The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

Regardless I still disagree. It's very America-centric to think like you, funnily enough. All over the world we are seeing third party popularity increasing and it's not necessarily perpetuating the two party system.

I'm not being America-centric, I'm noting historical circumstances.

The voting system in American (as in Great Britain) gravitates toward two parties. That's just the way it's set up.

Third parties can gain more popularity and influence in other countries because many tend to practice proportional representation, which the U.S. doesn't have.

There's certainly a chance that third parties can gain more favor in the U.S., but simply voting them in won't do it--you'd need to change the voting parameters.

 

[CiG]

If you keep putting forward trash like Clinton and Trump, I think the two main parties will probably fall apart and splinter. Somehow even with Gary Johnson the Libertarians got 4.5% and nearly made the presidential debate. 4 to 8 years of Trump is going to cause some major disenchantment in America I think.

But sure, the American system makes it pretty difficult to break away from the two party system, I don't think the English are in the same boat though, third parties there are beginning to have major sway, one might credit Brexit to UKIP for example (an issue which had split the Conservative party btw).

 

[rms]

That's not true at all. Stop with the naive equivocation.

did you read the first line of your paragraph?

"In contrast, presidents in recent history have generally tried their best to adhere to the conflict of interest laws that govern their fellow executive branch "

-- Trump is not better at playing the political game that career-politicians have been. Pointing out Carter in the sea of thousands is really annoying, please don't be that guy

Not denying it. However, Clinton would have pressure from her voters to veer to the left. No way she would have dared trying to dismantle Dodd Franc.

it's like you agree with me yet you can't see it. Clinton is better at playing the game, your sentence here even proposes it. She'll adhere when she thinks it's politically in her interest, Trump either doesn't understand this or doesn't care, that's the difference

Provide evidence showing that Clinton had anywhere near the level of conflict of interest as Trump.

the whole point is that we'll never really know how corrupt she is, but she hired the DNC chair who decided to unfairly represent both candidates, takes $'s from countries that definitely influence our geo-political decisions and flip flops on issues to whenever she feels is politically right whether than a moral compass. These are all signs that she doesn't adhere to some sort of ideology but rather how to keep, maintain and profit off of power.

 

[CiG]

Clinton wanted a hot war with Russia. Pretty great that was avoided to say the least, regardless of how shit Trump is.

 

[rms]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...share=9981487174946576&utm_term=.5011d51a9ada

blacks are the least affected minority via voter ID laws. how long until this becomes ignored because no one cares about non-black minorities?

Clinton wanted a hot war with Russia.

don't think anyone wants a hot war with Russia and don't think Trump is preventing one, either

 

[arg]

Regardless of either one's corruption, we know for sure Hillary would not have been tough on illegals and refugees like Trump is.

Rocky start but I hope he continues down this path for the next 4 years while at the same time creating jobs and improving the economy for Americans

 

[crimsonfloyd]

did you read the first line of your paragraph?

"In contrast, presidents in recent history have generally tried their best to adhere to the conflict of interest laws that govern their fellow executive branch "

-- Trump is not better at playing the political game that career-politicians have been. Pointing out Carter in the sea of thousands is really annoying, please don't be that guy

You're stretching tried beyond a reasonable limit of what the context would imply. Trump clearly has not tried nearly as hard as is predecessors.

Also, Carter is a 100% legitimate point to bring up, considering he's one of the few other presidents of this modern era.

it's like you agree with me yet you can't see it. Clinton is better at playing the game, your sentence here even proposes it. She'll adhere when she thinks it's politically in her interest, Trump either doesn't understand this or doesn't care, that's the difference

We agree there. The problem is your conflating presumed intent with level of corruption. Regardless of what Hillary or prior presidents wanted to do, as a matter of fact, they never had this level of conflict of interest. Their intent is a secondary issue.

the whole point is that we'll never really know how corrupt she is, but she hired the DNC chair who decided to unfairly represent both candidates, takes $'s from countries that definitely influence our geo-political decisions and flip flops on issues to whenever she feels is politically right whether than a moral compass. These are all signs that she doesn't adhere to some sort of ideology but rather how to keep, maintain and profit off of power.

Again, I don't disagree with anything you said there. That said, the based on the evidende we have, degree of corruption still doesn't come close to what we're seeing from the Trump regime. Moreover, it is reasonable to infer that a man with investments in over 500 businesses is gonna have the most conflict of interests ever. Then when you add in a life-long career of conning and corruption in the private sector and you have an exceptionally corrupt regime.

 

[CiG]

don't think anyone wants a hot war with Russia and don't think Trump is preventing one, either

Agreed.

Clinton wanted a hot war with Russia, I'd bet on it. She's extremely hawkish and wanting the no fly zones she wanted would mean directly engaging with Russia in a battle.

http://therationalists.org/2016/10/22/hillary-wants-war/

Ignore for a moment that these clowns think there is a difference between imposing a no fly zone and controlling airspace over Syria.

For us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.

Hillary Clinton reiterated her desire for the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone in Syria at the third presidential debate, saying it "could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict" even as she insisted she understood the "really legitimate concerns" about such an action drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict (as Chris Wallace noted that President Obama worried) or start a war with Russia and Syria (as Wallace noted that the joint chief of staff chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, worried).

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/20/clinton-insists-syria-no-fly-zone-would

In her remarks to Goldman Sachs, Clinton pointed to the Syrian government’s air defense systems, and noted that destroying them would take the lives of many Syrian civilians.

“They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians,” she said. “So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”

http://theintercept.com/2016/10/10/...tted-no-fly-zone-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians/

But no, she doesn't want a hot war with Russia at all. Surely she's just naive about foreign policy, oh wait that's apparently one of her strengths.

 

[rms]

Trump clearly has not tried nearly as hard as is predecessors.

great, we agree

Also, Carter is a 100% legitimate point to bring up, considering he's one of the few other presidents of this modern era.

it's just irrelevant and not only to presidents, we're talking in generalities of all elected officials. Reps to President, not just Presidents

as a matter of fact, they never had this level of conflict of interest

again, it's because the others are better at hiding it and you agree that he does not hide it

 

[rms]

Clinton wanted a hot war with Russia, I'd bet on it. She's extremely hawkish and wanting the no fly zones she wanted would mean directly engaging with Russia in a battle.

to be clear, i'm guessing hot = direct military conflitc as opposed to cold wars, but you can make power-plays diplomatically and not actually intend to go to war. See Obama's red line/line crossing thing in I think was Syria.

I don't think we'll see a 'hot' war between developed nations likely ever again, to be quite honest. unless the global economic system collapses, everyone loves the almighty dollar and everyone knows they aren't shit compared to us. Putin even admitted this a few months ago before Obama left office

 

[CiG]

Hopefully we never find out.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's fun watching conservative news try to salvage Trump's press conference as a bastion of resolution and strong president-ing. The left isn't going ape shit over Trump's media "smackdown" (to quote one particularly deluded anchor). They're actually trying desperately to understand what the hell they just watched, haha. Honestly, SNL doesn't need to do anything this weekend. They could just air a recording of that press conference.

 

[arg]

i support trump but i too was laughing out loud at the word salads he would toss out and how he would start a lot of his answers with how great his electoral college win was, haha

 

[CiG]

It's fun watching conservative news try to salvage Trump's press conference as a bastion of resolution and strong president-ing. The left isn't going ape shit over Trump's media "smackdown" (to quote one particularly deluded anchor). They're actually trying desperately to understand what the hell they just watched, haha. Honestly, SNL doesn't need to do anything this weekend. They could just air a recording of that press conference.

Except for the leftists hollering about Trump delegitimising the media, as if it's the government's job to legitimise the media. Frankly I find the notion to be cretinous. Fucking bring on the adversarial government v media relationship for Christ's sake.

It was hilarious though I agree, funnier than anything SNL could hope to produce. Trump is a total retard. When that reporter kept checking his claim of having the highest electoral votes ever.

 

[Einherjar86]

For me, the media is just the media. It's too complex to be any kind of conspiratorial or purposefully misleading artifice. Is it biased? Fuck yeah. Are there isolated media platforms that publish propaganda? Absolutely. But "the media," as a conglomerate of publishing platforms, isn't being orchestrated by occult left-wing Stalinists bent on America's destruction, which is what Trump is promoting (whether he believes that or not, it's pointless to discuss).

So to that extent, yes, it isn't the government's job to legitimize the media. The demand that he apologize for some obscure ethical obligation to the press is a political maneuver, nothing more.

 

[CiG]

Well, I didn't see anybody defending FOX when Obama attempted to delegitimise them, nor should anybody obviously, because the truth is media outlets deligitimise themselves by wanting the favour of the president. I respect any media outlet that isn't crawling up the asshole of the establishment and actually, you know, does their job.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah that's fair. I hate FOX, and honestly think they're far worse ideologically speaking than CNN or MSNBC; but still, there's some hypocrisy there.

 

[CiG]

Well of course you think that, as you would likely see much more of your own views presented on CNN and MSNBC.

I'm the opposite, but I acknowledge that they're all fucking terrible, CNN and MSNBC destroyed their credibility especially with shilling for Hillary and FOX literally turned into the Trump network so what can I say. Reform journalism and teach people that opinion shows like CNN and FOX are not news.

 

[Einherjar86]

It depends on the person, honestly. There are people on CNN and MSNBC that I can't stand (Wolf Blitzer and Chis Matthews stand out), but there are people on FOX that I loathe (namely Eric Bolling and Jesse Watters--couple of fucking sycophants and bullshit rakers). And there are some people on FOX that I don't mind, although that doesn't mean I find them newsworthy.

You're right that major cable news networks aren't sufficient as "the news." Especially with the availability of internet today, corroboration is important.

 

[CiG]

All these networks do is recycle talking points and have different pundits opine on them. I mean, you know journalism is dying when you can fill hours of "news" with nothing but things sourced from Twitter.

I hate pretty much everybody I've seen working at those 3 networks, especially because they're all so interchangeable. I appreciate it when they try to host a debate but that's even losing its appeal because there aren't that many interesting people around to debate each other, that want to. It's a shitshow, but I am pretty cynical. I've also been reading a lot of Orwell lately.