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)

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 Clinton’s 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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.