US Politics Thread

[mrzz]

Great post. I feel the same way. I get my information from a wide variety of sources including RT. But the issue isn't about "us" per se. Generally on this forum I would guess that the participants are competent enough to handle today's information flow and come to a reasonable conclusion. Obviously I might come to a different conclusion based on exactly the same information. We all have our biases. My concern is that in the recent election cycle, far too many have based their views on sources that slant the news in very specific ways. If the goal is the truth then this represents a clear danger to democracy everywhere. I'm just amazed that so many people are comfortable with this. I would make one point about the "mainstream" media versus alternative sources... these are accredited journalists and at least in theory their work should be impartial. If there are falsehoods in their work, they can and should be challenged. The information from alternative sources make no such pretenses. They don't have to write anything that's factual or corroborated. We are going down a very dangerous path if people discard the mainstream media in it's entirety

@Federberg, I agree with your assessment that mainstream media can be challenged, and ultimately hold accountable for the things they write/say, and this is something that contributes for the spread of good information. Your are more than right when you warn about the dangerous path of discarding it entirely.

The way I see, we are going through a fragile line between the possible situation you pointed out -- where ultimately random disinformation would rule, and completely false stories could be fabricated -- and the extreme opposite -- where a few "official" providers control the narrative -- and thus could fabricate completely false stories too. A large dose of maturity is needed to walk this narrow path, and I seriously doubt that many societies throughout the world actually have it.

 

[Federberg]

@Federberg, I agree with your assessment that mainstream media can be challenged, and ultimately hold accountable for the things they write/say, and this is something that contributes for the spread of good information. Your are more than right when you warn about the dangerous path of discarding it entirely.

The way I see, we are going through a fragile line between the possible situation you pointed out -- where ultimately random disinformation would rule, and completely false stories could be fabricated -- and the extreme opposite -- where a few "official" providers control the narrative -- and thus could fabricate completely false stories too. A large dose of maturity is needed to walk this narrow path, and I seriously doubt that many societies throughout the world actually have it.

Yes exactly. This is the new reality in the social media age. It's going to take a period of adjustment. I'm not sure if Facebook and Google policing "news" on their sites will be sufficient or even the right thing to do. We'll have to see, but I suspect there'll be some technological answer in the end. Social media will find a way to police social media

 

[Federberg]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ill-steins-election-changing-recount-campaign

 

[mrzz]

Yes exactly. This is the new reality in the social media age. It's going to take a period of adjustment. I'm not sure if Facebook and Google policing "news" on their sites will be sufficient or even the right thing to do. We'll have to see, but I suspect there'll be some technological answer in the end. Social media will find a way to police social media

I guess it goes beyond social media, since we are talking about "sites", and "news" in general. And rest assure when they start to actually write the laws (in fact, regulations) about it, they´ll shoot in all directions. Social media will be the door they will enter through, but they´ll aim for the entire house.

It sounds weird, I know, but once the door is open...

Regarding the link you quoted on your other post. Again, if recounting is what it takes to society feel safe about the election, then you (or they, as I am not American and suspect that neither you, right?) should follow this line. But in that case I would expect people to:

1) Come forward and accept the results, in any outcome;
2) Be prepared to recount all states in doubt. I bothered to check all election results (it is always amazing how easy is to check things for yourself, and how quickly people rely on external sources for it), there are also small margins in favor of Clinton. The smallest of them, by the way, is in her favor (New Hampshire, less than 3 thousand votes).

By the way, with this I found a very interesting stat: 92,8% of the voters on District of Columbia voted for Clinton. This gotta mean something...

 

[Federberg]

I guess it goes beyond social media, since we are talking about "sites", and "news" in general. And rest assure when they start to actually write the laws (in fact, regulations) about it, they´ll shoot in all directions. Social media will be the door they will enter through, but they´ll aim for the entire house.

It sounds weird, I know, but once the door is open...

Regarding the link you quoted on your other post. Again, if recounting is what it takes to society feel safe about the election, then you (or they, as I am not American and suspect that neither you, right?) should follow this line. But in that case I would expect people to:

1) Come forward and accept the results, in any outcome;
2) Be prepared to recount all states in doubt. I bothered to check all election results (it is always amazing how easy is to check things for yourself, and how quickly people rely on external sources for it), there are also small margins in favor of Clinton. The smallest of them, by the way, is in her favor (New Hampshire, less than 3 thousand votes).

By the way, with this I found a very interesting stat: 92,8% of the voters on District of Columbia voted for Clinton. This gotta mean something...

Yes you're correct I'm not American. And just for clarity, I'm neither a Clinton supporter or a Democrat (although at a certain point I had to withdraw my endorsement of Gary Johnson and plumped for HRC instead). I'm British, and in my life, I've never voted for the Labour party (left wing). I have always voted Conservative (right of centre). I would however describe myself as having a strong social conscience, even though I'm a money grabbing banker I think a lot of people in this forum mistake me (although not @britbox). I've observed the US elections with a great deal of interest and I confess I found the Trump campaign loathsome, even if there were some policies he talked about that were interesting. For me the most important takeaway was the sheer volume of lying in the elections. It doesn't bode well for Western democracy if such a thing continues

 

[Federberg]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/11/29/trump-faces-potential-decision-irs/94435834/

I would love to see his tax returns!

 

[Ricardo]

Yes you're correct I'm not American. And just for clarity, I'm neither a Clinton supporter or a Democrat (although at a certain point I had to withdraw my endorsement of Gary Johnson and plumped for HRC instead). I'm British, and in my life, I've never voted for the Labour party (left wing). I have always voted Conservative (right of centre). I would however describe myself as having a strong social conscience, even though I'm a money grabbing banker I think a lot of people in this forum mistake me (although not @britbox). I've observed the US elections with a great deal of interest and I confess I found the Trump campaign loathsome, even if there were some policies he talked about that were interesting. For me the most important takeaway was the sheer volume of lying in the elections. It doesn't bode well for Western democracy if such a thing continues

here you go flattering yourself again. I wouldn't associate a bandwagon follower with social conscience, let's not pretend ok? you are not Clinton supporter then 'plumped' for HRC? actually you are a joke...sorry but its a fact.

also it's rare for someone who puts up reference (Vanity fair, needless to say a joke to start with) as evidence for argument, then cannot defend it, and instead criticise others for commenting on it.

If you have 'conscience', then admit that you are a joke.

 

[Ricardo]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/11/29/trump-faces-potential-decision-irs/94435834/

I would love to see his tax returns!

sure but don't want to check out nothing about Clinton's foundation? throughout the whole time, you've been anti-Trump 100% but sing praises for Clinton and play down her 'minor' faults....but of course you are not a Clinton supporter, so what does it take to be her supporter?

Liar without a brain

 

[Federberg]

Ok... I'm watching the world chess championship right now, but I'm going to humour you. What about the Clinton foundation? Be specific...

Your petty need to feud never ceases to amaze me. The rest of us are actually having a fascinating discussion about the interaction of the new media and Western democracy, but please do entertain us

 

[Ricardo]

Ok... I'm watching the world chess championship right now, but I'm going to humour you. What about the Clinton foundation? Be specific...

Your petty need to feud never ceases to amaze me. The rest of us are actually having a fascinating discussion about the interaction of the new media and Western democracy, but please do entertain us

you never want to know how they get the money but Trump's tax return is all that matters to you? such bias, and claim for social conscience, just saying you are not what you claim to be. (btw, you are watching chess and ?, oh we need to know about that too big boy)

fascinating discussion i agree it is, but with due respect thats appropriate, is not due to your ridiculous input. I mean, after all, who puts up a reference (in an attempt to argue) but fails to defend it? ...no answers wannabe?

 

[Federberg]

you never want to know how they get the money but Trump's tax return is all that matters to you? such bias, and claim for social conscience, just saying you are not what you claim to be. (btw, you are watching chess and ?, oh we need to know about that too big boy)

fascinating discussion i agree it is, but with due respect thats appropriate, is not due to your ridiculous input. I mean, after all, who puts up a reference (in an attempt to argue) but fails to defend it? ...no answers wannabe?

Lol! I was on the Chess thread with Twisted mate. I just happened to refresh and saw your comment. Sigh...

I see you didn't come up with a specific response to my question. This is my concern about you, everything is derivative, and if someone isn't around to help you, you're lost. Hence my cruel jibe about you needing a helper by the way.

Anyway...I have maintained that all of the information about the Clinton Foundation was provided by the charity itself in compliance with audits. That foundation has also been given fairly respectable ratings by independent agencies if you weren't aware. All of the information about the sources of money were provided by the Clinton's themselves. On the other hand we had a candidate (at the time) who not only made unusual comments about a Russian leader but had associates who are known to have been paid by oligarchs with ties to Putin. Meanwhile said candidate refused to release his tax returns which might have revealed further links to Russia. Might or might not. But the point is, whether one questions the morality of the Clinton Foundation doing work to protect women while receiving funds from Islamic governments, the possibility of a US Presidential candidate having ties to the Russian government is by some distance a more troubling issue. I'm sorry you don't get that, but then... I guess your helper isn't around at the moment?

 

[Ricardo]

Lol! I was on the Chess thread with Twisted mate. I just happened to refresh and saw your comment. Sigh...

I see you didn't come up with a specific response to my question. This is my concern about you, everything is derivative, and if someone isn't around to help you, you're lost. Hence my cruel jibe about you needing a helper by the way.

Anyway...I have maintained that all of the information about the Clinton Foundation was provided by the charity itself in compliance with audits. That foundation has also been given fairly respectable ratings by independent agencies if you weren't aware. All of the information about the sources of money were provided by the Clinton's themselves. On the other hand we had a candidate (at the time) who not only made unusual comments about a Russian leader but had associates who are known to have been paid by oligarchs with ties to Putin. Meanwhile said candidate refused to release his tax returns which might have revealed further links to Russia. Might or might not. But the point is, whether one questions the morality of the Clinton Foundation doing work to protect women while receiving funds from Islamic governments, the possibility of a US Presidential candidate having ties to the Russian government is by some distance a more troubling issue. I'm sorry you don't get that, but then... I guess your helper isn't around at the moment?

Having ties with Russia more troubling than with Islamic goverments? you are an idiot, more stupid than i gave you credit for......by some distance.

And you can't even defend your own reference? you are still an idiot, by more distance. See the double confirmation about that fact?

now try denying that.

 

[Federberg]

Having ties with Russia more troubling than with Islamic goverments? you are an idiot, more stupid than i gave you credit for......by some distance.

And you can't even defend your own reference? you are still an idiot, by more distance. See the double confirmation about that fact?

now try denying that.

Sadly you're the idiot. Those Islamic governments have firm diplomatic relationships with the US. There is nothing outside of the norm there. These are publicaly declared charitable contributions mate. There is nothing sinister, even if some would like to impute such. This is certainly far more benign that Guiliani making paid speeches for an Iranian group that was on a US terror watch list. This is one of the surrogates by the way who was maligning Clinton. Russia on the other hand is still one of the primary rivals of the United States (if you weren't aware, I hesitate to overestimate how much you actually know ). On the other hand we don't know the extent of Russian involvement in either the Trump campaign or the elections generally. If in your judgement you see a greater threat from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar making charitable contributions with no actual evidence of pay for play then I'm not sure what else can be done for you.

 

[Federberg]

Well well well! HRC's lead in the vote count is now over 2.5 million. That says a lot. Not for this election, but some re-jigging of the electoral college might be in order. I mean if everyone is fleeing to blue states, at what point do people concede the current weightings are fundamentally undemocratic?

 

[Federberg]

 

[Tennis Fan]

Well well well! HRC's lead in the vote count is now over 2.5 million. That says a lot. Not for this election, but some re-jigging of the electoral college might be in order. I mean if everyone is fleeing to blue states, at what point do people concede the current weightings are fundamentally undemocratic?

Awesome wording. Many are upset that Trump is already reneging on his campaign promises. His threat to prosecute Hillary, uh, gone. His keeping Carrier jobs? They're sending the jobs away anyway after getting the huge tax breaks, and also setting a dangerous precedent. I think it's funny. Now they're on social media crying about trusting Trump. What did they expect?

#Trumpgrets website compiles regretful Trump voters’ lamentations for your reading pleasure

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/tru...r-your-reading-pleasure/#.WEHndLiX4qc.twitter

 

[Tennis Fan]

Carrier Just Sent Fired Workers This Letter After Trump Bragged Of Saving Their Jobs

By Natalie Dickinson Posted on December 2, 2016

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/02/carrier-just-sent-fired-workers-letter-trump-bragged-saving-jobs/

Donald Trump has been bragging endlessly about how he “forced” Carrier A.C. to keep 800 jobs in the United States by handing them a colossal $7 million tax break. But what the media is failing to properly convey to the American people is that Carrier is still moving 1,300 jobs to Mexico – a fact that hit home hard to the workers of Indiana when they received this letter from their employers:

Donald Trump’s grand gesture may be an effective publicity stunt that will please his base, but in the long run, the people of Indiana are going to have to pay for that tax break themselves – and now every company in America knows all they have to do is threaten to move their jobs to Mexico in order to receive massive tax breaks – and there’s nothing stopping them from then moving the jobs away anyway.

The Center For American Progress recalled Boeing’s behavior in a similar situation. They “received a massive tax incentive package from the State of Washington — the biggest the state has even given out to a single company — only to announce less than a year later that it would send about 2,000 jobs to facilities in St. Louis and Oklahoma City.” But for the sake of a talking point to roll out at his rallies, Trump just set a dangerous precedent.

Trump’s “victory” is a hollow one that bodes terribly for the fortunes of the American worker and the American economy.

 

[Tennis Fan]

A small example of how people get bamboozled so easily. A friend of mine sent me these pictures of Trump's visit in their city. She was disgusted with the distortion of the facts. I can see why.

The news outlet (Fox) were going on and on about how paralyzing the traffic was for Trump’s visit. People were stuck for up to three hours. However, they made a few mistakes.

One, most of the traffic was coming from one area of town. The paralyzing traffic was due to 1. Rush hour, 2. An accident, and 3. University students going home. Secondly, they only showed one expressway, the west side. The other big interstate experienced no traffic problems because there wasn’t a big rush to see Trump as the media was trying to portray.

Then, and this was hilarious, they got a caller on the phone, in the midst of traffic who was complaining about how long he had been in traffic to see Trump. But, his reason was totally different. He said that there was a broken-down car and no police or barricades to move the traffic along. How’s that for illusion? The caller kept going on about the wreck and they quickly cut him off.

But, some people went and took pictures of what really happened. A startling contrast from what was being reported. Here’s what the arena really looked like, although news outlets were reporting tens of thousands. The reality is that the arena’s capacity is only 17,000. LOL, snookered again. This election cycle is going to be fun. I can’t wait to watch late night TV.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Bernie got it right. Dangerous precedent.

 

[Federberg]

Awesome wording. Many are upset that Trump is already reneging on his campaign promises. His threat to prosecute Hillary, uh, gone. His keeping Carrier jobs? They're sending the jobs away anyway after getting the huge tax breaks, and also setting a dangerous precedent. I think it's funny. Now they're on social media crying about trusting Trump. What did they expect?

#Trumpgrets website compiles regretful Trump voters’ lamentations for your reading pleasure

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/tru...r-your-reading-pleasure/#.WEHndLiX4qc.twitter

He's caught in the short term. I suspect we'll see the normal thing where a President gets a time dividend. He might end up spending it really quickly though. He might find that Congress will be his main opponent by this time next year