Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Dysole September 23rd, 2016 02:19 PM

If It Ain't Broke...
 
Your link is not working for me DS.

~Dysole, not sure if it's on her end or the site's

Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 02:22 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The one in the spoiler? It's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp1CK_X_Yw.

Dysole September 23rd, 2016 02:23 PM

Getting Warmer
 
The Johnson link.

~Dysole, who wasn't going to vote Johnson anyway and global warming might've been one of the issues that she wasn't too keen on him for but she forgets but had curiosity about what the link said anyways

Nukatha September 23rd, 2016 02:25 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I feel like my link from the bottom of page 19 was completely ignored.
I recommend everyone give it a read:
These people asked each candidate 20 questions and received direct responses from each candidate. No spin, no commentators, just answers directly from each candidate.

http://sciencedebate.org/20answers
http://sciencedebate.org/goods/2016answers.pdf

And I'll quote Gary's response on the topic of climate change here, to clarify what a few above have been saying with a response straight from the horse's mouth.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
We accept that climate change is occurring, and that
human activity is contributing to it, including through greenhouse gases like
methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately for policymakers the very activities that appear to contribute
to climate change also contribute to mankind’s health and prosperity, so we
view with a skeptical eye any attempts to curtail economic activity. We believe
that a motivated and informed market will demand efficiency and reduced
greenhouse gases, mitigating at least some of mankind’s effects. It is a virtual
certainty that consumer demands and the marketplace will produce tangible
benefits. It is not, however, certain that unilateral regulatory approaches by
the U.S. will, in fact, produce benefits that are proportionate to costs. Nor is it
certain that international treaties will produce benefits as developing nations
have the most at stake to continue industrialization.
As other countries industrialize, as they have the right to do, we recognize that
environmental trade-offs are inevitable. As extreme poverty wanes in places
like India and China, the poor will stop burning excrement or wood. And that
will reduce certain types of pollution, while certain greenhouse gases may
temporarily increase. But as countries become more developed, industrialized
and automated, we believe the marketplace will facilitate the free exchange of
new, efficient, carbon-friendly processes and technologies. And a Johnson-Weld administration will facilitate as much knowledge sharing as possible to
speed and spread sustainable, cleaner technology as nations develop.


Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 02:26 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Ah. This, then.

Edit: I don't think the lengthier response from Nukatha is substantively different from "Let's do nothing, because the sun will destroy the earth eventually anyway." I'm glad to see he's refined the answer over the last 5 years, though. A free market will prevent new countries, industrializing, from using coal power, etc.? Another demonstration of how fantastic - and not in a nice way - libertarianism is. I imagine a free market will also pay for scientists to spend 15 or 20 years developing new antibiotics, etc., too. Somebody will pay them, right? Sheesh.

Dysole September 23rd, 2016 02:37 PM

Interesting
 
It was hilarious that I happened to be skimming through this while waiting for a new link. I don't really trust the free market by itself to produce clean efficient energy but I'll readily admit I'm not sure what tack the government should take to encourage that route. I find the statement that "it is not certain that policy X will do what we want it to do" a bit... I dunno. We never have absolute certainty about what a policy will do because economics is one of those weird sciences that sometimes seems like complete voodoo. I share his lack of certainty that certain options (carbon taxes in particular is one I'm skeptical of) will produce certain results but I am very certain that the free market will not.

~Dysole, who thinks vaccines is the other issue where she knows she can't support Johnson

wriggz September 23rd, 2016 03:20 PM

Re: Interesting
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dysole (Post 2111716)
We never have absolute certainty about what a policy will do because economics is one of those weird sciences that sometimes seems like complete voodoo.
~Dysole, who thinks vaccines is the other issue where she knows she can't support Johnson


The general issue with Economics is that it is based on models not observations... which is crazy. There is an old joke....


"Real world Observations indicate that policy "A" will have "B" result.
"But what does the economic model say?"


This is a very worrying trend in economics and one that leads to many issues in government policy.

Rich10 September 23rd, 2016 03:44 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2111703)
I would not go so far as to say, Rich, that reasonable minds could differ, when it comes to the hatred so many have for Clinton. It is, I believe, unreasonable.

Regardless, if you're voting against Trump, by voting for Clinton, that's good enough. :up:

Lets just say that absent some unforeseen event (and I can't come up with a scenario), we'll be voting the same (at least for the top line) in November.

Just for the record, I don't hate Clinton. I don't even hate Trump. In elections, there is far too much of a tendency to demonize the other side. I look for a candidate's good and bad policies and qualities. I honestly believe that both Clinton and Trump think that their ideas are best when it comes to running this country. I also believe that both have displayed poor judgement. I think that Trump's poor judgement has been greater than Clinton's. Moreover, I am concerned that Trump's egotism will not lead him to take the council of people who know all of the facts. Hence, I will vote for the lesser of two evils. I have voted going back to the Reagan years and have voted for both parties. I have never been less pleased with my choice for president.

Tornado September 23rd, 2016 03:50 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I am curious if you would indulge me Rich10 but what was your voting pattern like?

I was devout Republican. Why you ask? Alex P. Keaton. :)

After GW's first term, I was done. Ever since then it seems like the Republicans only job to is to oppose and criticize the Democrats but never offer any alternate solutions.
https://whalen.files.wordpress.com/2...lexpkeaton.jpg

Swamper September 23rd, 2016 04:12 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2111684)
Dok addressed the attacks against Clinton, above. All the smoke around her looks more and more ridiculous, the closer I look at it. Her foundation is incredibly efficient at doing good work in the world. The email scandal is a whole lot of nothing.

The hate for her is simply not founded in reality. As dok said,
Spoiler Alert!


So when I vote for her, it will not be because she is the lesser of two evils, it'll be because she is the most qualified candidate in the race, and has been since the beginning of the campaign season. She is not perfect, but who is? Her reputation as a liar - like most of the charges against her - is not supported by real evidence.

When I vote *against* Trump, it will not be because he is the greater of two evils. It will be because he is a menace to the United States and, more broadly, to world peace. He has normalized the vilest part of the American underbelly, which is now empowered and acting out. Heaven help us all if he wins. He is a *documented* liar, and a racist, and a terrible, terrible human being.

But your vote is so precious that you can't choose between the two, and will throw in for some unqualified turkey, who isn't as qualified or prepared as Clinton, because you feel like you don't have anything to lose and you'd just as soon see it burn. Even though we have had eight solid years of stability and economic growth by any reasonable measure, you want your precious vote to say "hell with it all."

Well, go ahead, I guess. Believe your myths. Hopefully your vote won't matter. "People will only believe what they already know to be true. That is the Universal Form of Conspiracy." ~ Umberto Eco. Everybody thinks they're the first to discover cynicism.

I will, thank you. My vote will be making a statement, just like yours. Mine will say "I am fed up with both parties, I am not happy with either candidate, and I will not take part in some false choice to elect Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump." If that causes you to go into a tizzy, that's your problem. I don't particularly appreciate the tone of your response, but that's okay too. You're passionate, and I can understand that. Ultimately though, the way you addressed and phrased your objection to my opinion doesn't lead me to take you very seriously. There are ways to convey how you feel without being rude and nasty.

Ranior September 23rd, 2016 04:14 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2111712)
Edit: I don't think the lengthier response from Nukatha is substantively different from "Let's do nothing, because the sun will destroy the earth eventually anyway." I'm glad to see he's refined the answer over the last 5 years, though. A free market will prevent new countries, industrializing, from using coal power, etc.? Another demonstration of how fantastic - and not in a nice way - libertarianism is. I imagine a free market will also pay for scientists to spend 15 or 20 years developing new antibiotics, etc., too. Somebody will pay them, right? Sheesh.

Agreed. While it's certainly more refined, it still is just absurd as it's basically saying "well climate change might be a problem sure, but not one we're going to do anything about". Just absurd if he actually was listening to the scientific community's take on climate change.

I also found many of his other answers not very satisfying to me, but ah well. He offers up interesting sounding stuff, but nothing seems rooted in actual policy suggestions or reality. this statement of Johnson's on the idea of scientific integrity really got to me for some reason:

Quote:


Science is not democracy - results do not conform to popular or accepted opinion. However, we must respect the diversity of thought. The First Amendment does not stop at the doors of government, universities and research centers.
When government decides to fund A vs B, it has unavoidably put itself in the business of picking winners.
What does he think he is going to do? Fund everything? I mean how can you possibly avoid picking to fund certain studies over others? I mean if he had an idea on how to do that, great, but the rest of his answer goes into other parts and doesn't at all touch on how he would solve this supposed problem.



I found most of his answers in the thing Nukatha shared to be similarly vague. Lots of statements where I scratch my head about what Johnson is actually advocating for policy wise. I'm ill convinced he actually has real plans on how to govern. Going to his campaign website quickly also does not fill me with any confidence. Straight from his campaign's website for environment change comes this fun nugget:



Quote:

Is the climate changing? Probably so.
Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.
But the critical question is whether the politiciansí efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective Ė or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.
So first off they (him and his running mate) choose to continue hedging by saying probably so instead of a flat out yes, for sure, this is a real problem. They then double down on that stance by arguing that any future harm should be ignored in favor of promoting the current status quo.



The base idea behind the climate change debate is that we are abusing our planet's ecosystem beyond what it can handle, and we need to reign in pollution and effects today to help protect our future. They seem to have zero clue about that, or at the very least zero care. Their response seems to be along the lines of stating let's continue to keep things the way they are and continue pushing off this problem. I can see no reason to believe this is in any way a better stance than those who just state climate change isn't happening.



Overall, I've just ascertained what I already suspected, Gary Johnson isn't a candidate for me, and I think he would be a bad choice for president.


Looking at the other recent posts, I do find it a nice point that Rich10 brought up that during elections we often demonize the other side unnecessarily harshly. I'm probably even nitpicking Johnson more than I really think he's that bad. I also think that many times some Republicans have fine ideas. Just far too often many of them seem to ignore facts and on many issues that matter quite a bit to me. But really there are still plenty of moderate Republican politicians and friends I have where we have reasonable disagreements or agreements on certain topics. Overall I think even most politicians are trying their best and are doing an alright job.

Ranior September 23rd, 2016 04:28 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Swamper (Post 2111731)

I will, thank you. My vote will be making a statement, just like yours. Mine will say "I am fed up with both parties, I am not happy with either candidate, and I will not take part in some false choice to elect Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump." If that causes you to go into a tizzy, that's your problem. I don't particularly appreciate the tone of your response, but that's okay too. You're passionate, and I can understand that. Ultimately though, the way you addressed and phrased your objection to my opinion doesn't lead me to take you very seriously. There are ways to convey how you feel without being rude and nasty.

For what it's worth, I agree with Dad Scaper (the shirt I may as print up and wear for how often I seem to say it). I will stand up and don't think he said anything rude or nasty. And if you choose not to take him seriously because you think he was excessive harsh or mean, so be it.

Your vote won't be making a statement. The two main parties will not be hurt by you not voting for them, as one will win, they will continue to be the only two real choices, and to them nothing will have changed if you chose to vote elsewhere. Also it's in no way a false choice. Those are your two options. You can vote elsewhere, but in the end it will be as if you didn't show up to vote for all it will effect the outcome.

Alas though. I've had too many of these conversations with many of my friends. I've had little success convincing 3rd party voters that they are effectively throwing their vote away. I will admit that from my pocket of the world surrounding by my generation of millennials, there are quite a few who are supporters of Johnson and are convinced that they can throw a wrench in the two party system by voting for a third party. I will at least admit that many more seem truly engaged and interested this time around compared to when I was voting in 08 and 12 (oh god, nevermind I couldn't vote in 08 yet, yikes sometimes even I make myself feel young). Could just be that as my friends start getting to be more early and mid 20's though that political engagement naturally rises a bit. But it's my hope that young people will show up strong in the voting booths. I know I've been trying my best to make sure people are going to actually vote. I do always find it odd how many political discussions I've shut down with friends when I see them complain about policies and then ask if they voted in the last election--sad how many times that can shut some of my friends up.

Nukatha September 23rd, 2016 04:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I REALLY recommend reading the responses from each candidate in that document from sciencedebate. They really give great insight into the candidate's actual positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
Most public health laws and programs are appropriately
under the jurisdiction of the states, given that state and local governments are
closer to the specific needs and challenges of their populations and regions.
However, we have made clear our belief that, when a public health threat
spreads beyond state lines or is clearly beyond the capacity of individual states
to handle, there is a role for the federal government to step in, consistent with
the federal responsibility to protect citizens from harm.
That same guiding principle will dictate our response to such challenges as
“superbugs”, possible epidemics, and other threats that extend across the
entire nation.

With regard to public health, it is very simple: If a State can handle it, there's no reason for the Federal government to get involved beyond basic oversight. At the national level, with regard to large-scale epidemic prevention, the federal government can and ought to get involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
Our basic priorities will bend towards funding for
basic science and limiting funding for applied science to that which has clear
public benefit, but isn’t feasible in the private sector. The Johnson-Weld
administration defines basic science as research that works towards
understanding of fundamental issues at the core of scientific disciplines. We
believe that in the case where applied science can produce a profit, the best
thing that government can do is get out of the way, while providing safety
regulations that cannot be covered by the investigating organizations’
Institutional Review Boards, Ethical Review Boards, or Research Ethics
Boards. We believe that science is best regulated by scientists, not regulators.

Gary addressed your concern directly there as well. If a science has direct private sector applications that can be used for profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
The Johnson Weld administration supports nuclear
power precisely because it produces energy without greenhouse gases.
Other nations have used nuclear power safely for generations. However,
we recognize that a failure or security breach at a nuclear facility can have
catastrophic results.
The Johnson Weld administration would maintain strict nuclear safety
standards, but also investigate newer and safer lower yield reactors like
breeder reactors or thorium reactors, which produce less or even reduce
nuclear waste. The challenge of nuclear waste storage is, of course, a
serious one. However, we believe solutions exist, and can be implemented,
if decisions can be based on science and honest risk assessment, rather
than the politics of pitting one state or community against another.

And he advocates for nuclear power as a clean alternative to fossil fuel plants, specifically mentioning that his administration would provide for research into new reactor technologies, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Contrast that with Jill Stein's fear-mongering response:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jill Stein
Nuclear fission technology is unsafe, expensive, and dirty
from the mining of uranium to the disposal of spent fuel. As such we will end
subsidies to the nuclear industry immediately and phase out nuclear power
over a 10 year timeline. Existing nuclear waste will be handled with onsite dry
cask storage of high-level waste into perpetuity. No transport of nuclear waste

EDIT: So Ted Cruz just announced that he's voting for Trump. I honestly thought he still had integrity. I guess not.

Dysole September 23rd, 2016 05:01 PM

FYI
 
Nukatha you won't win me over by comparing Johnson to Stein since I already think worse of her as a candidate compared to Johnson.

The big and important thing economically for me is this. There are quite a few situations where the best thing for society as a whole is not something a profit maximizing company would be interested in and in some cases would actively oppose. Hence why I'm super wary of "the free market will fix it" solutions.

~Dysole, who will add on to wriggz's earlier statements that economic models are based on their assumptions and so rarely do people check their assumptions

Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 05:09 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
My conduct and tone will speak for itself. I don't care to talk about the talking.

Edit: medicine can be sold and would therefore be unregulated as I read that quote.

Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 06:05 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I don't understand not voting, or treating my vote like it doesn't matter. This country is full of dangerous people with whom I disagree, and I expect they are voting. Why the heck wouldn't I?

Edit: oops. Double post.

Nukatha September 24th, 2016 02:33 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
@Ranior

I read your long post, but just haven't had time to give a thoughtful response yet. Here goes something:

My apologies for that logical leap, inferring that the student loan system was significantly responsible for the public school tuition increases.
On the topic of Wisconsin, wasn't the recent tuition freeze motivated by the UW system posting a rather large budget surplus, implying that tuition was higher that it needed to be?
But don't get me wrong here. I'm in Arizona now. And every time a state/local bill comes through to raise public education funding (usually by some tax increase), I vote for it. Of course, AZ ranks I believe 48th in spending per student, and has the absolute worst Public teacher retention in the nation, so it is abundantly clear to me that it needs significant improvement. I'm just of the opinion that education is better handled at the State level, so that rather than attempting to have nationwide standards, we can have 50 different educational laboratories, so that every state can learn from each other state's successes and failures.
Plus, when national standards are implemented, it plays right into the hands of the likes of textbook companies Pearson and Houghton-Mifflin, who make bank off of such standards, with seemingly little demonstrable benefit in the classroom. When each state sets their own standards, it reduces the power of what I would call 'big education lobbies'. Sure, they'll flock to California and Texas, as they've got the largest populations, but the barrier of entry to the realm of educational materials is much lower overall than with national standards.
Bottom line, I think I generally agree with you. K-12 education is a necessary investment into society as a whole, and pays out huge dividends in the betterment of society. Collegiate-level education is increasingly necessary for a number of fields, (like yours and mine), but certainly not for many others. Lots of current college students (and this is just anecdotal from what I've seen teaching at the college level) would be better off hopping into a trade school, entry-level position in their field of choice, or some other shorter term education to get them directly started in some industry.
What it comes down to for me is that National standards are simply too overbearing and uniform to work across an entire nation the size of the US. Individual state-run education programs can try new and unique approaches that if successful can be tried elsewhere, and if failures can be dropped without damaging any other state. In addition, (on the legal side of things) no where in the Constitution is a federal education system established, and therefore I would argue all legal authority over education is, and ought to be, left to the several States.

I'll leave for now with the following quote, which I think is rather powerful.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fr%C3%...%A9ric_Bastiat
Quote:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

vegietarian18 September 24th, 2016 02:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I believe that the state can often do a better job with many of those things than a private interest could. I think the state should be able to ensure that all of its citizens have access to things like education. Capital gain should not play a part in essentials like that.

Your quote does not really follow with the rest of your post either. It is the private, for-profit, colleges that are creating the worst debt problems.

Rich10 September 25th, 2016 05:39 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tornado (Post 2111729)
I am curious if you would indulge me Rich10 but what was your voting pattern like?

I was devout Republican. Why you ask? Alex P. Keaton. :)

After GW's first term, I was done. Ever since then it seems like the Republicans only job to is to oppose and criticize the Democrats but never offer any alternate solutions.

I was a Democrat until Reagan. After that, I voted Republican more frequently than Democrat, but it was never exclusive.

I prefer to see a balance in our government. When either party is in control of both the White House and Congress, they just seem to go too far right or left.

Tornado September 26th, 2016 08:43 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
So I am/was the only APK Republican. :)

Thanks Rich.

Should be a fun debate tonight. :)

wriggz September 26th, 2016 12:20 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112051)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tornado (Post 2111729)
I am curious if you would indulge me Rich10 but what was your voting pattern like?

I was devout Republican. Why you ask? Alex P. Keaton. :)

After GW's first term, I was done. Ever since then it seems like the Republicans only job to is to oppose and criticize the Democrats but never offer any alternate solutions.

I was a Democrat until Reagan. After that, I voted Republican more frequently than Democrat, but it was never exclusive.

I prefer to see a balance in our government. When either party is in control of both the White House and Congress, they just seem to go too far right or left.



It is just scary how often we see Governments sticking to Ideologies when faced with Success.


If the world worked differently and instead of Communism failing and Capitalism succeeding, it was the other way around, wouldn't it seem foolish to hold on to the free market? Clearly Russian and China have learned that Capitalism is better for those that want to become wondrously Powerful and Rich and the common people, explaining why they have switched.


I liked Sanders argument of pointing to Europe and saying "Why can't we have what they have?". Germany is Working, France is (mostly) working, Scandinavia is working and they have rights to Education, Health, and Labour, that are as foundational as Free speech and Baring Arms is in the US.


I'm reminded by Hyundai. Many will remember these were discount cars that were cheap and crappy. What did Hyundai do? The bought a Corrolla (Top rated car at the time) and told their engineers to make one and put a Hyundai brand on it. Now Hyundai is a class leader. No shame in copying the best. Ironically this was at the same time as when the Big 3 were looking for government bailouts, while they continued to do the same thing (Big, Inefficient, expensive but not high end, etc.)


Finance is Ruining America


As an aside, I read an article about how the Wage Gap and low taxes from the Ultra Rich (Fund Managers) have eroded the middle class. The Crux of the argument was in the 60's and 70's the bulk of the money moving around in the stock market was used to make stuff (40 cents on the Dollar). Since the 80's (when taxes fell to record lows) it has been 10 cents.


We have incentivized the market to keep the money moving around the market or end up in the bank accounts of very few. If 90% of your salary goes to taxes, you don't try to make another Million, you keep that money in your business thru R&D, innovation and expansion (all create new jobs). When the "free market" is aloud to run rampant this is what happens. Individuals start working only for themselves and those luck few become super rich while the rest are left out to dry.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 12:28 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
FWIW, I don't think our current split - Democratic President, Republican congress - is doing the nation any favors. The House spent far more money investigating Benghazi - a political witch hunt - than was spent investigating 9/11, and instead of doing real business it voted to recall the ACA one bazillion times. And the Senate has disgraced the founding fathers and the Constitution the Republican Party claims to hold so dear, by declining to consider a nominee to the Supreme Court.

So I'm not persuaded that it's always for the better to have a party split between the Executive & the Legislative branches. There may have been a time when that was true, and that time may come again, but I don't think that time is now.

dok September 26th, 2016 12:49 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112121)
So I'm not persuaded that it's always for the better to have a party split between the Executive & the Legislative branches. There may have been a time when that was true, and that time may come again, but I don't think that time is now.

It was not a bad thing back when there was significant ideological overlap between the parties. For most of our history the regional variations within a party were more significant than the divide between them. But that's not remotely true now, which is why national politics has become so zero-sum over the last 20 years.

Relatedly, here's a good article that discusses issues the media has had covering politics that I was discussing with @Rich10 earlier.

We are starting to see a shift in the way Trump is covered, although it's coming alarmingly late in the cycle. The NYT front-paging an analysis piece that calls out Trump falsehoods, for instance. They're starting to realize that stenography-as-journalism plays into Trump's hands, and he simply can't be covered like a normal candidate.

vegietarian18 September 26th, 2016 01:15 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I liked this article

Quote:

The people complaining about "false balance" usually seem confident in having discovered the truth of things for themselves, despite the media's supposed incompetence. They're quite sure of whom to vote for and why. Their complaints are really about the impact that "false balance" coverage might have on other, lesser humans, with weaker minds than theirs.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 01:20 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I've seen pushback elsewhere, including in the Times itself, against the idea of false balance. It looks to me, vegie, including in your quote there, like a defense of laziness.

I believe that a journalist is beholden to the truth, and that the truth is knowable. It is a lazy journalist who cannot be bothered to care whether something is a falsehood.

wriggz September 26th, 2016 01:49 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2112129)
I liked this article

Quote:

The people complaining about "false balance" usually seem confident in having discovered the truth of things for themselves, despite the media's supposed incompetence. They're quite sure of whom to vote for and why. Their complaints are really about the impact that "false balance" coverage might have on other, lesser humans, with weaker minds than theirs.

The BBC stopped giving Climate Deniers equal time to those supporting the truth (See scientific consensus). No where else in the world is the fringe catered too, to such a degree.

The Problem with false balance is the more you hear something the more acceptable it becomes. Early on, Mass shooting were deplorable outlandish things. Now we expect to have a few a year. It is becoming routine for Black men to be shot by Police, and we accept it as if it is the cost of policing.

Trumps falsehoods are reported on with out any investigation so people really do believe that the US's major problems are Immigration, Islam and China instead of Lagging Education, Inequality (Economic, Gender, Racial), and Climate Change. Advertising convinced people that "Jack booted federal agents are going to break into their homes and take there guns". The government never suggested this, it is outlandish to think it ever would, but the NRA convinced people it would happen if even a single gun control bill was passed.

No matter which way you cut it, Advertising/Propaganda is effective. Popular things become more popular, and it is often the media that makes things popular. There are so many examples of terrible things being popular if only because they were popular. The entire Celebrity/Royal Reporting industry is proof of that. Or Nickleback.

Reporting Networks should be fined for reporting false statements to the public, by a bipartisan branch of the government (have the fines paid out by the campaigns if you want). There are too many falsehoods floating around to allow Trump to have the mouth piece he does.

Rich10 September 26th, 2016 02:06 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
[quote=dok;2112123]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112121)
Relatedly, here's a good article that discusses issues the media has had covering politics that I was discussing with @Rich10 earlier.

We are starting to see a shift in the way Trump is covered, although it's coming alarmingly late in the cycle. The NYT front-paging an analysis piece that calls out Trump falsehoods, for instance. They're starting to realize that stenography-as-journalism plays into Trump's hands, and he simply can't be covered like a normal candidate.

I'm not familiar with Jay Rosen or "Press Think", but as I glanced through the site, it certainly seems to be left leaning (very left leaning). ;)


Just for kicks, I googled the words "Lies", "Trump" and "Clinton".


The top hits were:
  • Politifact.com which says that Trump lies more than Clinton
  • NY Times, "Clinton's Fibs vs Trump's Huge Lies"
  • Washington Post, "Trump lies more often than Clinton but Americans think she's more dishonest"
  • Politico.com "
    If you can't remember all your lies, you're telling too many" which attack's Trumps record on lying
  • thinkprogress.org, "Ivanka Trump went on national TV and lied about Hillary Clintonís childcare policies"
and what I thought was the best article:
I looked for an article that would find that Trump lies less or even equally with Clinton. I finally found one in the National Review which equates the lying of Clinton and Trump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...do-they-matter


Since the only article that suggests that the candidates are equal in their veracity (I couldn't find one that says that Trump is more honest) is the very right leaning national review, I question whether Trump is getting a free pass on his lies.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 02:25 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
It's not (just) about the lying. Consider that we have seen mountains of coverage of the Clinton Foundation, because for a time it appeared there might be traction for a story there (there wasn't). You say, Rich10, that it does appear that there's been coverage of Trump, but where has been the coverage of the payoff to the Florida AG? From *Trump's* foundation? Or the business connections to foreign powers, or the close relationships between his campaign staffers and the Kremlin? Where is the coverage of the enormous business debts of his businesses? You see a story every now and then, and it's gone.

The false equivalence problem is, to my mind, the idea that there should be some equivalence in number of stories investigating skeletons in (or out of) each candidate's closet. You hear far, far more coverage of the Clinton Foundation, when it is the Trump Foundation that operates in the shadows, paying off personal and business debts, and it is Trump who is the one with actual seedy connections to foreign powers. There is hardly any coverage of that, though, because (it's my sense) that they don't want to pick on one candidate significantly over the other. Even if that's where the story is, and even if that's tremendously important, or should be tremendously important, to the electorate.

wriggz September 26th, 2016 02:28 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112137)
Since the only article that suggests that the candidates are equal in their veracity (I couldn't find one that says that Trump is more honest) is the very right leaning national review, I question whether Trump is getting a free pass on his lies.

It is not they number of falsehoods but the nature of them. Maybe Clinton is lying about her involvement with the speaking fees and her involvement in as secretary of State. These are matters for actual investigation, the common public needs to rely on others to investigate the facts and make claims accordingly. These things should be investigated and they should be brought to the light of day when a result is reached.

Trump is telling a different tale. He is telling us that lower taxes on the wealthy is good for America. He is telling us the Department of Education and Environment are useless and standing in the way of progress. He is claiming Mexicans and Chinese are taking our jobs rather than shining a light on Corporations that are mounting huge profit margins through Financial magic instead of investment in the country. He is telling us not to worry about Climate Change.

People are so wrapped up in dealing with his diarrhea mouth that we don't even have time to look at his policies. This is terrifying.

If you want to see what will happen, Look at the Toronto Mayoral Election that elected Rob Ford from Jimmy Kimble Fame. Rob was elected on the false hood of "stopping the Gravy Train". Toronto was not wasting money, it was fine, and Rob's mission was to lower corporate taxes while cutting social programs. People were convinced by his rhetoric and his common man brand. Sound familiar? This is what America has to look forward to.


I may sound like a staunch liberal, but I actually think Harper did a decent job as Prime Minster. Sure he sacrificed environmental policy, gagged the scientific community, and burnt bridges with the UN. But under a dominate conservative government we none of the lifestyle issues were challenged (abortion, gender rights, etc.) Given the options at the time a liberal government may have been bad for Canada. The Republican Ideology is not necessarily bad, but in this case I think Trump is.

vegietarian18 September 26th, 2016 02:35 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112131)
The BBC stopped giving Climate Deniers equal time to those supporting the truth (See scientific consensus). No where else in the world is the fringe catered too, to such a degree.

The Problem with false balance is the more you hear something the more acceptable it becomes. Early on, Mass shooting were deplorable outlandish things. Now we expect to have a few a year. It is becoming routine for Black men to be shot by Police, and we accept it as if it is the cost of policing.

Trumps falsehoods are reported on with out any investigation so people really do believe that the US's major problems are Immigration, Islam and China instead of Lagging Education, Inequality (Economic, Gender, Racial), and Climate Change. Advertising convinced people that "Jack booted federal agents are going to break into their homes and take there guns". The government never suggested this, it is outlandish to think it ever would, but the NRA convinced people it would happen if even a single gun control bill was passed.

Sorry to argue this with you in particular wriggz, but this whole thing is one of the big issues I have with the direction of the Democratic Party in general.

This is one of the most commonly cited sites for statistics on racial inequality in police shootings. Per millions in a race, whites are certainly killed less by police. But these statistics do not adjust for police encounters. Certain races do have more encounters per capita with the police, which is really the trend you see on that original site in its statistics. Here's a NYT article on that. When you adjust for police encounters, the disparity between races shrinks massively.

When we point the blame at the police, rather than the situations that lead to police encounters, we don't ever get closer to solving the problem. Obviously I believe that police shootings are bad and should be avoided. And obviously I believe that racial bias in policing should be eliminated. But it's not nearly as big of a problem as the difference in per capita police encounters between races is.

You can see similar facts with the gender wage gap. It exists (sorry for podcast link, can't think of a better explanation ATM) , but on a much smaller scale when adjusted for differences in choices each gender makes. The problem is not discrimination by employers; it's discrimination from society as a whole for women to fulfill certain roles.

These are problems, but they require social solutions, not legal ones. They will not be solved instantly, or by any legislation.

It's hard not to be cynical and think that the Democratic party is aware of these facts, but supports the wrong solutions to the right problems because by never fixing the problems, they can always get people voting to fix them. And yes, Trump talks about even more irrelevant problems. But that doesn't excuse the other side for using the same strategies.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 02:39 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
^ Vegie is right, there. Mass and sudden reporting of police-involved shootings is painting a terribly inaccurate and unfair picture of law enforcement and those engaged in it. If people want to engage in a calm inquiry and learn more, go for it, but the rush to judge without understanding (1) the policies or (2) the context of the numbers is rash. /2cents

Rich10 September 26th, 2016 02:45 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112120)

It is just scary how often we see Governments sticking to Ideologies when faced with Success.

If the world worked differently and instead of Communism failing and Capitalism succeeding, it was the other way around, wouldn't it seem foolish to hold on to the free market? Clearly Russian and China have learned that Capitalism is better for those that want to become wondrously Powerful and Rich and the common people, explaining why they have switched.

I'm not sure that I understand your point. Since capitalism outperformed communism, wouldn't we want to follow capitalism?

I'm reminded of the Churchill quote, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112120)
I liked Sanders argument of pointing to Europe and saying "Why can't we have what they have?". Germany is Working, France is (mostly) working, Scandinavia is working and they have rights to Education, Health, and Labour, that are as foundational as Free speech and Baring Arms is in the US.

While "Germany is Working", would you say the same about Greece? How about Spain, Portugal and even Italy? How about Venezuela which until a short time ago was portrayed as a Socialist utopia?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112120)
I'm reminded by Hyundai. Many will remember these were discount cars that were cheap and crappy. What did Hyundai do? The bought a Corrolla (Top rated car at the time) and told their engineers to make one and put a Hyundai brand on it. Now Hyundai is a class leader. No shame in copying the best. Ironically this was at the same time as when the Big 3 were looking for government bailouts, while they continued to do the same thing (Big, Inefficient, expensive but not high end, etc.)

Hyundai wasn't turned around by some socialist government program. It was capitalism in that they needed to make a car that was competitive. If you want to read something funny, google Soviet block cars made before the fall of the USSR. They were pathetically bad because they had no competition.
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112120)
Finance is Ruining America

As an aside, I read an article about how the Wage Gap and low taxes from the Ultra Rich (Fund Managers) have eroded the middle class. The Crux of the argument was in the 60's and 70's the bulk of the money moving around in the stock market was used to make stuff (40 cents on the Dollar). Since the 80's (when taxes fell to record lows) it has been 10 cents.

We have incentivized the market to keep the money moving around the market or end up in the bank accounts of very few. If 90% of your salary goes to taxes, you don't try to make another Million, you keep that money in your business thru R&D, innovation and expansion (all create new jobs). When the "free market" is aloud to run rampant this is what happens. Individuals start working only for themselves and those luck few become super rich while the rest are left out to dry.

I have been to both Greenwich and Bridgeport. It is absolutely true that these towns have moved in opposite directions. But the growth of the private equity and hedge funds in Greenwich hasn't caused the problems in Bridgeport. The loss of manufacturing jobs in Bridgeport was caused by globalization and automation. Considering Trump and Clinton, Trump is the candidate who is opposed to current trade deals (I disagree with Trump's position on this).

Going back to Churchill's quote, there might be less wealth inequity without the hedge funds in Greenwich, but the people of Bridgeport would have even less (without the tax revenues flowing to Fairfield county from the million dollar income tax revenues) if the hedge funds hadn't gone to Greenwich.

Rich10 September 26th, 2016 03:34 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112142)
It's not (just) about the lying. Consider that we have seen mountains of coverage of the Clinton Foundation, because for a time it appeared there might be traction for a story there (there wasn't). You say, Rich10, that it does appear that there's been coverage of Trump, but where has been the coverage of the payoff to the Florida AG? From *Trump's* foundation? Or the business connections to foreign powers, or the close relationships between his campaign staffers and the Kremlin? Where is the coverage of the enormous business debts of his businesses? You see a story every now and then, and it's gone.

The false equivalence problem is, to my mind, the idea that there should be some equivalence in number of stories investigating skeletons in (or out of) each candidate's closet. You hear far, far more coverage of the Clinton Foundation, when it is the Trump Foundation that operates in the shadows, paying off personal and business debts, and it is Trump who is the one with actual seedy connections to foreign powers. There is hardly any coverage of that, though, because (it's my sense) that they don't want to pick on one candidate significantly over the other. Even if that's where the story is, and even if that's tremendously important, or should be tremendously important, to the electorate.

This is a reasonable point and I don't know how to judge or test it? I just don't understand why the media (that I perceive as left leaning) would give Trump a free pass and hold Clinton to a higher standard?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112146)
Trump is telling a different tale. He is telling us that lower taxes on the wealthy is good for America. He is telling us the Department of Education and Environment are useless and standing in the way of progress. He is claiming Mexicans and Chinese are taking our jobs rather than shining a light on Corporations that are mounting huge profit margins through Financial magic instead of investment in the country. He is telling us not to worry about Climate Change.

I will agree that Trump has lied about a number of things (such as whether he supported the Iraq war). The items above however are opinions.
  • There is a reasonable school of thought that lower taxes (across the board) helps to stimulate the economy. Trump's plan to lower corporate taxes should be implemented even if we need to raise personal tax rates to offset these. I'm tired of seeing US jobs going to overseas tax havens.
  • Libertarians would generally be against the Department of Education (which perhaps should be on a state by state basis) and Environment (which I think needs to be on a federal basis).
  • US jobs have been lost to other countries. While I would argue that this has been a net positive to the US, I'm also not a manufacturing worker. It reminds me of the old joke between a recession and a depression. A recession is when someone else loses their job; a depression is when you lose your job.
  • Corporations are entitled to maximize profits. Its part of the capitalist system.
  • I am concerned with Climate change, but you can't call this an outright lie.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 03:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112162)
This is a reasonable point and I don't know how to judge or test it? I just don't understand why the media (that I perceive as left leaning) would give Trump a free pass and hold Clinton to a higher standard?

Easy: Your premise is that the media is left-leaning. Your premise is wrong.

I understand why people think the media is (note for pedants: "media" is plural, should be "media are," but people don't write that way so I won't, either) liberal. There are two reasons. First, journalists tend to be liberal. I suspect this is so because they also tend to have advanced degrees, and those with advanced degrees tend to be more liberal. It is one thing, however, to note the personal politics of the journalists, it is another - and an unfair attack, IMHO - to attack the integrity of a person because of that person's personal politics. We all have jobs; we all try to do them responsibly without regard for our own personal politics.

Consider the beating that Trump took, when he suggested a federal judge could not be fair to him because of the judge's Mexican heritage. Aren't we making the same mistake Trump did, by confusing something personal about the professional, when we discount the journalist's work?

Second, it's easy to believe that the media is liberal because there is a large opposition media industry, to its right. Fox and its many smaller siblings and cousins on the right have made an industry out of identifying as "fair and balanced," unlike the "MSM," the liberal media. This myth has been around long enough that it's penetrated the *real* mainstream, by which I mean people have come to think of it as true.

Just because there is an accusation, though, does not mean there is truth behind it. I have a little pet expression that I made up, which is that "given two explanations for a person behaving in a certain way, the better explanation is the one that assumes the person was trying to do his or her job." Let's not assume, without evidence, that the "MSM" is actually liberal. Just because there's a (profitable!) cottage industry built around the suggestion that some people are dishonest, does not mean those people actually are dishonest.

There are liberal media outlets, of course. I count MSNBC, The Guardian, and The New Yorker, as liberal media. Often you will find something there of value, particularly (in my experience) in Mother Jones. Of course, I have also occasionally found valuable nuggets in "alt right" sources, and even cited them on this forum, when appropriate. Though I consider those alt right sources to be much more extreme than, for instance, MSNBC, it doesn't mean they never have anything of value.

Most media outlets aren't actually liberal. It's just an accusation that's been around so long that it's seeped into the groundwater. My 2 cents. It pains me to be so frank in this thread, because some of my friends here seem to be reluctant to move past certain prejudices about the status quo. But there it is.

The short answer to your question is, almost 50% of the people in this country are prepared to vote for an unqualified, unprepared, lunatic for President of the United States. I don't know why the journalists & media outlets do what they do, but my guess is that there are decisions made up the chain somewhere to pander or to pussyfoot around, and to pretend as if the true center can be found equidistant from the positions in the current state of politics, instead of where it's always been, anchored to a measurable and findable truth.

wriggz September 26th, 2016 05:09 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112152)
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112120)

It is just scary how often we see Governments sticking to Ideologies when faced with Success.

If the world worked differently and instead of Communism failing and Capitalism succeeding, it was the other way around, wouldn't it seem foolish to hold on to the free market? Clearly Russian and China have learned that Capitalism is better for those that want to become wondrously Powerful and Rich and the common people, explaining why they have switched.

I'm not sure that I understand your point. Since capitalism outperformed communism, wouldn't we want to follow capitalism?

I'm reminded of the Churchill quote, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112120)
I liked Sanders argument of pointing to Europe and saying "Why can't we have what they have?". Germany is Working, France is (mostly) working, Scandinavia is working and they have rights to Education, Health, and Labour, that are as foundational as Free speech and Baring Arms is in the US.

While "Germany is Working", would you say the same about Greece? How about Spain, Portugal and even Italy? How about Venezuela which until a short time ago was portrayed as a Socialist utopia?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112120)
I'm reminded by Hyundai. Many will remember these were discount cars that were cheap and crappy. What did Hyundai do? The bought a Corrolla (Top rated car at the time) and told their engineers to make one and put a Hyundai brand on it. Now Hyundai is a class leader. No shame in copying the best. Ironically this was at the same time as when the Big 3 were looking for government bailouts, while they continued to do the same thing (Big, Inefficient, expensive but not high end, etc.)

Hyundai wasn't turned around by some socialist government program. It was capitalism in that they needed to make a car that was competitive. If you want to read something funny, google Soviet block cars made before the fall of the USSR. They were pathetically bad because they had no competition.
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112120)
Finance is Ruining America

As an aside, I read an article about how the Wage Gap and low taxes from the Ultra Rich (Fund Managers) have eroded the middle class. The Crux of the argument was in the 60's and 70's the bulk of the money moving around in the stock market was used to make stuff (40 cents on the Dollar). Since the 80's (when taxes fell to record lows) it has been 10 cents.

We have incentivized the market to keep the money moving around the market or end up in the bank accounts of very few. If 90% of your salary goes to taxes, you don't try to make another Million, you keep that money in your business thru R&D, innovation and expansion (all create new jobs). When the "free market" is aloud to run rampant this is what happens. Individuals start working only for themselves and those luck few become super rich while the rest are left out to dry.

I have been to both Greenwich and Bridgeport. It is absolutely true that these towns have moved in opposite directions. But the growth of the private equity and hedge funds in Greenwich hasn't caused the problems in Bridgeport. The loss of manufacturing jobs in Bridgeport was caused by globalization and automation. Considering Trump and Clinton, Trump is the candidate who is opposed to current trade deals (I disagree with Trump's position on this).

Going back to Churchill's quote, there might be less wealth inequity without the hedge funds in Greenwich, but the people of Bridgeport would have even less (without the tax revenues flowing to Fairfield county from the million dollar income tax revenues) if the hedge funds hadn't gone to Greenwich.

It looks like I muddled my points. Basically:


1. We should copy what works in better countries to be the best (Hence my argument of Hyundai copying Toyoda and that Russian and China are copying the US). Social Health Care works in Canada, Education is top notch in Sweden. Why the US is not copying these success is beyond me.


2. I agree Capitalism is a very powerful force, and can be very beneficial (the 1950-70's showed that). I think the best way to get better shoes is capitalism, same with movies, sporting events and cars. Capitalism sucks at protecting Human rights and the Environment. True innovation (like NASA, DARPA and University Research) cannot be profit driven. Recent history has shown that Capitalism sucks at Pharmaceuticals. I like that the department of transport contracts out road work, but I would not want companies to have control over which roads get fixed. This issue is rampant capitalism starts looking like Monarchies with Business leaders in the place of Kings, this is not good as we are starting to see now. Socialism and Capitalism need to work hand in hand.

3. If you read the article I posted you will see that Bridgeport's problems may very well be due to Greenwich's success. As wealth becomes consolidated and doesn't generate Job's the system begins to fail.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112162)

  • There is a reasonable school of thought that lower taxes (across the board) helps to stimulate the economy. Trump's plan to lower corporate taxes should be implemented even if we need to raise personal tax rates to offset these. I'm tired of seeing US jobs going to overseas tax havens.


This is a terrible argument. People are going to cheat the system, so we are going to lower the costs so they are less likely to cheat. Do you really think they will stop gaming the because taxes are only 20% instead of 27%? Greece tried that, It did not work.

The last 30 years are proof that Trickle Down economics don't work. They worked in the past because money invested in the stock market turned into jobs for R&D and Expansion. Now Corporations are incentivized to pay out bigger salaries at the top, pay dividends and hide money offshore. There is no benefit to re-investing in people.

Sure the government sucks at spending money, but they do eventually spend it. They pay police, fire, army, road work, and lots of other things that keep things running and keep people employed. That money goes back into the economy to be spent, where as money made by Corporations (like Trump's) end up getting stuck in bank accounts. Give 1 million people a Thousand Dollars and you will have a Billion more dollars circulating into local economies. Give a thousand Millionaires a Million dollars and you will have a Billion Dollars put into "Interest generating funds" which stimulate nothing except more Finance.

wriggz September 26th, 2016 05:40 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Oh and my point was not that the the police were shooting black men. it was that the police are shooting people. How is it even remotely acceptable for an officer to kill a human that posed no threat.

A police officer in toronto shoot a suspect on an empty bus that was srounded by police. the suspect had a knife aND was was on the bus while the officer was not.

The officer has been convicted of manslaughter. something tells me the same outcome would not of occurred south if the boarder.

Rich10 September 26th, 2016 05:45 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112169)
Easy: Your premise is that the media is left-leaning. Your premise is wrong.

I understand why people think the media is (note for pedants: "media" is plural, should be "media are," but people don't write that way so I won't, either) liberal. There are two reasons. First, journalists tend to be liberal. I suspect this is so because they also tend to have advanced degrees, and those with advanced degrees tend to be more liberal. It is one thing, however, to note the personal politics of the journalists, it is another - and an unfair attack, IMHO - to attack the integrity of a person because of that person's personal politics. We all have jobs; we all try to do them responsibly without regard for our own personal politics.

Consider the beating that Trump took, when he suggested a federal judge could not be fair to him because of the judge's Mexican heritage. Aren't we making the same mistake Trump did, by confusing something personal about the professional, when we discount the journalist's work?

Second, it's easy to believe that the media is liberal because there is a large opposition media industry, to its right. Fox and its many smaller siblings and cousins on the right have made an industry out of identifying as "fair and balanced," unlike the "MSM," the liberal media. This myth has been around long enough that it's penetrated the *real* mainstream, by which I mean people have come to think of it as true.

Just because there is an accusation, though, does not mean there is truth behind it. I have a little pet expression that I made up, which is that "given two explanations for a person behaving in a certain way, the better explanation is the one that assumes the person was trying to do his or her job." Let's not assume, without evidence, that the "MSM" is actually liberal. Just because there's a (profitable!) cottage industry built around the suggestion that some people are dishonest, does not mean those people actually are dishonest.

There are liberal media outlets, of course. I count MSNBC, The Guardian, and The New Yorker, as liberal media. Often you will find something there of value, particularly (in my experience) in Mother Jones. Of course, I have also occasionally found valuable nuggets in "alt right" sources, and even cited them on this forum, when appropriate. Though I consider those alt right sources to be much more extreme than, for instance, MSNBC, it doesn't mean they never have anything of value.

Most media outlets aren't actually liberal. It's just an accusation that's been around so long that it's seeped into the groundwater. My 2 cents. It pains me to be so frank in this thread, because some of my friends here seem to be reluctant to move past certain prejudices about the status quo. But there it is.

I wasn't trying to impugn reporters. As you said, "journalists tend to be liberal." This can be supported by Wikipedia (yes, I know that it is dangerous to rely on Wikipedia), "it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations. Both of these figures represent donations made in 2008."

Certainly different media outlets do have a right or left bias. In my opinion, the New York Times has a left bias; the Wall Street Journal has a right bias. At one point, I read both so that I got a balanced view of the world.

As for actual studies:
  • The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter.[45] They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that the large majority of journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics.
  • Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College investigated the issue of media bias in the 2002 book Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.
  • A 2005 study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models, and found a liberal bias. The authors wrote that "all of the news outlets we examine[d], except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress."
  • A 2014 Gallup poll found that a plurality of Americans believe the media is biased to favor liberal politics.
  • A 2008 joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that viewers believe a liberal media bias can be found in television news on networks such as CNN.
On the other hand:
  • Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation (the parent of Fox News), self-identifies as a libertarian. Roy Greenslade of The Guardian, and others, claim that Rupert Murdoch has exerted a strong influence over the media he owns, including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The Sun.
  • According to former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, Fox News's editorial policy is set from the top down in the form of a daily memo.
  • Progressive media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has argued that accusations of liberal media bias are part of a conservative strategy, noting an article in the August 20, 1992 Washington Post, in which Republican party chair Rich Bond compared journalists to referees in a sporting match.
  • A report "Examining the 'Liberal Media' Claim: Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage" by FAIR's David Croteau, from 1998, calls into question the assumption that journalists' views are to the left of center in America. The findings were that journalists were "mostly centrist in their political orientation" and more conservative than the general public on economic issues (with a minority being more progressive than the general public on social issues).[
  • Kenneth Tomlinson, while chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, commissioned a $10,000 government study into Bill Moyers' PBS program, NOW.[76] The results of the study indicated that there was no particular bias on PBS.
So, I guess there's enough data points for either side of this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112169)
The short answer to your question is, almost 50% of the people in this country are prepared to vote for an unqualified, unprepared, lunatic for President of the United States. I don't know why the journalists & media outlets do what they do, but my guess is that there are decisions made up the chain somewhere to pander or to pussyfoot around, and to pretend as if the true center can be found equidistant from the positions in the current state of politics, instead of where it's always been, anchored to a measurable and findable truth.

I'm really not sure how to find a "measurable and findable truth." And while I won't vote for Trump, and I do think that he's likely unqualified and is certainly unprepared, I wouldn't call him a lunatic.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 05:59 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
You sidestepped my point. Just because journalists tend to be liberal does *not* mean they are failing to do their job.

As for the truth, just because you and I might disagree on it in some contexts, doesn't mean it isn't knowable and we shouldn't seek it. It is a truth that Trump's affiliated businesses owe more money than you or I could ever count to foreign powers. It is a truth that the university bearing his name was a giant scam, targeting the poor and the desperate. There are paper trails for these things and for far, far more. Just because the truth is unknowable in some ways does not mean that we cannot draw meaningful conclusions from things that are demonstrably true.

Will I get run over if I try to cross the street? Just consider how much depends upon your answer to that question. Your *life* depends on answering that question correctly. And yet, you look around yourself for clues, and you draw a reasonable, adult conclusion. Eventually, despite the inherent risk, you are satisfied enough that you will step off the curb.

The epistemological discussion of what separates fact from opinion should not push people into cynicism or disinterest. Every day we make important decisions, based on what we perceive in the world around us and the conclusions we draw.

Rich10 September 26th, 2016 06:21 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
DS, I addressed your point. We both agreed that "journalists tend to be liberal." I presented evidence both pro and con as to whether the media is liberal and concluded, "there's enough data points for either side of this discussion."

I don't know how much money Trump's businesses owe. I am not satisfied with his plan to disassociate himself from the business. And yes, the business dealings seem shady. IMHO, they're not something that one that aspires to the president should be associated with.

I may be (OK, I am) cynical, but I'm not disinterested.

Dad_Scaper September 26th, 2016 06:23 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I wasn't suggesting you were cynical or disinterested, but I happen to agree with your self-diagnosis. ;)

wriggz September 26th, 2016 06:56 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
With journalism there are multiple issues that we must be weary of:

1. The same story told 10 times carries similar weight to 10 stories told once. There have been so many gaffs by trump that none get repeated play while the same few issues with clinton are raised.

2. People remember what the first hear and then add edits. If I tell you 5000 people were killed in an earthquake but later correct it to 500, you recall 5000 but less. Trump has used this to spout false hoods that he can correct later (if he does at all) . The opposit happens in smeer campaigns, the damage is done at the onset.

3. Three minor issues or inunedos are 'stronger' than one truth. Humans suck at balancing things so we rely on heuristics, which are terrible at getting to the truth.

As far as liberal bias To me it seems libra ideology us based on innovation, reasoned arguments and helping the collective.
Conservitive ideology seems based on tradition and individualism. It is no surprise reporters may favour one Over the other. Same with academics and scientists. .

dok September 26th, 2016 09:51 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112137)
I'm not familiar with Jay Rosen or "Press Think", but as I glanced through the site, it certainly seems to be left leaning (very left leaning). ;)

I, too, am unfamiliar with Jay Rosen and that website. I linked it not because I trust the source, but because I agreed with the content of the article I was linking. Did you read it?

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 01:20 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2112231)
I, too, am unfamiliar with Jay Rosen and that website. I linked it not because I trust the source, but because I agreed with the content of the article I was linking. Did you read it?

I think that it is worth reading. It tends towards hyperbole with comments like, "Trump is trying to break" the press.


There is a better balanced article (IMHO) in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/bu...tors.html?_r=0
While most people recognize the New York Times as left leaning, I thought it was a good article. It begins with:
"If this hasnít been the worst year ever for truth in politics, I canít think of what was. Nor can anyone tell me.
The Republican presidential nominee has produced more falsehoods than the major fact-checking sites have identified from a major presidential candidate since they came into existence. The Democratic nominee hasnít come anywhere close to that. But sheís not exactly dwelling in Honest Abe territory, either."

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 01:44 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112187)
It looks like I muddled my points. Basically:

1. We should copy what works in better countries to be the best (Hence my argument of Hyundai copying Toyoda and that Russian and China are copying the US). Social Health Care works in Canada, Education is top notch in Sweden. Why the US is not copying these success is beyond me.

2. I agree Capitalism is a very powerful force, and can be very beneficial (the 1950-70's showed that). I think the best way to get better shoes is capitalism, same with movies, sporting events and cars. Capitalism sucks at protecting Human rights and the Environment. True innovation (like NASA, DARPA and University Research) cannot be profit driven. Recent history has shown that Capitalism sucks at Pharmaceuticals. I like that the department of transport contracts out road work, but I would not want companies to have control over which roads get fixed. This issue is rampant capitalism starts looking like Monarchies with Business leaders in the place of Kings, this is not good as we are starting to see now. Socialism and Capitalism need to work hand in hand.

3. If you read the article I posted you will see that Bridgeport's problems may very well be due to Greenwich's success. As wealth becomes consolidated and doesn't generate Job's the system begins to fail.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112162)

  • There is a reasonable school of thought that lower taxes (across the board) helps to stimulate the economy. Trump's plan to lower corporate taxes should be implemented even if we need to raise personal tax rates to offset these. I'm tired of seeing US jobs going to overseas tax havens.


This is a terrible argument. People are going to cheat the system, so we are going to lower the costs so they are less likely to cheat. Do you really think they will stop gaming the because taxes are only 20% instead of 27%? Greece tried that, It did not work.

The last 30 years are proof that Trickle Down economics don't work. They worked in the past because money invested in the stock market turned into jobs for R&D and Expansion. Now Corporations are incentivized to pay out bigger salaries at the top, pay dividends and hide money offshore. There is no benefit to re-investing in people.

Sure the government sucks at spending money, but they do eventually spend it. They pay police, fire, army, road work, and lots of other things that keep things running and keep people employed. That money goes back into the economy to be spent, where as money made by Corporations (like Trump's) end up getting stuck in bank accounts. Give 1 million people a Thousand Dollars and you will have a Billion more dollars circulating into local economies. Give a thousand Millionaires a Million dollars and you will have a Billion Dollars put into "Interest generating funds" which stimulate nothing except more Finance.

  1. With respect to healthcare in Canada or education in Sweden, I'm just not qualified in either of these topics. I would like universal healthcare and education for all. It would be nice to have these things. I'm not sure how to pay for these and all of the other "nice things to have" without ending up with a Greece, Spain or Venezuela problem when things go bad.
  2. I agree that Capitalism is not concerned with human rights or the environment. Capitalism probably isn't a good choice to clear snow off the streets. Government has a role in our lives. But, as far as innovation is concerned, government sucks. The iPhone wasn't made by the government. Harvoni, a drug that cures hepatitis C, wasn't made by the government. Tesla wasn't a government program.
  3. I read the article. The loss of manufacturing jobs in the US was caused by globalization and mechanization. Hedge fund managers went to Greenwich because it was a town near New York City, with lower taxes. The hedge fund managers didn't cause the loss of manufacturing jobs. Speaking of taxes, the US has lost jobs and capital from our country to countries with tax havens and/or lower tax rates. This is very different from the Greece problem, in which they are spending too much money. http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...lems-socialism

Ranior September 27th, 2016 02:02 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112142)
It's not (just) about the lying. Consider that we have seen mountains of coverage of the Clinton Foundation, because for a time it appeared there might be traction for a story there (there wasn't). You say, Rich10, that it does appear that there's been coverage of Trump, but where has been the coverage of the payoff to the Florida AG? From *Trump's* foundation? Or the business connections to foreign powers, or the close relationships between his campaign staffers and the Kremlin? Where is the coverage of the enormous business debts of his businesses? You see a story every now and then, and it's gone.

Going back to this, I typically watch John Oliver's Last Week Tonight show on youtube every week when it goes up.
was on the "scandals" of this election cycle and it's a fun 20 minute romp through them. I know he is a comedian, and many likely consider him biased, but I just would say it's the most fun way to sum up my thoughts on the matter as well.

To those who don't want to watch, the basic summary is that Clinton's scandals are annoying, but they are far from nefarious or criminal. Trump's scandals are numerous and pervasive, painting an image of a man who doesn't know or care about ethics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2112148)
[
Sorry to argue this with you in particular wriggz, but this whole thing is one of the big issues I have with the direction of the Democratic Party in general.

This is one of the most commonly cited sites for statistics on racial inequality in police shootings. Per millions in a race, whites are certainly killed less by police. But these statistics do not adjust for police encounters. Certain races do have more encounters per capita with the police, which is really the trend you see on that original site in its statistics. Here's a NYT article on that. When you adjust for police encounters, the disparity between races shrinks massively.

You can see similar facts with the gender wage gap. It exists (sorry for podcast link, can't think of a better explanation ATM) , but on a much smaller scale when adjusted for differences in choices each gender makes. The problem is not discrimination by employers; it's discrimination from society as a whole for women to fulfill certain roles.

These are problems, but they require social solutions, not legal ones. They will not be solved instantly, or by any legislation.

Also agreed that the police issue is one area in particular that many individuals seem to be quite wrong and very mislead. There is real work to be done, but right now it mostly seems to be finger pointing and yelling rather than serious discussion about the true cause of the problems or real solutions to them.

On the gender wage gap, I too get frustrated when individuals quote the oft used 79-80 percent number. Most people assume that when we are talking about a pay gap that women are earning 79-80 percent of what men do for the same jobs. That's just not true at all. If you take into account those factors, the real number is about 92 percent. (Article discussing this that I'm taking numbers from, via Washington Post)

Which is why I'm speaking up here. Women still do face legitimate pay discrimination, it's just to a smaller tune than we usually hear about. There needs to be serious work done still to eliminate this type of discrimination where it exists. We need to continue policies that have helped make sure businesses pay women equally to men for the same work.

But overall the reasons for the 79-80 percent figure come from the fact those numbers are just comparing the median women's pay to the median men's pay. And that has other factors clouding the discussion. Namely two big ones.

One, women still tend to work in lower pay professions like secretaries, social work, education, etc. Men continue to work as engineers, actuaries, etc in higher numbers.

Two, women tend to be a bit behind in career development due to taking time off work for child care and rearing. Also there still is some lag in the number of years the average women has been in the workforce compared to the average man which also slightly effects the pay numbers.

And to all of that, different regulations and changes would be required to fix those gaps in the pay system.

But I'll agree vegie. Both of these issues annoy me too since the numbers discussed are often very misleading, and so the discussion and conclusions drawn from them are pretty wrong.

wriggz September 27th, 2016 02:13 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112347)
  1. With respect to healthcare in Canada or education in Sweden, I'm just not qualified in either of these topics. I would like universal healthcare and education for all. It would be nice to have these things. I'm not sure how to pay for these and all of the other "nice things to have" without ending up with a Greece, Spain or Venezuela problem when things go bad.
  2. I agree that Capitalism is not concerned with human rights or the environment. Capitalism probably isn't a good choice to clear snow off the streets. Government has a role in our lives. But, as far as innovation is concerned, government sucks. The iPhone wasn't made by the government. Harvoni, a drug that cures hepatitis C, wasn't made by the government. Tesla wasn't a government program.
  3. I read the article. The loss of manufacturing jobs in the US was caused by globalization and mechanization. Hedge fund managers went to Greenwich because it was a town near New York City, with lower taxes. The hedge fund managers didn't cause the loss of manufacturing jobs. Speaking of taxes, the US has lost jobs and capital from our country to countries with tax havens and/or lower tax rates. This is very different from the Greece problem, in which they are spending too much money. http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...lems-socialism

1. You stop acting like the right to Health and Education are "Nice things to have". A healthy tax structure leads to a healthy Middle class, which in turn supports itself. Stagnant wages while corporations make record profits, pay out dividends at record levels and avoid their tax responsibility all leads to the acceptance that these things cost too much. America is the exception not the rule when it comes to Healthcare and Higher education among the wealthier countries.

2. Your right the Iphone is not a government invention. But the research that created the first computers, the touch screen was invented at CERN and the University of Illinois, Much of the research done on lithium batteries came from Universities including Pennsylvania, Texas and Oxford, the internet started at the Department of Defense and NSF, and we can thank the Military for GPS systems (not to mention NASA, ESA, and Russia for putting all the satellites into orbit). I will still grant you that Capitalism working with Socialism is awesome (otherwise we would never had TANG). I'm not sure how you count universities and hospitals, but their innovations are not profit driven (at least directly) and they make far more advances than companies. I don't think you want to run a comparison between NASA and Tesla for innovation.

3. I drew out the fact that less money is flowing back into the Economy through taxes and that investment in R&D, expansion and higher wages were abandoned for financial wizardry and multimillion dollar salary increases lead to erosion of the middle class. There is likely truth in both our logic, however unless you plan to close your boarders and bust up the robots, financial policy seems the only way to see things return to the prosperity the US had in the 60's.

Dad_Scaper September 27th, 2016 02:17 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112341)
The Republican presidential nominee has produced more falsehoods than the major fact-checking sites have identified from a major presidential candidate since they came into existence. The Democratic nominee hasnít come anywhere close to that. But sheís not exactly dwelling in Honest Abe territory, either.

This is an excellent example of false equivalence. It is correct about Trump; he is a record-setting winner of the "pants on fire" sweepstakes. Having said that about Trump, though, the author is apparently overcome with a need to say something critical of Clinton on the point, and so the author does.

And yet, throughout the long political process, when you've looked at charts from Politico or whatever comparing *all* the candidates, sometimes also including non-candidate politicians as well, she has always been either the most truthful, or the second-most behind Barack Obama. Others have been close, including Bernie, but she's been consistently #1 or #2. So why the dig? It's unsupported, and unnecessary.

What makes it interesting to me, though, is that it's in the New York Times. So people can quick beating on the Times as a liberal standard-bearer. It's not. You don't have to like what you read in it, but I do not accept that it's a bastion of liberal advocates.

wriggz September 27th, 2016 02:30 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2112349)
Also agreed that the police issue is one area in particular that many individuals seem to be quite wrong and very mislead. There is real work to be done, but right now it mostly seems to be finger pointing and yelling rather than serious discussion about the true cause of the problems or real solutions to them.

The point is not that X number people were killed. It is the cultural reaction to innocent people being killed by those Paid to protect and serve them. There is a wide swath of people that maybe (maybe should be) concerned to interact with police. If there is a concern that a police officer may shoot you if you are pulled over, or maybe even call them to your home then something is broken.


Policing is built on trust, and I would not blame the black community in many cities and towns for being fearful. Maybe it is media stirring up the hornets nest, but the increasing Militarization of policing, Firearm focused training, existing stereo typing and lack of measurable consequences all lead to increased deaths where there was no immediate threat.


How many extra traffic violation tickets were issued because the officer could see the face of the driver.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2023 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.