judging an entire group (christians) based on the actions of a few. That's being a bigot.
So, why not just hate the idiots who are putting islam into action in a way (i think) we all dislike? Why must you hate the religion? Easy. You are covering for your own bigotry.
Now, I am be a little judgy. But you can be as much of a bigot as you want. But do yourself a favor and actually be honest about it. We all have things we hate without rational reason. I hate hipster beards. In general I hate hipsters and their annoying affectations. I know this is unreasonable. But it is who and what I am.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
However, he has proven that money isn't necessary to become president (ironically) and that if you are smart you can just camouflage inside of stupid statements to gain the White House. Meaning that any American can become president now, no matter how inexperienced you are and how little you understand about the position your trying to gain, as long as you also pander to people you are good to go.
I still wonder about that. Sure, the fancy charts show he and his campaign didn't spend as much as Clinton, but arguably he got just as much, if not more, media coverage as she did. He just didn't have to pay for all the free media he got. I bet if it were possible to somehow calculate how much media coverage (tv news, internet, print, etc,) each candidate got, and assign some standard dollar value to it, I suspect it would show Trump did outspend Hillary (just not with his money). But, that is just my suspicion.
@thread: Also, can we maybe move on from the religious stuff before we get the red text?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 16:48:29
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
However, he has proven that money isn't necessary to become president (ironically) and that if you are smart you can just camouflage inside of stupid statements to gain the White House. Meaning that any American can become president now, no matter how inexperienced you are and how little you understand about the position your trying to gain, as long as you also pander to people you are good to go.
I still wonder about that. Sure, the fancy charts show he and his campaign didn't spend as much as Clinton, but arguably he got just as much, if not more, media coverage as she did. He just didn't have to pay for all the free media he got. I bet if it were possible to somehow calculate how much media coverage (tv news, internet, print, etc,) each candidate got, and assign some standard dollar value to it, I suspect it would show Trump did outspend Hillary (just not with his money). But, that is just my suspicion.
@thread: Also, can we maybe move on from the religious stuff before we get the red text?
Prestor Jon wrote: It's not a crock it just requires people to acknowledge that ideas =/= people. A Christian can be prohibited from condoning homosexuality due to his/her religious beliefs but still treat any LGBT individual he/she meets with civility and kindness. Avoiding sinful behavior while also forgiving trespassers and loving your neighbor is a core tenet of Christianity.
It's a crock because what is an abstract idea to one person, is a core part of another person's every day lived experience. Imagine someone telling you that set of beliefs you base your life around are evil, but that they have nothing against you personally. Or someone telling you that the most important relationship yo have, the one you are building your life and family around, is a sin, but they have nothing against you personally.
It's an obviously ridiculous thing. But people believe it, because they don't understand that what is merely an abstract concept to them, is actually a key part of other people's lives.
Nope. It's no different than the way I don't condone smoking but I don't berate or mistreat my friends and relatives that are smokers. Opposing the idea that it's ok to smoke doesnt require you to treat smokers maliciously or preclude you from having positive relationships with smokers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 17:03:55
However, he has proven that money isn't necessary to become president (ironically) and that if you are smart you can just camouflage inside of stupid statements to gain the White House. Meaning that any American can become president now, no matter how inexperienced you are and how little you understand about the position your trying to gain, as long as you also pander to people you are good to go.
I still wonder about that. Sure, the fancy charts show he and his campaign didn't spend as much as Clinton, but arguably he got just as much, if not more, media coverage as she did. He just didn't have to pay for all the free media he got. I bet if it were possible to somehow calculate how much media coverage (tv news, internet, print, etc,) each candidate got, and assign some standard dollar value to it, I suspect it would show Trump did outspend Hillary (just not with his money). But, that is just my suspicion.
@thread: Also, can we maybe move on from the religious stuff before we get the red text?
Relapse wrote: This election had the worst choice of candidates ever, bringing out the worst in both sides.
People keep saying stuff like this, but just read this forum. The 'insidious evil of the left' was just used in an actual, meant to be serious post. This is the world we live in now, people believe totally fething bonkers gibberish about the other side.
I'll tell you right now, 2020 will be a long, slow slog from here*, but when we get there, the left will hate whoever the right puts up, and the right will hate whoever the left puts up. It will be nasty, and much of it will be very stupid. And like this time people will blame it on the presidential candidates alone, and pay no attention to the structural issues driving it.
*Albeit occasionally hilarious, because truly Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
There is insidious evil on the left and there are ample examples of it in both US history and world history. Whether you consider leftist the communism side of the communism<---> fascism scale or if you go further and place both communism and fascism on the left of the authority <---> liberty scale since both are statist philosophies just with different rationales (the benefit of the people/the benefit of the state) you find evil on the left.
It's the rose colored glasses of the supporters of both parties that cause so much of our problems. Both parties have been happily consolidating ever greater amounts of unconstitutional power into the executive branch for decades because both parties think it's a great idea when their guy is in charge. The NSA wire taps and data mining of the surveillance state, the secret trials by secret judges viewing secret evidence while trying defendants in absentia then barring them from air travel or renditioning them to secret prisons that was decried by democrats when Bush was president were continued and expanded by Obama with no obstruction from Democrats. Obama was the president who authorized the murder of a US citizen via a drone attack for expressing views that would be protected speech if he said them on a street corner in the US but since he posted them on the wrong website while living in the Middle East he could be denied due process and assassinated by the govt. Now Trump has all that power thanks to Party loyalists that put politics ahead of the country. Remember sequestration when Congress abdicated it's constitutional responsibility to manage the budget to the president so nobody up for election would have to vote on funding cuts? Everybody was happy to give Obama that power but it doesn't look like such a good idea now that Trump is in charge does it?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a pity that they couldn't have had some serious analysis of both candidates in the run up to the election, instead of turning a blind eye to the Clinton bid...
You simply don't know what you're talking about. The New York Times covered Clinton's email scandal endlessly., far out of proportion with the scale of the underlying issue.
There was countless pieces written in actual leftwing media asking why the Times covered the issue as much as conservative media. The general answer was that a bunch of Times reporters had been covering accusations against the Clintons since the 90s, so it was either second nature by this stage, or some kind of personal commitment to finally find something after years of looking. Others pointed out that the Times assigned 20 journalists to Trump and 20 to Clinton, with Trump there was a new scandal every day, so a different story on Trump every day. Clinton had the email thing and accusations about the Clinton Foundation, and so those reporters simply reported on those two things every fething day of the campaign, even when there was nothing to say on them - it was a product of the structure of how paper covered the campaign.
Whatever the actual reason was, claiming the Times cast a blind eye on the Clinton email scandal is massively misinformed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: you're looking at the numbers though, you have to look at the pretty picture and all the red on the map. Look at the large land area that's red.
who needs facts & data when there's a picture?
Heh, I'm just a management accountant and a fairly old school, simple one at that. All I do is look at two numbers and note if one is bigger than the other, and if it is by a lot. I'm not really cut out for this new infographics age where big pictures give people big impressions that don't actually match the numbers behind them.
People keep saying that. And they keep writing little narrative pieces about why it is true. Some of these narratives sound rather neat and complete, like yours did below.
But they miss that politics is basically the practice of writing little narratives that almost always very artificial. To get to a real understanding of what's happening we can't just repeat the narratives that were sold on the campaign trail, but ask why those were the narratives that caught on.
The moment I still can't get my head around is Clinton going out to Pennsylvania, telling the people there that the coal mining jobs aren't coming back and instead they need to find new jobs for the area (she proposed to make it a new hub for clean energy manufacture). This fairly unsurprisingly pissed off a lot of people in Pennsylvania, but at the same time people still believed she was less honest than the guy who was telling an average of two dozen lies a day.
Exactly why the narrative you described came to believed, despite reality is the real, big question of this election.
Narratives?
My analysis of Clinton was based on my own life experience and cold, hard facts.
The idea, that Clinton, in league with companies that had done so much to take manufacturing jobs out of the USA, was going to ride to the rescue of the Rust Belt states, was nonsense last year, last month, and last week when I wrote it!
The idea of Clinton being the champion of the working man is risible nonsense, and yet, that's the narrative we got.
I know horsegak when I see it.
Similarly, by her own words, it was also nonsense to buy the idea that a Clinton foreign policy was going to be peaceful and benign.
She whooped when Gaddaffi died, she wanted MORE involvement in Syria, she wanted a no fly zone.
Can you imagine FDR or Harry Truman acting like that upon learning off the death of an enemy leader? Neither can I, they had a lot more dignity and respect for the office. They were after all, serious politicians who at least had a sense of duty, rather than using the Oval office as a promotional vehicle for their foundation.
She said this stuff, ergo it is facts straight from the horse's mouth, and not my narrative or opinion.
I went by what she said herself, and drew my own conclusion.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Relapse wrote: This election had the worst choice of candidates ever, bringing out the worst in both sides.
People keep saying stuff like this, but just read this forum. The 'insidious evil of the left' was just used in an actual, meant to be serious post. This is the world we live in now, people believe totally fething bonkers gibberish about the other side.
I'll tell you right now, 2020 will be a long, slow slog from here*, but when we get there, the left will hate whoever the right puts up, and the right will hate whoever the left puts up. It will be nasty, and much of it will be very stupid. And like this time people will blame it on the presidential candidates alone, and pay no attention to the structural issues driving it.
*Albeit occasionally hilarious, because truly Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
There is insidious evil on the left and there are ample examples of it in both US history and world history. Whether you consider leftist the communism side of the communism<---> fascism scale or if you go further and place both communism and fascism on the left of the authority <---> liberty scale since both are statist philosophies just with different rationales (the benefit of the people/the benefit of the state) you find evil on the left.
It's the rose colored glasses of the supporters of both parties that cause so much of our problems. Both parties have been happily consolidating ever greater amounts of unconstitutional power into the executive branch for decades because both parties think it's a great idea when their guy is in charge. The NSA wire taps and data mining of the surveillance state, the secret trials by secret judges viewing secret evidence while trying defendants in absentia then barring them from air travel or renditioning them to secret prisons that was decried by democrats when Bush was president were continued and expanded by Obama with no obstruction from Democrats. Obama was the president who authorized the murder of a US citizen via a drone attack for expressing views that would be protected speech if he said them on a street corner in the US but since he posted them on the wrong website while living in the Middle East he could be denied due process and assassinated by the govt. Now Trump has all that power thanks to Party loyalists that put politics ahead of the country. Remember sequestration when Congress abdicated it's constitutional responsibility to manage the budget to the president so nobody up for election would have to vote on funding cuts? Everybody was happy to give Obama that power but it doesn't look like such a good idea now that Trump is in charge does it?
Wow. So many things wrong here. I'm not sure where to start.
You can't compare communism and fascism. One is an economic prediction based upon urbanization and the uneven distribution of wealth that has direct political consequence and the other describes a political movement characterized by central economic control and the glorification of violence/war . Speaking to both of their "perfect" versions of themselves one moves to perfect democratic participation and no centralized economic control and the other toward complete authoritarianism in both political participation and economic controls.
So, really, not anything a like. If you want to talk about the APPLICATION of either then we get into a much longer discussion. IMO, Communism never happened while Fascism did, for a short time happen. OK, i guess you can argue that albania did actually put communism into practice but they were the only ones. Ofcourse, we could apply the same logic to religions...but that would throw a wet blanket on the "i just hate the religion" folks.
In regards to the growth of executive power... You are hitting the nail pretty square. Some of us were complaining about it back when Bush was president. The basic line was "do you really want the most powerful version of the executive branch ever to be handed to Hillary Clinton?" Under Bush was when Republicanism really started to die. Greater centralized power. A more powerful executive and the states taking it in the ass(no child left behind?). I don't blame Bush though. I blame Cheney. He has been pushing for a more powerful central government since Ford.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
This was on SNL last night and it's pretty damn funny:
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
The good cop/bad cop nature of Pence and Trump will be an amusing way of them countering their critics.
This team is stupid like a fox...look at the media coverage of the Trump University settlement before and after the lefties starting dogpiling that silly tweet.
I haven't seen to many SJW's advocating for "safe spaces" in the Dakka Dakka OT politics threads, we do have...lots of "'dem liberals/leftists" comments however.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
