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 27th, 2016 02:48 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112360)
Policing is built on trust, and I would not blame the black community in many cities and towns for being fearful.

It is a terrible and dangerous mistake to have a dialogue of this type with any discussion of "blame" at the beginning. It is a disservice to all.

The only sensible way to begin is with a serious, calm, and patient desire and effort to understand. Neither BLM nor the calmer voices representing law enforcement are rash. Both, at their best, understand that the other has a serious cause that should be honored.

Please don't talk about blame. Not who deserves it, not who doesn't deserve it. On a related note, it's also wise to separate different actors and different actions from each other. What happened to Freddie Gray was completely different from what happened to Eric Garner, and if you cannot take the time to look at the details, then you are doing a disservice to your audience (hypothetical "you") when you draw misleading broad connections between them.

My 2 cents. This is probably off-topic.

Though I will say that I thought Clinton's handling of this question in the debate last night was surprisingly thoughtful and subtle. I don't think I've ever heard any politician (certainly not a white politician) address race relations in such an articulate, compassionate way. And given her shortcomings - essentially, an absence of charisma and maybe compassion - I am as surprised as anyone that I'm saying that about her today.

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 02:58 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112356)
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 hasn’t come anywhere close to that. But she’s 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.

You might not think that the NYT has a liberal bias, but their public editor does.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/...s-liberal-bias

Saying that a newspaper has a bias isn't a condemnation of their writers or editors. So long as the bias is understood, it shouldn't be a problem. Let me demonstrate with a wager. I'll wager that the New York Times and Washington Post will endorse Clinton for president. I'll also wager that the New York Post will endorse Trump for president. None of these entities are flying under false flags; we know what the bias is. How about a side bet on who Fox would endorse?

What do you want to bet? ;)

Dad_Scaper September 27th, 2016 03:05 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
First of all, there is more to an endorsement than the name. Second of all, it is interesting that you ask that question during *this* election cycle, because this cycle is a fine demonstration that a newspaper need not endorse a party of the same candidate it did four years' previously. Across the nation, traditionally conservative papers are endorsing Clinton.

Why? Because sometimes it's just that the person is the better choice. I know I'm bumping up against your cynicism here, but it may be that the Times endorses Clinton this year, Obama before that, and Kerry and Gore before that, because in the genuine opinion of the editorial board, those are the better candidates.

Regardless, though, there is this third point: it is important to distinguish between the reporting in the reporting section and the positions of the editorial board. I happen to think that my local paper's editorial board is just silly on some things, and I bear significant grudges against it for how it's handled some things I hold dear. But some of the Baltimore Sun's *reporters* have done excellent jobs in tough circumstances. Its editorial board is decidedly liberal; I don't think of the rest of the paper as "liberal" at all.

wriggz September 27th, 2016 03:07 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112372)
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112360)
Policing is built on trust, and I would not blame the black community in many cities and towns for being fearful.

It is a terrible and dangerous mistake to have a dialogue of this type with any discussion of "blame" at the beginning. It is a disservice to all.

Though I will say that I thought Clinton's handling of this question in the debate last night was surprisingly thoughtful and subtle. I don't think I've ever heard any politician (certainly not a white politician) address race relations in such an articulate, compassionate way. And given her shortcomings - essentially, an absence of charisma and maybe compassion - I am as surprised as anyone that I'm saying that about her today.

I used the word blame as a turn of phrase. I would say I understand how they feel. That said your analysisof clinton response is concurred. Understand and civility is the path forward. UnderstandING that citizens may feel betrayed or fearful and moving ahead to build trust is the only way people can heal.

Those do not seem the sentiments of trump.

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 03:23 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112354)
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.

  1. Like I said, I'm not an expert in health or education. Certainly, education through high school is paid for through taxes. State Universities (of which some are excellent) have tuitions which are very affordable. I'd like everyone to have free healthcare. I'd also like everyone to have a new Mercedes Benz. I just don't want to pay for it. Everyone loves taxes when someone else pays them and it doesn't hurt the economy. I'm not sure how to balance these things. Like I said, I'm not a healthcare spending expert.
  2. I'm a big fan of NASA. I assume that you realize that the government doesn't actually make things. NASA pays Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ... to make things. I have worked with state universities and I can tell you that they are very interested in profits from their inventions. Again, government has its place. But you can't compare innovation of NASA vs Tesla, you should perhaps look at Boeing vs Tesla (both capitalist companies).
  3. I'll reiterate my earlier point, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US was caused by globalization and mechanization, not hedge fund managers. As for investment in R&D, in the US, it has increased from $333 million as of 2000 to $433 million as of 2013.https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domes...ing-on-r-d.htm Wages are determined by the market. Companies pay dividends if they don't have a better use for the money. What happens to the dividends, typically, it is reinvested.
It seems that you have a Socialist mindset while I have a Capitalist mindset. This is OK, we don't need to agree. But going back to one of your earlier posts, which countries have done better over time, Socialist or Capitalist countries? Why not follow what works best?

Rich10 September 27th, 2016 03:30 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112386)
First of all, there is more to an endorsement than the name. Second of all, it is interesting that you ask that question during *this* election cycle, because this cycle is a fine demonstration that a newspaper need not endorse a party of the same candidate it did four years' previously. Across the nation, traditionally conservative papers are endorsing Clinton.

Why? Because sometimes it's just that the person is the better choice. I know I'm bumping up against your cynicism here, but it may be that the Times endorses Clinton this year, Obama before that, and Kerry and Gore before that, because in the genuine opinion of the editorial board, those are the better candidates.

Regardless, though, there is this third point: it is important to distinguish between the reporting in the reporting section and the positions of the editorial board. I happen to think that my local paper's editorial board is just silly on some things, and I bear significant grudges against it for how it's handled some things I hold dear. But some of the Baltimore Sun's *reporters* have done excellent jobs in tough circumstances. Its editorial board is decidedly liberal; I don't think of the rest of the paper as "liberal" at all.

In the case of the New York Times, it isn't cynicism. It is what their public editor said.

I am not familiar with the Baltimore Sun, but I do know the New York Post. I'll wager that the New York Post will endorse Trump. Care to make a wager on who this (ahem) unbiased newspaper will endorse? You take the Clinton side.

Dad_Scaper September 27th, 2016 03:31 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2112387)
UnderstandING that citizens may feel betrayed or fearful and moving ahead to build trust is the only way people can heal.

Yes, but also understanding that police have a job to do - a job that we want them to do - is equally a part of healing.

Consider that, when police encounter a group of suspected drug dealers on an inner city street corner, the popular sentiment appears to be that the police should not get involved until they see drugs changing hands. But also consider that, maybe a week later, there will be a hypothetical community meeting at which the good people who have to live in that down & out neighborhood may very well be begging the police to be more aggressive in getting the drug dealers off the corners. What's an officer to do? If you lived in that neighborhood, what would *you* want the officer to do?

The armchair experts on law enforcement are, IMHO, dangerous. I have no problem with informed & thoughtful protest. I do have a problem with people Monday Morning Quarterbacking police, like they would a football game, except it's not a game.

One of my favorite speakers on the topic is Dallas Police Chief David Brown. There's a guy who can explain things simply.

Spoiler Alert!


edit: I'm just musing in this post. As far as I know, I'm not disagreeing with anyone. :up:

wriggz September 27th, 2016 04:58 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2112399)
Yes, but also understanding that police have a job to do - a job that we want them to do - is equally a part of healing.

edit: I'm just musing in this post. As far as I know, I'm not disagreeing with anyone. :up:


Agreed. Honestly this is not a us versus them argument. I'm just pointing out that the next president should have ideas on policy to unite communities and help build trust between the police and the people they are sworn to protect. This is a major issue, with no simple solutions.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112394)
It seems that you have a Socialist mindset while I have a Capitalist mindset. This is OK, we don't need to agree. But going back to one of your earlier posts, which countries have done better over time, Socialist or Capitalist countries? Why not follow what works best?


Also Agreed. Until I see something better than Democratic Capitalism I am still with you. However, Russia and other have tired a purely Socialist Government and unsurprisingly it failed. I think the Republican US is the only advanced country making progress towards a purely Capitalist Government (I could be wrong).

This is one experiment I would rather not see take place, when we see a blend of the best of the two is the more rational way to go. My argument is that clearly the way the US is headed is not the best for the majority of the population, so wouldn't it be better to copy some of the policies of others that are working in other Countries. For example Health Care is a Right in Canada as much as my right to free speech and equality. I don't consider it a "nicety" and it would political suicide to suggest cutting that right. As a group of citizens we are happy to pay the taxes we do to ensure that right is protected. On the other side I consider it a privilege to own a gun, if that privilege was limited it wouldn't bother most Canadians. It all comes down to where your values lie.

Ranior September 28th, 2016 10:14 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Going a few pages back when we were discussing traditionally republican leaning newspapers endorsing Clinton, thought this recent article was particularly showing of that point.

Quote:

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.
The rest of the endorsement hits the key reasons I too cannot vote for Trump. It heavily highlights Trump's repeated pattern of statements and actions that are not befitting of a president. It highlights Clinton's history of a steady hand and supports her because she has experience and is truly qualified for the job. They clearly lay out why Trump is not.

dok September 28th, 2016 12:05 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112341)
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.

That's not hyperbole at all. Trump did break the press. He exploited their willingness to follow the salacious story and their tendency towards "he said, she said" reporting to unprecedented degrees. He also has openly mocked the media and run against the media in ways no other national candidate ever has. He even barred multiple major media outlets from his press pool. Again, no precedent in modern history for that.

The media has, at last, more or less adapted to covering him, but he definitely achieved significant success by violating established norms of how a candidate relates to the press.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2112397)
I am not familiar with the Baltimore Sun, but I do know the New York Post. I'll wager that the New York Post will endorse Trump. Care to make a wager on who this (ahem) unbiased newspaper will endorse? You take the Clinton side.

I think you're probably right here, as the Post, as far as I can tell, takes a kind of perverse pride in its tabloid-style journalism. It's worth noting, though, that numerous papers that haven't endorsed a Democrat in decades, or ever (Dallas, Cincinnati, Arizona) have endorsed Clinton. So I don't consider it a sure thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2112349)
This past one 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.

I find it interesting that despite his broader point that Clinton's scandals are far, far less problematic than Trump's, he actually spends more time on Clinton's. He barely mentions the Pam Bondi bribery scandal, which seems so blatantly corrupt that it's a little hard to believe it hasn't become a big story.

Dysole September 28th, 2016 04:15 PM

My Guess
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2112538)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2112349)
This past one 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.

I find it interesting that despite his broader point that Clinton's scandals are far, far less problematic than Trump's, he actually spends more time on Clinton's. He barely mentions the Pam Bondi bribery scandal, which seems so blatantly corrupt that it's a little hard to believe it hasn't become a big story.

I presume it's because since Clinton's scandals have been so talked about with varying levels of understanding (and are also a bit more complicated), it's better for him to more fully explain the depth on those and then time constraints as to why he didn't go more in depth on Trump.

~Dysole, who thought it was one of Oliver's better videos

Dad_Scaper September 28th, 2016 07:32 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Just going to leave this here: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12220124?

It's an advocacy piece by a former "Bernie bro."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 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.