Decision 2016

[keglo]

Originally Posted by ollie

I find this fascinating. I am genuinely interested in how you came to this conclusion. What evidence are you looking at?

Increasingly we all live in media bubbles where our own views can get more easily reinforced, but I don't think I'm being too old-fashioned in holding that there is some sort of objective answer to the question of whether Trump or Clinton is being more dishonest. I also don't see any way that the answer isn't Trump by a bajillion miles. Is that my media bubble? What are you seeing that makes you think differently?

Well I don't know what to tell you. I can only rely on one form of media or another for my information. I have watched countless interviews, press conferences, speeches, etc., where Clinton just flat out lies about one subject after another. I see it with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears. The way you feel about Trump, I feel about Hillary. Concerning who the biggest liar is, I can’t see any way that it isn’t Clinton by a bajillion miles. Maybe even a gazillion.

And yes we do live in media bubbles and I am sure that I am influenced to some degree.

Originally Posted by wriggz

As far as voting your conscious, that is a tricky and increasing pointless action.

Pointless? Maybe not. At least I’ll sleep better at night.

[Dad_Scaper]

It is disingenuous to treat the media issue as two equally isolated "bubbles." The fact is that there is a group of one particular sociopolitical persuasion that will, apparently, believe any kind of nonsense, evidence notwithstanding, provided it is consistent with their world view.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by keglo

Pointless? Maybe not. At least I’ll sleep better at night.

Sorry my comment was not one of surrender but a call to arms. I once had a class in Utopias and Dystopias in University (ah the Joys of a liberal arts degree). Any how, the one thing I learned is that by the time people are in-sighted into action they have no power left. It is a very sobering thought.

Right now Americans still have power over their government (At least I believe it to be so, although the Power of Media, Money and Lobbying may suggest otherwise). Now is the time for the common person to get involved in local government and push for change.

I hope the change we all seek, which seems to be a a swift reduction in corruption can still happen.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

It is disingenuous to treat the media issue as two equally isolated "bubbles." The fact is that there is a group of one particular sociopolitical persuasion that will, apparently, believe any kind of nonsense, evidence notwithstanding, provided it is consistent with their world view.

Having lived through a female prime minster, and following the media, I think the distrust that is brewing around Clinton is at least partially fueled by her gender. It is never overtly stated, but you can feel the Zeitgeist of "distrust women in power" that lurks in the background. Oddly this tactic works on women as well as men as we have built eon of culture that imply women are not to be trusted with big decisions, and a woman who wants power is just pretending to be a man.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Now is the time for the common person to get involved in local government and push for change.

I hope the change we all seek, which seems to be a a swift reduction in corruption can still happen.

I have a friend on the Baltimore City Council. He's a good guy, trying to be a force for good.

Doesn't matter. Most people who don't actually know him or the work he does seem to think that, because he's in politics, he must be corrupt. I know lots of good people in law enforcement, who get similar treatment.

Cynicism is a bigger danger than anything. The choice to believe "they're all corrupt," or "the media are all lying to us," or "my vote doesn't matter." It's the cynicism that's the real danger.

[Tornado]

Scary true DS.

What scares me more is that you are in the system and I believe your words.

So much ignorance. So much life that exists in your hand. What are we becoming?

[keglo]

I can honestly say that my dislike for Hillary, and my earnest desire for her to lose this election, has nothing to do with her gender. Just as my dislike for Obama has nothing to do with his race. And remember that there is a fair number of people out there that are willing to vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman.

[ollie]

Good timing keglo. I was just thinking about a general post, but I can make what I want to say specific to your post now.

I agree with D_S that there are not two equal and separate bubbles. Trump is an out-and-out liar. Clinton lies about as much as is usual for a politician (including those who you think of as "good" politicians, whatever your political persuasion) which can easily be interpreted as the necessary political games that need to be played (again, this probably applies to whatever politician you think of as most honest).

I see you've moved the charge from dishonesty to dislike. Whichever you'd prefer to address, I am still genuinely and non-snarkily interested in how you reached that opinion, what evidence you used, and what evidence you're looking for between now and November.

[wriggz]

D_S did clearly outline his reasons based on experience.

You may or may not recall Rob Ford the cracks smoking Chris Farleyesque Mayor of Toronto. He was so bad he became an international embarrassment. Even Rob Ford had years of council experience before going for mayor.

Trump is like voting a hotel manager as your head chef. sure he is a leader and some skills transfer, but I would not try the soup.

Remember corporations goal is to make money first and for most (maybe even legally bound) whereas government goal is to promote the health and wellbeing of all citizens.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Having lived through a female prime minster, and following the media, I think the distrust that is brewing around Clinton is at least partially fueled by her gender. It is never overtly stated, but you can feel the Zeitgeist of "distrust women in power" that lurks in the background. Oddly this tactic works on women as well as men as we have built eon of culture that imply women are not to be trusted with big decisions, and a woman who wants power is just pretending to be a man.

Sorry, but I think the distrust of Clinton is fueled by her actions. IMHO, the Clintons act as if the rules that apply to the rest of us, don't apply to them. I don't think that she's blatantly broken the law to where she would be prosecuted, but I've pointed to a number of times where her actions are ethically challenged. Just this week, we see a contributor to the Clinton foundation get treated preferentially. Hillary has done plenty to give people reason to question her honesty, integrity, ethics, judgement ...

Republicans don't like Obama anymore than Hillary, but the Obama's didn't get involved in all of the shady and questionable things the Clintons find themselves in. I'm willing to bet that Barack didn't feel the need to circumvent government email servers. To my knowledge, Michelle Obama isn't giving million dollar speeches to foreign banks.

Speaking of our president, I remember when I first heard his name as a presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama. My first thought was to wonder how the US would react to an African American presidential candidate named Barack Hussein Obama. To my surprise, race wasn't a significant issue. I bring this up to suggest that Americans are better when it comes to treating people fairly than we give them credit for.

[Tornado]

The rules do not apply to the Clintons. They have reached that level of power. Is that right? Probably not but it is a result of the system.

Using politics to make money is nothing new and has been going on forever.
LBJ was a master of this.
PBS has a great feature on him.

To a paraphrase Mal from Firefly
"Anyone who has ever had a statue of them erected, was some sort of SoB."

[The_X_Marker]

Originally Posted by wriggz

Having lived through a female prime minster, and following the media, I think the distrust that is brewing around Clinton is at least partially fueled by her gender.

She isn't helping this matter. While it would be refreshing to have a woman with her experience in power (and she is far more experienced than almost any previous president, it would appear), she is also trying to push the "First Female President" angle too far, in my opinion. That seems like something she should let her supporters and the media roll with, instead of pushing it herself because it feels like it is part of the basis for her running, when her expertise should be the whole reason she is running.

I don't plan to vote, though. Not registered and I don't care much for the candidates. At the worst, I give up my right to complain about the winner

[Dad_Scaper]

No, at the worst, your indifference and that of others like you - or, perhaps, your cynicism and that of others like you - will be calamitous for our nation.