What we can learn from Ginsburg’s friendship with my father, Antonin Scalia

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,845
Reaction score
4,332
Points
1,140
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
I think you are missing a bigger point related to the corporate media. It’s clear to me much of the corporate media are controlled by a hidden cabal, that consists of deep state government forces colluding with the billionaires who own the media and numerous media personnel, to control the narrative for the benefit of the State and the ultra wealthy.

The CIA and NSA likely play a major role in this effort. CIA Director Casey let it be known in the 1980s, when he said paraphrasing, “when everything Americans know is wrong we will know we have succeeded.”

Second point; blaming the American people for the divisive nature of our political discourse, I find unacceptable. When you realize there is a covert effort by powerful forces to propagandize and divide Americans, which has existed for decades, you can’t expect the average Joe to realize he’s being duped.

We see these dupes on this forum every day.
Americans have the choice to follow or think for themselves. When Americans act like sheep isolating their political news and social bubbles, they are absolutely responsible
It’s difficult for most. They can’t overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and propaganda by the ruling class.
Would you consider Alex Jones as part of the ruling class?
No.
Is his indoctrination and propaganda any different than the “ruling class” as you call them?
He is mostly a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know. Never listened to him and he has nothing to do with our debate. Why would you cite him?

It’s the corporate media, that’s the culprit.
I cite him because he has a huge following and spews baseless propaganda which many of his followers believe to be real. Same goes for Rush who has one of the largest radio programs in the world. If you’re going to discuss misinformation by the media you have to include people like this
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
37,856
Reaction score
9,837
Points
1,330
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
I think you are missing a bigger point related to the corporate media. It’s clear to me much of the corporate media are controlled by a hidden cabal, that consists of deep state government forces colluding with the billionaires who own the media and numerous media personnel, to control the narrative for the benefit of the State and the ultra wealthy.

The CIA and NSA likely play a major role in this effort. CIA Director Casey let it be known in the 1980s, when he said paraphrasing, “when everything Americans know is wrong we will know we have succeeded.”

Second point; blaming the American people for the divisive nature of our political discourse, I find unacceptable. When you realize there is a covert effort by powerful forces to propagandize and divide Americans, which has existed for decades, you can’t expect the average Joe to realize he’s being duped.

We see these dupes on this forum every day.
Americans have the choice to follow or think for themselves. When Americans act like sheep isolating their political news and social bubbles, they are absolutely responsible
It’s difficult for most. They can’t overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and propaganda by the ruling class.
Would you consider Alex Jones as part of the ruling class?
No.
Is his indoctrination and propaganda any different than the “ruling class” as you call them?
He is mostly a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know. Never listened to him and he has nothing to do with our debate. Why would you cite him?

It’s the corporate media, that’s the culprit.
I cite him because he has a huge following and spews baseless propaganda which many of his followers believe to be real. Same goes for Rush who has one of the largest radio programs in the world. If you’re going to discuss misinformation by the media you have to include people like this
I honestly don’t know much about Jones. If he has a huge following, that’s news to me. At any rate, you are focused on right wing commentators. Why? I don’t doubt they too are controlled by hidden forces, but the much bigger corporate media outlets are definitely controlled by hidden forces. They reach far more people and thusly are far more damaging.

When was the last time the corporate media opposed our government’s constant wars? They clearly are mouth pieces for the CIA.

Here is a great column that lays it out.

There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is “probably” happening, meaning those making the claim don’t even know.

The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.

None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and NBC. And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:
MSM Promotes Yet Another CIA Press Release As News
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,845
Reaction score
4,332
Points
1,140
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
I think you are missing a bigger point related to the corporate media. It’s clear to me much of the corporate media are controlled by a hidden cabal, that consists of deep state government forces colluding with the billionaires who own the media and numerous media personnel, to control the narrative for the benefit of the State and the ultra wealthy.

The CIA and NSA likely play a major role in this effort. CIA Director Casey let it be known in the 1980s, when he said paraphrasing, “when everything Americans know is wrong we will know we have succeeded.”

Second point; blaming the American people for the divisive nature of our political discourse, I find unacceptable. When you realize there is a covert effort by powerful forces to propagandize and divide Americans, which has existed for decades, you can’t expect the average Joe to realize he’s being duped.

We see these dupes on this forum every day.
Americans have the choice to follow or think for themselves. When Americans act like sheep isolating their political news and social bubbles, they are absolutely responsible
It’s difficult for most. They can’t overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and propaganda by the ruling class.
Would you consider Alex Jones as part of the ruling class?
No.
Is his indoctrination and propaganda any different than the “ruling class” as you call them?
He is mostly a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know. Never listened to him and he has nothing to do with our debate. Why would you cite him?

It’s the corporate media, that’s the culprit.
I cite him because he has a huge following and spews baseless propaganda which many of his followers believe to be real. Same goes for Rush who has one of the largest radio programs in the world. If you’re going to discuss misinformation by the media you have to include people like this
I honestly don’t know much about Jones. If he has a huge following, that’s news to me. At any rate, you are focused on right wing commentators. Why? I don’t doubt they too are controlled by hidden forces, but the much bigger corporate media outlets are definitely controlled by hidden forces. They reach far more people and thusly are far more damaging.

When was the last time the corporate media opposed our government’s constant wars? They clearly are mouth pieces for the CIA.

Here is a great column that lays it out.

There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is “probably” happening, meaning those making the claim don’t even know.

The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.

None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and NBC. And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:
MSM Promotes Yet Another CIA Press Release As News
I’d like to see more accountability for dishonesty by our media in general and some sort of a rating system so editorialist whom lie on the daily, like Rush, are separated from the real journalists. With that said we have freedom of speech and the press in this country. People can say whatever they want. The media can support a war if they want. I can watch their coverage and decide to also support it or not. That’s still my choice.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
37,856
Reaction score
9,837
Points
1,330
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
I think you are missing a bigger point related to the corporate media. It’s clear to me much of the corporate media are controlled by a hidden cabal, that consists of deep state government forces colluding with the billionaires who own the media and numerous media personnel, to control the narrative for the benefit of the State and the ultra wealthy.

The CIA and NSA likely play a major role in this effort. CIA Director Casey let it be known in the 1980s, when he said paraphrasing, “when everything Americans know is wrong we will know we have succeeded.”

Second point; blaming the American people for the divisive nature of our political discourse, I find unacceptable. When you realize there is a covert effort by powerful forces to propagandize and divide Americans, which has existed for decades, you can’t expect the average Joe to realize he’s being duped.

We see these dupes on this forum every day.
Americans have the choice to follow or think for themselves. When Americans act like sheep isolating their political news and social bubbles, they are absolutely responsible
It’s difficult for most. They can’t overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and propaganda by the ruling class.
Would you consider Alex Jones as part of the ruling class?
No.
Is his indoctrination and propaganda any different than the “ruling class” as you call them?
He is mostly a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know. Never listened to him and he has nothing to do with our debate. Why would you cite him?

It’s the corporate media, that’s the culprit.
I cite him because he has a huge following and spews baseless propaganda which many of his followers believe to be real. Same goes for Rush who has one of the largest radio programs in the world. If you’re going to discuss misinformation by the media you have to include people like this
I honestly don’t know much about Jones. If he has a huge following, that’s news to me. At any rate, you are focused on right wing commentators. Why? I don’t doubt they too are controlled by hidden forces, but the much bigger corporate media outlets are definitely controlled by hidden forces. They reach far more people and thusly are far more damaging.

When was the last time the corporate media opposed our government’s constant wars? They clearly are mouth pieces for the CIA.

Here is a great column that lays it out.

There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is “probably” happening, meaning those making the claim don’t even know.

The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.

None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and NBC. And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:
MSM Promotes Yet Another CIA Press Release As News
I’d like to see more accountability for dishonesty by our media in general and some sort of a rating system so editorialist whom lie on the daily, like Rush, are separated from the real journalists. With that said we have freedom of speech and the press in this country. People can say whatever they want. The media can support a war if they want. I can watch their coverage and decide to also support it or not. That’s still my choice.
Again, your focus is the right wing. Are you a Democrat? Are you voting for Biden? You want to silence right wingers. Why?

You miss the much bigger problem. That the State is controlling much of the media. This is Orwell’s 1984 in action. You need to see the bigger picture.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,845
Reaction score
4,332
Points
1,140
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
I think you are missing a bigger point related to the corporate media. It’s clear to me much of the corporate media are controlled by a hidden cabal, that consists of deep state government forces colluding with the billionaires who own the media and numerous media personnel, to control the narrative for the benefit of the State and the ultra wealthy.

The CIA and NSA likely play a major role in this effort. CIA Director Casey let it be known in the 1980s, when he said paraphrasing, “when everything Americans know is wrong we will know we have succeeded.”

Second point; blaming the American people for the divisive nature of our political discourse, I find unacceptable. When you realize there is a covert effort by powerful forces to propagandize and divide Americans, which has existed for decades, you can’t expect the average Joe to realize he’s being duped.

We see these dupes on this forum every day.
Americans have the choice to follow or think for themselves. When Americans act like sheep isolating their political news and social bubbles, they are absolutely responsible
It’s difficult for most. They can’t overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and propaganda by the ruling class.
Would you consider Alex Jones as part of the ruling class?
No.
Is his indoctrination and propaganda any different than the “ruling class” as you call them?
He is mostly a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know. Never listened to him and he has nothing to do with our debate. Why would you cite him?

It’s the corporate media, that’s the culprit.
I cite him because he has a huge following and spews baseless propaganda which many of his followers believe to be real. Same goes for Rush who has one of the largest radio programs in the world. If you’re going to discuss misinformation by the media you have to include people like this
I honestly don’t know much about Jones. If he has a huge following, that’s news to me. At any rate, you are focused on right wing commentators. Why? I don’t doubt they too are controlled by hidden forces, but the much bigger corporate media outlets are definitely controlled by hidden forces. They reach far more people and thusly are far more damaging.

When was the last time the corporate media opposed our government’s constant wars? They clearly are mouth pieces for the CIA.

Here is a great column that lays it out.

There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is “probably” happening, meaning those making the claim don’t even know.

The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.

None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and NBC. And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:
MSM Promotes Yet Another CIA Press Release As News
I’d like to see more accountability for dishonesty by our media in general and some sort of a rating system so editorialist whom lie on the daily, like Rush, are separated from the real journalists. With that said we have freedom of speech and the press in this country. People can say whatever they want. The media can support a war if they want. I can watch their coverage and decide to also support it or not. That’s still my choice.
Again, your focus is the right wing. Are you a Democrat? Are you voting for Biden? You want to silence right wingers. Why?

You miss the much bigger problem. That the State is controlling much of the media. This is Orwell’s 1984 in action. You need to see the bigger picture.
I’m not a democrat. I am voting for Biden. I don’t want to silence anybody. Just bringing balance to the conversation as you seem to only be focused on the Left wing... newsflash Both sides spew propaganda. That’s the business they are in... I don’t believe the deep state stuff
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
37,856
Reaction score
9,837
Points
1,330
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
I think you are missing a bigger point related to the corporate media. It’s clear to me much of the corporate media are controlled by a hidden cabal, that consists of deep state government forces colluding with the billionaires who own the media and numerous media personnel, to control the narrative for the benefit of the State and the ultra wealthy.

The CIA and NSA likely play a major role in this effort. CIA Director Casey let it be known in the 1980s, when he said paraphrasing, “when everything Americans know is wrong we will know we have succeeded.”

Second point; blaming the American people for the divisive nature of our political discourse, I find unacceptable. When you realize there is a covert effort by powerful forces to propagandize and divide Americans, which has existed for decades, you can’t expect the average Joe to realize he’s being duped.

We see these dupes on this forum every day.
Americans have the choice to follow or think for themselves. When Americans act like sheep isolating their political news and social bubbles, they are absolutely responsible
It’s difficult for most. They can’t overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and propaganda by the ruling class.
Would you consider Alex Jones as part of the ruling class?
No.
Is his indoctrination and propaganda any different than the “ruling class” as you call them?
He is mostly a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know. Never listened to him and he has nothing to do with our debate. Why would you cite him?

It’s the corporate media, that’s the culprit.
I cite him because he has a huge following and spews baseless propaganda which many of his followers believe to be real. Same goes for Rush who has one of the largest radio programs in the world. If you’re going to discuss misinformation by the media you have to include people like this
I honestly don’t know much about Jones. If he has a huge following, that’s news to me. At any rate, you are focused on right wing commentators. Why? I don’t doubt they too are controlled by hidden forces, but the much bigger corporate media outlets are definitely controlled by hidden forces. They reach far more people and thusly are far more damaging.

When was the last time the corporate media opposed our government’s constant wars? They clearly are mouth pieces for the CIA.

Here is a great column that lays it out.

There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is “probably” happening, meaning those making the claim don’t even know.

The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.

None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and NBC. And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:
MSM Promotes Yet Another CIA Press Release As News
I’d like to see more accountability for dishonesty by our media in general and some sort of a rating system so editorialist whom lie on the daily, like Rush, are separated from the real journalists. With that said we have freedom of speech and the press in this country. People can say whatever they want. The media can support a war if they want. I can watch their coverage and decide to also support it or not. That’s still my choice.
Again, your focus is the right wing. Are you a Democrat? Are you voting for Biden? You want to silence right wingers. Why?

You miss the much bigger problem. That the State is controlling much of the media. This is Orwell’s 1984 in action. You need to see the bigger picture.
I’m not a democrat. I am voting for Biden. I don’t want to silence anybody. Just bringing balance to the conversation as you seem to only be focused on the Left wing... newsflash Both sides spew propaganda. That’s the business they are in... I don’t believe the deep state stuff
You won’t find anywhere in my posts above where I mention left wing. You misunderstand and made incorrect assumptions.

I think most of the MSM or corporate media is controlled by government or forces aligned with government. This includes BOTH left and right wing outlets.
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,783
Reaction score
5,146
Points
280
Location
Washington
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism which differs from person to person. So if I allege that Donald Trump is a racist that simple means his actions fit my belief as to what constitutes racism. So how can that allegation be false if it fits my definition racism?

I guess what I don't understand is why my belief that Trump is racist and your belief that he is not should have any bearing on our respect for each other. You have no way of knowing what I know and I have no way of knowing what you know and neither one of us can know what Donald Trump knows. Generalizing, I see no reason for disrespect or being uncordial based on difference of opinion.

1. Because when you use words, people will assume you are using them, as they are defined in dictionaries, not your own made up versions.

In your scenario, EXAMPLE, the people that have just decided that their view of racism, means that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power to inflict blah, blah, blah,.

Do you agree that that is valid? That blacks can't be racist?



2. Because these various ism and phobe accusations, especially racism, have become to toxic in our modern culture, that believing that the other person is such a ist or phobe, means that you or at least a society and people in general cannot respect that person or anything they say or do. Hell, more and more, society has to immediately "cancel" them is some form.


3. If you don't like it, step one is to stop supporting false allegations of racism. Otherwise, just look forward to ever increasing strife and hatred tearing this nation apart.
1. No, I said, "We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism", that is clearly not referring to the definition of racism but rather what acts in our opinion meets the definition of racism. It is all about interpretation and belief. For example, if "I say statistics show that Caucasians make better grades in college than African Americans" most people would not think that is racist because it's just stating facts. However, if I said, " Caucasians make better grades in college because they are smarter than African Americans", most people would consider that to be a racist statement because I'm using subjective language, "smart and smarter" rather than facts plus the use of this language is indicates a racial superiority. Now if I said, Honkies are Smarter than N***** , then almost everyone would say that is a statement racist. What I'm getting at is racism is subjective. It depends on individual beliefs and frame of reference.

2. Being a racist has no relation your your race.

3. How can an allegation of racism be false since it's subjective? If I believe you are a racist, saying so is not a false statement. It is stating my beliefs. If I called Trump a racist why should that increase hatred. I'm not calling conservatives racist and not calling you a racist. You can call Biden, Obama, Trump, or the Great Pumpkin anything you choose and I will not hate you for it.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
69,479
Reaction score
13,316
Points
2,220
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism which differs from person to person. So if I allege that Donald Trump is a racist that simple means his actions fit my belief as to what constitutes racism. So how can that allegation be false if it fits my definition racism?

I guess what I don't understand is why my belief that Trump is racist and your belief that he is not should have any bearing on our respect for each other. You have no way of knowing what I know and I have no way of knowing what you know and neither one of us can know what Donald Trump knows. Generalizing, I see no reason for disrespect or being uncordial based on difference of opinion.

1. Because when you use words, people will assume you are using them, as they are defined in dictionaries, not your own made up versions.

In your scenario, EXAMPLE, the people that have just decided that their view of racism, means that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power to inflict blah, blah, blah,.

Do you agree that that is valid? That blacks can't be racist?



2. Because these various ism and phobe accusations, especially racism, have become to toxic in our modern culture, that believing that the other person is such a ist or phobe, means that you or at least a society and people in general cannot respect that person or anything they say or do. Hell, more and more, society has to immediately "cancel" them is some form.


3. If you don't like it, step one is to stop supporting false allegations of racism. Otherwise, just look forward to ever increasing strife and hatred tearing this nation apart.
1. No, I said, "We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism", that is clearly not referring to the definition of racism but rather what acts in our opinion meets the definition of racism. It is all about interpretation and belief. For example, if "I say statistics show that Caucasians make better grades in college than African Americans" most people would not think that is racist because it's just stating facts. However, if I said, " Caucasians make better grades in college because they are smarter than African Americans", most people would consider that to be a racist statement because I'm using subjective language, "smart and smarter" rather than facts plus the use of this language is indicates a racial superiority. Now if I said, Honkies are Smarter than N***** , then almost everyone would say that is a statement racist. What I'm getting at is racism is subjective. It depends on individual beliefs and frame of reference.

2. Being a racist has no relation your your race.

3. How can an allegation of racism be false since it's subjective? If I believe you are a racist, saying so is not a false statement. It is stating my beliefs. If I called Trump a racist why should that increase hatred. I'm not calling conservatives racist and not calling you a racist. You can call Biden, Obama, Trump, or the Great Pumpkin anything you choose and I will not hate you for it.


1. That there is some judgment in what "acts meets the definition of racism" does not justify the constant use of false allegations of wacism by the Left, NOR, your pretense of being unaware of them.

2. I said nothing of "wacism" reflecting on a race. I pointed out that an accusation of wacism makes "respect" basically impossible.

3. A. Because it is not subjective, and if you are expressing your opinion, you should not pretend it is a fact, as many do.

B. because it is often based on absurd justifications or outright lies, such as the Charlottesville Lie.
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,042
Reaction score
8,298
Points
2,070
they were friends, yet RBG never could convince Scalia to become a feminist!
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,783
Reaction score
5,146
Points
280
Location
Washington
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
I think you are missing a bigger point related to the corporate media. It’s clear to me much of the corporate media are controlled by a hidden cabal, that consists of deep state government forces colluding with the billionaires who own the media and numerous media personnel, to control the narrative for the benefit of the State and the ultra wealthy.

The CIA and NSA likely play a major role in this effort. CIA Director Casey let it be known in the 1980s, when he said paraphrasing, “when everything Americans know is wrong we will know we have succeeded.”

Second point; blaming the American people for the divisive nature of our political discourse, I find unacceptable. When you realize there is a covert effort by powerful forces to propagandize and divide Americans, which has existed for decades, you can’t expect the average Joe to realize he’s being duped.

We see these dupes on this forum every day.
Americans have the choice to follow or think for themselves. When Americans act like sheep isolating their political news and social bubbles, they are absolutely responsible
It’s difficult for most. They can’t overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and propaganda by the ruling class.
Would you consider Alex Jones as part of the ruling class?
No.
Is his indoctrination and propaganda any different than the “ruling class” as you call them?
He is mostly a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know. Never listened to him and he has nothing to do with our debate. Why would you cite him?

It’s the corporate media, that’s the culprit.
I cite him because he has a huge following and spews baseless propaganda which many of his followers believe to be real. Same goes for Rush who has one of the largest radio programs in the world. If you’re going to discuss misinformation by the media you have to include people like this
I honestly don’t know much about Jones. If he has a huge following, that’s news to me. At any rate, you are focused on right wing commentators. Why? I don’t doubt they too are controlled by hidden forces, but the much bigger corporate media outlets are definitely controlled by hidden forces. They reach far more people and thusly are far more damaging.

When was the last time the corporate media opposed our government’s constant wars? They clearly are mouth pieces for the CIA.

Here is a great column that lays it out.

There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is “probably” happening, meaning those making the claim don’t even know.

The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.

None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and NBC. And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:
MSM Promotes Yet Another CIA Press Release As News
I’d like to see more accountability for dishonesty by our media in general and some sort of a rating system so editorialist whom lie on the daily, like Rush, are separated from the real journalists. With that said we have freedom of speech and the press in this country. People can say whatever they want. The media can support a war if they want. I can watch their coverage and decide to also support it or not. That’s still my choice.
I totally agree. IMHO, there is plenty of incentive for the media to be dishonest and biased. It is a very lucrative business as long as the media outlet has a large enough audience and the way to get a large audience is tell their audience what they want to hear and reinforce their beliefs. The fact that mainstream media rarely lies does not make their reporting honest. There are many insidious ways they use to drive home a point. Repetition being one of most serious. For example repeating a story of violence over and over creates a problem often far greater than the original problem. They have turned police violence against blacks, a serious problem for many years into a national disgrace demanding immediate action.

A few years ago, there was a tornado in a small town in a plains state. National news reported it as devastating damage, destroying the heart of this little town. They kept showing the same 4 or 5 houses that were badly damaged over and over. They had a couple of tearjerker interviews and the impression it left the viewer was that of a destroyed town desperately needing help. My brother in law who live in a neighboring town said there were only 4 or 5 houses that had any serious damage out several hundred. Nobody was serious injured or killed and the town was handling the incident quite well.
 
Last edited:

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
37,856
Reaction score
9,837
Points
1,330
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
I think you are missing a bigger point related to the corporate media. It’s clear to me much of the corporate media are controlled by a hidden cabal, that consists of deep state government forces colluding with the billionaires who own the media and numerous media personnel, to control the narrative for the benefit of the State and the ultra wealthy.

The CIA and NSA likely play a major role in this effort. CIA Director Casey let it be known in the 1980s, when he said paraphrasing, “when everything Americans know is wrong we will know we have succeeded.”

Second point; blaming the American people for the divisive nature of our political discourse, I find unacceptable. When you realize there is a covert effort by powerful forces to propagandize and divide Americans, which has existed for decades, you can’t expect the average Joe to realize he’s being duped.

We see these dupes on this forum every day.
Americans have the choice to follow or think for themselves. When Americans act like sheep isolating their political news and social bubbles, they are absolutely responsible
It’s difficult for most. They can’t overcome a lifetime of indoctrination and propaganda by the ruling class.
Would you consider Alex Jones as part of the ruling class?
No.
Is his indoctrination and propaganda any different than the “ruling class” as you call them?
He is mostly a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know. Never listened to him and he has nothing to do with our debate. Why would you cite him?

It’s the corporate media, that’s the culprit.
I cite him because he has a huge following and spews baseless propaganda which many of his followers believe to be real. Same goes for Rush who has one of the largest radio programs in the world. If you’re going to discuss misinformation by the media you have to include people like this
I honestly don’t know much about Jones. If he has a huge following, that’s news to me. At any rate, you are focused on right wing commentators. Why? I don’t doubt they too are controlled by hidden forces, but the much bigger corporate media outlets are definitely controlled by hidden forces. They reach far more people and thusly are far more damaging.

When was the last time the corporate media opposed our government’s constant wars? They clearly are mouth pieces for the CIA.

Here is a great column that lays it out.

There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is “probably” happening, meaning those making the claim don’t even know.

The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.

None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and NBC. And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:
MSM Promotes Yet Another CIA Press Release As News
I’d like to see more accountability for dishonesty by our media in general and some sort of a rating system so editorialist whom lie on the daily, like Rush, are separated from the real journalists. With that said we have freedom of speech and the press in this country. People can say whatever they want. The media can support a war if they want. I can watch their coverage and decide to also support it or not. That’s still my choice.
I totally agree. IMHO, there is plenty of incentive for the media to be dishonest and biased. It is a very lucrative business as long as the media outlet has a large enough audience and the way to get a large audience is tell their audience what they want to hear and reinforce their beliefs. The fact that mainstream media rarely lies does not make their reporting honest. There are many insidious ways they use to drive home a point. Repetition being one of most serious. For example repeating a story of violence over and over creates a problem often far greater than the original problem. They have turned police violence against blacks, a serious problem for many years into a national disgrace demanding immediate action.

A few years ago, there was a tornado in a small town in a plains state. National news reported it as devastating damage, destroying the heart of this little town. They kept showing the same 4 or 5 houses that were badly damaged over and over. They had a couple of tearjerker interviews and the impression it left the viewer was that of a destroyed town desperately needing help. My brother in law who live in a neighboring town said there were only 4 or 5 houses that had any serious damage out several hundred. Nobody was serious injured or killed and the town was handling the incident quite well.
“The fact that mainstream media rarely lies does not make their reporting honest.”

What? They lie all the time.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
621
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...f7580c-faaa-11ea-a275-1a2c2d36e1f1_story.html
We're out on the farm, out in the woods. The gun grab invalidates any respect or love we could otherwise have had to liberals on the basis of agreeing to disagree. We are NOT welcome in their liberal homes, communities, and churches. The child-killers and abortionists have deprived us of our every means of survival and livelihood. We cannot live in peace with them as they make progress in their plans to murder us and eliminate us as undesirables from their population.
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,783
Reaction score
5,146
Points
280
Location
Washington
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism which differs from person to person. So if I allege that Donald Trump is a racist that simple means his actions fit my belief as to what constitutes racism. So how can that allegation be false if it fits my definition racism?

I guess what I don't understand is why my belief that Trump is racist and your belief that he is not should have any bearing on our respect for each other. You have no way of knowing what I know and I have no way of knowing what you know and neither one of us can know what Donald Trump knows. Generalizing, I see no reason for disrespect or being uncordial based on difference of opinion.

1. Because when you use words, people will assume you are using them, as they are defined in dictionaries, not your own made up versions.

In your scenario, EXAMPLE, the people that have just decided that their view of racism, means that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power to inflict blah, blah, blah,.

Do you agree that that is valid? That blacks can't be racist?



2. Because these various ism and phobe accusations, especially racism, have become to toxic in our modern culture, that believing that the other person is such a ist or phobe, means that you or at least a society and people in general cannot respect that person or anything they say or do. Hell, more and more, society has to immediately "cancel" them is some form.


3. If you don't like it, step one is to stop supporting false allegations of racism. Otherwise, just look forward to ever increasing strife and hatred tearing this nation apart.
1. No, I said, "We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism", that is clearly not referring to the definition of racism but rather what acts in our opinion meets the definition of racism. It is all about interpretation and belief. For example, if "I say statistics show that Caucasians make better grades in college than African Americans" most people would not think that is racist because it's just stating facts. However, if I said, " Caucasians make better grades in college because they are smarter than African Americans", most people would consider that to be a racist statement because I'm using subjective language, "smart and smarter" rather than facts plus the use of this language is indicates a racial superiority. Now if I said, Honkies are Smarter than N***** , then almost everyone would say that is a statement racist. What I'm getting at is racism is subjective. It depends on individual beliefs and frame of reference.

2. Being a racist has no relation your your race.

3. How can an allegation of racism be false since it's subjective? If I believe you are a racist, saying so is not a false statement. It is stating my beliefs. If I called Trump a racist why should that increase hatred. I'm not calling conservatives racist and not calling you a racist. You can call Biden, Obama, Trump, or the Great Pumpkin anything you choose and I will not hate you for it.


1. That there is some judgment in what "acts meets the definition of racism" does not justify the constant use of false allegations of wacism by the Left, NOR, your pretense of being unaware of them.

2. I said nothing of "wacism" reflecting on a race. I pointed out that an accusation of wacism makes "respect" basically impossible.

3. A. Because it is not subjective, and if you are expressing your opinion, you should not pretend it is a fact, as many do.

B. because it is often based on absurd justifications or outright lies, such as the Charlottesville Lie.
Donald Trump's exact quote on about the Charlottesville Incident was:

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee."

In my opinion, referring to white supremacists as very fine people is a racist comment. This plus hundreds of other racist comments about Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, Chinese, etc leads one to believe Trump just might be a racist. That is my opinion which of course is subjective.

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." And when Donald Trump sounds like racist, acts like racist then he probably is a racist.

 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
69,479
Reaction score
13,316
Points
2,220
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism which differs from person to person. So if I allege that Donald Trump is a racist that simple means his actions fit my belief as to what constitutes racism. So how can that allegation be false if it fits my definition racism?

I guess what I don't understand is why my belief that Trump is racist and your belief that he is not should have any bearing on our respect for each other. You have no way of knowing what I know and I have no way of knowing what you know and neither one of us can know what Donald Trump knows. Generalizing, I see no reason for disrespect or being uncordial based on difference of opinion.

1. Because when you use words, people will assume you are using them, as they are defined in dictionaries, not your own made up versions.

In your scenario, EXAMPLE, the people that have just decided that their view of racism, means that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power to inflict blah, blah, blah,.

Do you agree that that is valid? That blacks can't be racist?



2. Because these various ism and phobe accusations, especially racism, have become to toxic in our modern culture, that believing that the other person is such a ist or phobe, means that you or at least a society and people in general cannot respect that person or anything they say or do. Hell, more and more, society has to immediately "cancel" them is some form.


3. If you don't like it, step one is to stop supporting false allegations of racism. Otherwise, just look forward to ever increasing strife and hatred tearing this nation apart.
1. No, I said, "We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism", that is clearly not referring to the definition of racism but rather what acts in our opinion meets the definition of racism. It is all about interpretation and belief. For example, if "I say statistics show that Caucasians make better grades in college than African Americans" most people would not think that is racist because it's just stating facts. However, if I said, " Caucasians make better grades in college because they are smarter than African Americans", most people would consider that to be a racist statement because I'm using subjective language, "smart and smarter" rather than facts plus the use of this language is indicates a racial superiority. Now if I said, Honkies are Smarter than N***** , then almost everyone would say that is a statement racist. What I'm getting at is racism is subjective. It depends on individual beliefs and frame of reference.

2. Being a racist has no relation your your race.

3. How can an allegation of racism be false since it's subjective? If I believe you are a racist, saying so is not a false statement. It is stating my beliefs. If I called Trump a racist why should that increase hatred. I'm not calling conservatives racist and not calling you a racist. You can call Biden, Obama, Trump, or the Great Pumpkin anything you choose and I will not hate you for it.


1. That there is some judgment in what "acts meets the definition of racism" does not justify the constant use of false allegations of wacism by the Left, NOR, your pretense of being unaware of them.

2. I said nothing of "wacism" reflecting on a race. I pointed out that an accusation of wacism makes "respect" basically impossible.

3. A. Because it is not subjective, and if you are expressing your opinion, you should not pretend it is a fact, as many do.

B. because it is often based on absurd justifications or outright lies, such as the Charlottesville Lie.
Donald Trump's exact quote on about the Charlottesville Incident was:

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee."
....

So, are you unaware that he specifically stated that he was not including ws in that group, or are you lying?
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,783
Reaction score
5,146
Points
280
Location
Washington
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism which differs from person to person. So if I allege that Donald Trump is a racist that simple means his actions fit my belief as to what constitutes racism. So how can that allegation be false if it fits my definition racism?

I guess what I don't understand is why my belief that Trump is racist and your belief that he is not should have any bearing on our respect for each other. You have no way of knowing what I know and I have no way of knowing what you know and neither one of us can know what Donald Trump knows. Generalizing, I see no reason for disrespect or being uncordial based on difference of opinion.

1. Because when you use words, people will assume you are using them, as they are defined in dictionaries, not your own made up versions.

In your scenario, EXAMPLE, the people that have just decided that their view of racism, means that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power to inflict blah, blah, blah,.

Do you agree that that is valid? That blacks can't be racist?



2. Because these various ism and phobe accusations, especially racism, have become to toxic in our modern culture, that believing that the other person is such a ist or phobe, means that you or at least a society and people in general cannot respect that person or anything they say or do. Hell, more and more, society has to immediately "cancel" them is some form.


3. If you don't like it, step one is to stop supporting false allegations of racism. Otherwise, just look forward to ever increasing strife and hatred tearing this nation apart.
1. No, I said, "We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism", that is clearly not referring to the definition of racism but rather what acts in our opinion meets the definition of racism. It is all about interpretation and belief. For example, if "I say statistics show that Caucasians make better grades in college than African Americans" most people would not think that is racist because it's just stating facts. However, if I said, " Caucasians make better grades in college because they are smarter than African Americans", most people would consider that to be a racist statement because I'm using subjective language, "smart and smarter" rather than facts plus the use of this language is indicates a racial superiority. Now if I said, Honkies are Smarter than N***** , then almost everyone would say that is a statement racist. What I'm getting at is racism is subjective. It depends on individual beliefs and frame of reference.

2. Being a racist has no relation your your race.

3. How can an allegation of racism be false since it's subjective? If I believe you are a racist, saying so is not a false statement. It is stating my beliefs. If I called Trump a racist why should that increase hatred. I'm not calling conservatives racist and not calling you a racist. You can call Biden, Obama, Trump, or the Great Pumpkin anything you choose and I will not hate you for it.


1. That there is some judgment in what "acts meets the definition of racism" does not justify the constant use of false allegations of wacism by the Left, NOR, your pretense of being unaware of them.

2. I said nothing of "wacism" reflecting on a race. I pointed out that an accusation of wacism makes "respect" basically impossible.

3. A. Because it is not subjective, and if you are expressing your opinion, you should not pretend it is a fact, as many do.

B. because it is often based on absurd justifications or outright lies, such as the Charlottesville Lie.
Donald Trump's exact quote on about the Charlottesville Incident was:

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee."
....

So, are you unaware that he specifically stated that he was not including ws in that group, or are you lying?
I am well aware that Trump backed off on his statement when the news media as well a number of republicans attacked him for his quote that there were fine people on both sides. This is not the first time Trump has made some outrageous statement and either he or his communications people had to back off on it.
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,042
Reaction score
8,298
Points
2,070
Ginsburg didn't want to retire during the Obama years because the GOP controlled the Senate, and it was impossible for them to confirm a replacement as liberal as her. she thought Crooked Hillary was gonna win in 2016, and that she would then retire, just like Pelosi wanted to do

oh well
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
69,479
Reaction score
13,316
Points
2,220
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism which differs from person to person. So if I allege that Donald Trump is a racist that simple means his actions fit my belief as to what constitutes racism. So how can that allegation be false if it fits my definition racism?

I guess what I don't understand is why my belief that Trump is racist and your belief that he is not should have any bearing on our respect for each other. You have no way of knowing what I know and I have no way of knowing what you know and neither one of us can know what Donald Trump knows. Generalizing, I see no reason for disrespect or being uncordial based on difference of opinion.

1. Because when you use words, people will assume you are using them, as they are defined in dictionaries, not your own made up versions.

In your scenario, EXAMPLE, the people that have just decided that their view of racism, means that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power to inflict blah, blah, blah,.

Do you agree that that is valid? That blacks can't be racist?



2. Because these various ism and phobe accusations, especially racism, have become to toxic in our modern culture, that believing that the other person is such a ist or phobe, means that you or at least a society and people in general cannot respect that person or anything they say or do. Hell, more and more, society has to immediately "cancel" them is some form.


3. If you don't like it, step one is to stop supporting false allegations of racism. Otherwise, just look forward to ever increasing strife and hatred tearing this nation apart.
1. No, I said, "We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism", that is clearly not referring to the definition of racism but rather what acts in our opinion meets the definition of racism. It is all about interpretation and belief. For example, if "I say statistics show that Caucasians make better grades in college than African Americans" most people would not think that is racist because it's just stating facts. However, if I said, " Caucasians make better grades in college because they are smarter than African Americans", most people would consider that to be a racist statement because I'm using subjective language, "smart and smarter" rather than facts plus the use of this language is indicates a racial superiority. Now if I said, Honkies are Smarter than N***** , then almost everyone would say that is a statement racist. What I'm getting at is racism is subjective. It depends on individual beliefs and frame of reference.

2. Being a racist has no relation your your race.

3. How can an allegation of racism be false since it's subjective? If I believe you are a racist, saying so is not a false statement. It is stating my beliefs. If I called Trump a racist why should that increase hatred. I'm not calling conservatives racist and not calling you a racist. You can call Biden, Obama, Trump, or the Great Pumpkin anything you choose and I will not hate you for it.


1. That there is some judgment in what "acts meets the definition of racism" does not justify the constant use of false allegations of wacism by the Left, NOR, your pretense of being unaware of them.

2. I said nothing of "wacism" reflecting on a race. I pointed out that an accusation of wacism makes "respect" basically impossible.

3. A. Because it is not subjective, and if you are expressing your opinion, you should not pretend it is a fact, as many do.

B. because it is often based on absurd justifications or outright lies, such as the Charlottesville Lie.
Donald Trump's exact quote on about the Charlottesville Incident was:

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee."
....

So, are you unaware that he specifically stated that he was not including ws in that group, or are you lying?
I am well aware that Trump backed off on his statement when the news media as well a number of republicans attacked him for his quote that there were fine people on both sides. This is not the first time Trump has made some outrageous statement and either he or his communications people had to back off on it.

And this is why conservatives who are friends with liberals, are cucks.


Because the liberal, while possibly pretending to be their friend, will lie to their face and behind their backs, spreading the most vicious slander against them, trying constantly to destroy them.


People are dying today, because your thugs believe lies like the one you just told, and that thus those on the other side are all ws, and need to be literally fought. And fight they are. Against the supposed "ws".


1601168427156.png
,
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,783
Reaction score
5,146
Points
280
Location
Washington
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism which differs from person to person. So if I allege that Donald Trump is a racist that simple means his actions fit my belief as to what constitutes racism. So how can that allegation be false if it fits my definition racism?

I guess what I don't understand is why my belief that Trump is racist and your belief that he is not should have any bearing on our respect for each other. You have no way of knowing what I know and I have no way of knowing what you know and neither one of us can know what Donald Trump knows. Generalizing, I see no reason for disrespect or being uncordial based on difference of opinion.

1. Because when you use words, people will assume you are using them, as they are defined in dictionaries, not your own made up versions.

In your scenario, EXAMPLE, the people that have just decided that their view of racism, means that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power to inflict blah, blah, blah,.

Do you agree that that is valid? That blacks can't be racist?



2. Because these various ism and phobe accusations, especially racism, have become to toxic in our modern culture, that believing that the other person is such a ist or phobe, means that you or at least a society and people in general cannot respect that person or anything they say or do. Hell, more and more, society has to immediately "cancel" them is some form.


3. If you don't like it, step one is to stop supporting false allegations of racism. Otherwise, just look forward to ever increasing strife and hatred tearing this nation apart.
1. No, I said, "We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism", that is clearly not referring to the definition of racism but rather what acts in our opinion meets the definition of racism. It is all about interpretation and belief. For example, if "I say statistics show that Caucasians make better grades in college than African Americans" most people would not think that is racist because it's just stating facts. However, if I said, " Caucasians make better grades in college because they are smarter than African Americans", most people would consider that to be a racist statement because I'm using subjective language, "smart and smarter" rather than facts plus the use of this language is indicates a racial superiority. Now if I said, Honkies are Smarter than N***** , then almost everyone would say that is a statement racist. What I'm getting at is racism is subjective. It depends on individual beliefs and frame of reference.

2. Being a racist has no relation your your race.

3. How can an allegation of racism be false since it's subjective? If I believe you are a racist, saying so is not a false statement. It is stating my beliefs. If I called Trump a racist why should that increase hatred. I'm not calling conservatives racist and not calling you a racist. You can call Biden, Obama, Trump, or the Great Pumpkin anything you choose and I will not hate you for it.


1. That there is some judgment in what "acts meets the definition of racism" does not justify the constant use of false allegations of wacism by the Left, NOR, your pretense of being unaware of them.

2. I said nothing of "wacism" reflecting on a race. I pointed out that an accusation of wacism makes "respect" basically impossible.

3. A. Because it is not subjective, and if you are expressing your opinion, you should not pretend it is a fact, as many do.

B. because it is often based on absurd justifications or outright lies, such as the Charlottesville Lie.
Donald Trump's exact quote on about the Charlottesville Incident was:

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee."
....

So, are you unaware that he specifically stated that he was not including ws in that group, or are you lying?
I am well aware that Trump backed off on his statement when the news media as well a number of republicans attacked him for his quote that there were fine people on both sides. This is not the first time Trump has made some outrageous statement and either he or his communications people had to back off on it.

And this is why conservatives who are friends with liberals, are cucks.


Because the liberal, while possibly pretending to be their friend, will lie to their face and behind their backs, spreading the most vicious slander against them, trying constantly to destroy them.


People are dying today, because your thugs believe lies like the one you just told, and that thus those on the other side are all ws, and need to be literally fought. And fight they are. Against the supposed "ws".


View attachment 393376,
Spoken by a true political pundit that believes politics rules the lives of most Americans. The fact is most Americans see politics in much the way they see sports. They have favorite team and follow the games. They morn the losses and celebrate the wins. They argue over coaching and plays. Then they move on with their life addressing things that are really important to them like their job, their family, their church and their community.

I was a republican for over 20 years and have been a democrat for about 30 years. There are several people that I dearly love that are republicans, one being my youngest son, and one being a dearly beloved younger brother, and a crotchety old neighbor who I think the world of. We argue about politics just as we argue about football teams, and other stuff but at the end the day we care for each other and we are friends. I really feel sorry for people that allow politics to rule their lives. It just ain't worth it.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
69,479
Reaction score
13,316
Points
2,220
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism which differs from person to person. So if I allege that Donald Trump is a racist that simple means his actions fit my belief as to what constitutes racism. So how can that allegation be false if it fits my definition racism?

I guess what I don't understand is why my belief that Trump is racist and your belief that he is not should have any bearing on our respect for each other. You have no way of knowing what I know and I have no way of knowing what you know and neither one of us can know what Donald Trump knows. Generalizing, I see no reason for disrespect or being uncordial based on difference of opinion.

1. Because when you use words, people will assume you are using them, as they are defined in dictionaries, not your own made up versions.

In your scenario, EXAMPLE, the people that have just decided that their view of racism, means that blacks can't be racist because racism requires power to inflict blah, blah, blah,.

Do you agree that that is valid? That blacks can't be racist?



2. Because these various ism and phobe accusations, especially racism, have become to toxic in our modern culture, that believing that the other person is such a ist or phobe, means that you or at least a society and people in general cannot respect that person or anything they say or do. Hell, more and more, society has to immediately "cancel" them is some form.


3. If you don't like it, step one is to stop supporting false allegations of racism. Otherwise, just look forward to ever increasing strife and hatred tearing this nation apart.
1. No, I said, "We judge a person as being a racist, based of our beliefs of what constitutes racism", that is clearly not referring to the definition of racism but rather what acts in our opinion meets the definition of racism. It is all about interpretation and belief. For example, if "I say statistics show that Caucasians make better grades in college than African Americans" most people would not think that is racist because it's just stating facts. However, if I said, " Caucasians make better grades in college because they are smarter than African Americans", most people would consider that to be a racist statement because I'm using subjective language, "smart and smarter" rather than facts plus the use of this language is indicates a racial superiority. Now if I said, Honkies are Smarter than N***** , then almost everyone would say that is a statement racist. What I'm getting at is racism is subjective. It depends on individual beliefs and frame of reference.

2. Being a racist has no relation your your race.

3. How can an allegation of racism be false since it's subjective? If I believe you are a racist, saying so is not a false statement. It is stating my beliefs. If I called Trump a racist why should that increase hatred. I'm not calling conservatives racist and not calling you a racist. You can call Biden, Obama, Trump, or the Great Pumpkin anything you choose and I will not hate you for it.


1. That there is some judgment in what "acts meets the definition of racism" does not justify the constant use of false allegations of wacism by the Left, NOR, your pretense of being unaware of them.

2. I said nothing of "wacism" reflecting on a race. I pointed out that an accusation of wacism makes "respect" basically impossible.

3. A. Because it is not subjective, and if you are expressing your opinion, you should not pretend it is a fact, as many do.

B. because it is often based on absurd justifications or outright lies, such as the Charlottesville Lie.
Donald Trump's exact quote on about the Charlottesville Incident was:

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee."
....

So, are you unaware that he specifically stated that he was not including ws in that group, or are you lying?
I am well aware that Trump backed off on his statement when the news media as well a number of republicans attacked him for his quote that there were fine people on both sides. This is not the first time Trump has made some outrageous statement and either he or his communications people had to back off on it.

And this is why conservatives who are friends with liberals, are cucks.


Because the liberal, while possibly pretending to be their friend, will lie to their face and behind their backs, spreading the most vicious slander against them, trying constantly to destroy them.


People are dying today, because your thugs believe lies like the one you just told, and that thus those on the other side are all ws, and need to be literally fought. And fight they are. Against the supposed "ws".


View attachment 393376,
Spoken by a true political pundit that believes politics rules the lives of most Americans. The fact is most Americans see politics in much the way they see sports. They have favorite team and follow the games. They morn the losses and celebrate the wins. They argue over coaching and plays. Then they move on with their life addressing things that are really important to them like their job, their family, their church and their community.

I was a republican for over 20 years and have been a democrat for about 30 years. There are several people that I dearly love that are republicans, one being my youngest son, and one being a dearly beloved younger brother, and a crotchety old neighbor who I think the world of. We argue about politics just as we argue about football teams, and other stuff but at the end the day we care for each other and we are friends. I really feel sorry for people that allow politics to rule their lives. It just ain't worth it.

But now, a republican is at constant risk of being destroyed by you people, for the mistake, or even for no reason at all.

People are doxxed for NOTHING, and lose their jobs or worse, are beaten or killed. And if they defend themselves from the mob, the end up being arrested for their self defense.


You are kidding yourself to not see the dangerous and dramatic escalation here.

AND, it was clear to see this was where you people were headed, for a long time.


Trump was specific and clear, that he was talking about both sides of the issue of historical statues and specifically and clearly excluded ws from his "good people" comment.


That you continue to carry water for such an obvious and vile lie, shows that your side is the divisive side here, and without any sense of honesty at all.


Friendship across such a battle line, is the act of a fool.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List