Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cannot 'rep' this post because, apparently, I need to 'spread the love' so to speak. Fortunately, I just came across this from Mr. Godwin's piece:
"The one thing we shouldn’t be skeptical of is our right — our obligation, even — as ordinary individuals to use the Internet and the other tools of the digital age to challenge our would-be leaders and check the facts."
I cannot 'rep' this post because, apparently, I need to 'spread the love' so to speak. Fortunately, I just came across this from Mr. Godwin's piece:
"The one thing we shouldn’t be skeptical of is our right — our obligation, even — as ordinary individuals to use the Internet and the other tools of the digital age to challenge our would-be leaders and check the facts."
So does Godwin's Law apply to other human atrocities like:
Because quite frankly, I think its ridiculous to state one can't and shouldn't refer to historical precedence when evaluating current political ideas, decisions and climates.
Going to take those oil companies record profits?
Going to get out of Guantanamo?
Going to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Any sane non-partisan realizes how much they are alike after all.
You idiots along with the birthers etc. can't recognize that Obama was Bush 3.0
Well there was quite a change in Guantanamo and troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, he found out it's not so easy ending wars but he made an attempt. But here we are only 3 weeks after the election and Trump is already changing his mind, he could have at least waited for January but best to get it over with. The level of hyperbole during his campaign is unrivaled, doesn't come close to Obama or Bush's claims during the election.
I think His Orangeness has a special ring to it and I shall henceforth use the moniker.
LOL about getting back in the freebie line...I think you guys need to update your playbook, specifically the insults section. So stale, so overused.
There would have been some decent ones if Hillary had won, don't doubt it for a second. The trouble is that most comedians and comedy outlet like SNL are massively biased in favor of the Democrats. So when the Dems are in power, they get boring. The soft and nice gloves go on for any Democrat POTUS even when there's a ton of great material to make fun of. It's tragic really.
Some fun nicknames for Hillary -- many of which we'll never get to use:
Hitlery
Wicked Witch of New York
Wicked Witch of the West Wing
Queen Hillary the Terrible
Hildabeast
Hiel Hillary/Hitlery
Hilldog
Nearly Dead Hillary
Died in Office Clinton
Skeletor
Soros’s Slave Plantation Manager
Killery
Hillary Rotten Clinton
If you're in it for the entertainment, you want Trump. Our very biased comedians will produce some wonderfully funny stuff. They'd have pulled all their punches for Saint Hillary. The next four years are going to be a lot more entertaining because Trump won. And let's face it, The Donald is an easy target.
He can kiss any damn re-election goodbye if he is just to go "Obama it". Promise the world, and deliver NOTHING. The American people aren't going to be hoodwinked again and give a 2nd term to another liar
Why don't people follow through on s*** anymore??
Bet trump delivers more promises than any other campaigning pol.
It is reasonable that campaign promises will be altered as we do not live in a dictatorship.
As previously unknown information is provided, ideas discussed, even better solutions maybe generated and approved.
When you were 4 years old, bets are you wanted to grow up and marry your mom. As ore information became evident you changed your position.
Trump doesn't have the media cover Obama did. There are no journalistic erasers or news by ommission. Trump doesn;t work that way. Trump has a fire inside to make change as an egotist he would end his life if his tenure was a failure.
Obama was an ideolog with no ability to communicate or come across as honest when dealing with political and legislative issues. Trump can and does communicate and does it from a grass roots perspective, so abhorent to elitists of all stripe.
There would have been some decent ones if Hillary had won, don't doubt it for a second. The trouble is that most comedians and comedy outlet like SNL are massively biased in favor of the Democrats. So when the Dems are in power, they get boring. The soft and nice gloves go on for any Democrat POTUS even when there's a ton of great material to make fun of. It's tragic really.
Some fun nicknames for Hillary -- many of which we'll never get to use:
Hitlery
Wicked Witch of New York
Wicked Witch of the West Wing
Queen Hillary the Terrible
Hildabeast
Hiel Hillary/Hitlery
Hilldog
Nearly Dead Hillary
Died in Office Clinton
Skeletor
Soros’s Slave Plantation Manager
Killery
Hillary Rotten Clinton
If you're in it for the entertainment, you want Trump. Our very biased comedians will produce some wonderfully funny stuff. They'd have pulled all their punches for Saint Hillary. The next four years are going to be a lot more entertaining because Trump won. And let's face it, The Donald is an easy target.
Meh. I'm in it as an intelligent, mature voter who cares about the future of the country. I love political comedy and impressions, don't get me wrong. My statement was about the laymen who think they are being funny by calling all liberals jobless scumbags and conservatives pious hypocrites. :yawn:
Because quite frankly, I think its ridiculous to state one can't and shouldn't refer to historical precedence when evaluating current political ideas, decisions and climates.
On the bold especially: Personally, I don't believe Mr. Godwin was saying that at all:
Quote:
And by all means be skeptical of Godwin’s Law, too. But you don’t need me to tell you that.
Reading the entire piece may provide clarity & certainly provides the context to the clips. Additionally he demonstrates points made by pointing to Mr. Bergen's piece here:
Of course it's hard to ask politicians to be upfront and to serve their constituents and not those with money. I get that. But it's necessary.
The public needs a change of heart. If a politicians is corrupt, we should not support them even if they are the lesser evil. This needs to stop. And we also need to support journalism, not media. I tell everyone to avoid CNN. CNN barely does it's own journalism anyway. Most of what they report on comes from newspapers, like the NYT. As a general rule, going directly to the source is the best option. While a downside to the internet is the amount of clickbait articles (which are all BS; avoid them), the upside is the ability to link to more information. Let's say the Washington post writes on a story about a new scientific study. Well, they can now link you to that study, so you can go and see the primary source. Things like this need to be encouraged.
Where do we start? I don't know. But we need to be vocal about issues like this.
I'm not sure we are on the same page, but close...
I never quite know what to make of sentiments related to what the public or Americans need to do. Good luck with that, because we are many, and I don't know that there should be any sort of agenda along these lines beyond the most open and free press possible, for people to then decide on their own what to think, say or do. Now too we have Google, Wikipedia and the likes to further research whatever questions come to mind as we are influenced by news/media from every direction. This too is why I have explained more than a few times that I read the news from local, national and international sites every morning, to "triangulate for the truth." I focus on the news, not so much opinion pieces. Also the PBS Newshour every week day evening. I agree with what you write about what people should do along these lines, but along the lines of what I commented earlier in this thread..., most people just don't seem that interested or inclined to get that sort of education.
Where we do not seem to understand the same problem the same way is with regard to politicians being corrupt. We are too quick to brand all politicians as corrupt, but are they? Again, if the system is such that money is so all important, how is a politician supposed to do other than compete for those dollars? The few exceptions like Sanders who make some effort to stay away from that problem EVENTUALLY DON'T MAKE IT! Certainly too many don't make it. IOWs, again, the problem is not corrupt politicians but how the system works to corrupt the democratic process.
PS: Unfortunately, much like the more recent comments in this thread are little more than repeats of comments made earlier in this thread, many of these topics are covered over and over by way of other threads, so it gets hard to find where/how not to repeat oneself. Comes in handy to just repost an earlier thread where the same topic or issue has been hashed out before.
Right, like anyone is all that interested in the first place...
You think that the media runs all the polls and manipulated them to help Hillary? Prove it.
Can you prove the media did not manipulate the polls?
I said the media conducts the major polling that they then report as news. You said the media only reported the news and were unaware of who conducts polling. You asked for proof and I provided it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OotsaPootsa
They did? Maybe that's what the data said. Can you prove the polls were falsified, or not?
The data is whatever the pollster decides is the data. Do you know how polling works? If you choose to poll a higher percentage of democrats to republicans you will get better numbers for Clinton. They don't just randomly call 1000 people and hope for the best.
Years ago I managed a political polling office. We did push polls, google it if you don't know the term. You can create any outcome you want by how the questions are asked and what sample you draw from.
The major polls conducted by the news media were all showing a 4 to 6 point lead for Clinton. One exception was the IBD/TIPP poll run by Investors Business Daily. They were spot on in 2008 and showed a slight Trump lead the days before the 2016 election. IBD tends to report news with a bias to the right.
None of the documents released, however, showed a clear indication that any of the paid speeches or access to Bill Clinton directly resulted in influence at Hillary Clinton's State Department.
So when they were forced to touch on a subject that might make HC look bad they quickly took her point of view and tried to explain away anything negative connected to her.
If you want to believe the media was fair on how it handled the election and honest in the polling good for you.
Obama was a silky smooth orator that managed to hypnotize most of America - he really did not do much that he promised. Trump after his stint in reality TV developed the skill of a finely honed actor...He told everyone what they wanted to hear...not much difference in these two.
It will be rule by committee as usual. As for things like building a thousand mile wall...anyone with common sense knew that was impossible...but the idea worked as far as duping those perturbed by internal displacement through rampant migration.
Again with the "Obama didn't do much" bullarky, from which there really is no rational line of thinking to follow, but doesn't that really also explain Trump's rise to power fundamentally speaking?
An irrational line of thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
