Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Housing-gate continues

Topic:  RE: Housing-gate continues
Author
Message
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 10:48:20 AM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
I think itís fair to say that both sides have lost any credibility after this past election.


Why is this fair to say? What did the left do to lose credibility last election?

There's a very big difference between a party nominating an unlikable candidate and what's happening on the right. The constant lies, attacks on the constitution, blatant racism and desire to avoid any and all oversight by this current administration's killing the Right's credibility. "Both sidesing" this is crazy.



Itís fair to say because if youíve done any research youíd see all of the corrupt things both sides have done. Based on your post youíre on the lefts team. You are only seeing the corrupt things the right wingers have done and have no interest in looking into anything corrupt the right has done. Itís a joke. Do research! Itís easy. Go on google or if you donít like reading listen to some podcast. Iím not saying the right hasnít donít bad things. They have, theyíre full of it, but hey guess what?! So have the left. Why canít we realize that when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are our choices to pick between presidents, that the supply chain of our democracy is broken. We need a 3rd party. If you still disagree with me and donít want to do the research yourself then just say so and I will come up with a whole list of reasons the left and right are corrupt.


Sorry man, you're gonna have to provide some evidence. That's how arguments work. You have an opinion, you provide support for it. Otherwise, you're just perpetuating the exact problem you're railing against. Here you are saying that partisanship is killing our democracy and when I ask you what you think the left's done to lose credibility you accuse me of. . .partisanship. I asked you a specific question: you responded by 1) accusing me of blind partisanship and 2) being uninformed.

You see the inconsistency with your point, right?

What should I research? What, specifically, do you think points to corruption on the left?

Last Edited: 5/7/2018 10:54:45 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 11:24:32 AM 
Fair enough. Give me a little bit of time and I will find a whole host of things.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 12:11:55 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Fair enough. Give me a little bit of time and I will find a whole host of things.


To be clear, Democrats have been involved of plenty of scandals. What I'm getting at is that they haven't simultaneously waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them.

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 4:38:07 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Fair enough. Give me a little bit of time and I will find a whole host of things.


To be clear, Democrats have been involved of plenty of scandals. What I'm getting at is that they haven't simultaneously waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them.



Well you just proved my earlier point. I'll still go super in depth because I feel like it will be needed.

To my earlier point you challenged me on what the left has done to lose the trust of the country... You just said they have been involved in a lot of scandals. That alone should be enough to lose the trust of the country. The only reason it hasn't is because the right has been involved in just as many scandals. Your second point about them "haven't simultaneously waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them." just isn't true.

Why isn't that true? Honestly I don't even know where to began and this will take awhile. Lets just start with this past election. My goal here is to convince you that both the political parties are corrupt and we need a third. You disagree and think only the right needs to change. So let's just take this issue by issue based on this past election.

For Hilary. Here is a link to her platform that she ran on from her website. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues /

Ok First she has.....

A fair tax system
Making sure the wealthy, Wall Street, and corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

Alright this is painful for me to hear from her. She talks about making sure the wealthy and wall street pay their fair share in taxes. Yet isn't this the same lady who gets paid half a million per speech from wall street bankers.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clin...

Here is the link. Look she never released the transcripts from these speeches and even if she did can't you see the problem here. They're giving her money so she can get into office. Once she is in office don't you think there is a high chance that she will think "hey they scratched my back so I'll scratch theirs."
Not to mention that we don't need more tax revenue. We have a spending problem. We need to cut the size of our fed. People already pay to much in taxs. Let capitalism prevail. Also wasn't she one of the people pushing for a bailout back in 08

SMH.... Corrupt

Next we have

Addiction and substance use
Through improved treatment, prevention, and training, we can end this quiet epidemic once and for all.

This on gets me even more pissed off. This lady has been in offices for how long? Yet the war on drugs is still going on. She could've stopped this issue a long time ago. We have spent years trying to stop drugs from coming into this country and what has happened?? It has made things worse. Just like with alcohol if you make it illegal you create a black market for these substances which increase crime as well as make it more difficult for the people with these issues to get help. Not to mention by making it illegal you see police officers discriminating against minorities and create a whole job market off our prison system which we have to pay for in taxes.

SMH....... Corrupt

Next we have

An economy that works for everyone
We need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.

Can't argue with this but notice how she doesn't say how to do this... Hey maybe cutting taxes and making drugs legal would help

An end to Alzheimerís disease
We can prevent, effectively treat, and make an Alzheimerís cure possible by 2025.

Cool but again she's not a scientist and outside of taxes us more I don't see how she gets this done. This should be done by private companies. Which unfortunately if you look at the pharma industry pumping opioids into our streets is also corrupt. Something she never dealt with in her long time in government.

Autism
Millions of Americans live with autismóand weíve got to do more to support them and their families.

This is cool

Campaign finance reform
Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.

Yes but my god who is less guilty of this than her.

Campus sexual assault
Itís not enough to condemn campus sexual assault. We need to end it.

I agree with this but I will say I don't like the way the left has viewed men in recent history. Google Jordan Peterson and he will let you know the truth about what theyre doing.

Climate change
Taking on the threat of climate change and making America the worldís clean energy superpower.

This is cool.

Combating terrorism and keeping the homeland safe
Itís not enough to contain ISIS and the threat of terrorismówe have to defeat it.

She created ISIS when she was in office with Obama. Terrible foreign policy.

Also didn't she vote for the Iraq war?? The most important vote of her career and she screws it up.... Yet this is the best choice the left can muster. How was she not destroyed in her debates on this? Maybe because the DNC wanted her to win?? Shout out to Bernie

Criminal justice reform
Our criminal justice system is out of balance.

Yes but it's because of drug criminalization which you have kept in place.

Disability rights
We must continue to expand opportunities for Americans with disabilities.

this is cool

Early childhood education
Every child deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential.

This is cool

Fixing Americaís infrastructure
Strong infrastructure is critical to a strong economy.

This is cool

Gun violence prevention
We canóand mustóend the epidemic of gun violence.

This isn't cool. She consistently attacks the second amendment which isn't the problem. We need to fix mental health. She has done nothing to do this.

Health care
Universal, quality, affordable health care for everyone in America

Don't know enough about it but it seems as if this is another issue where neither side will listen to eachother.

HIV and AIDS
We have reached a critical moment in our fight against HIV and AIDS.

This is a pretty random health choice to pick. much has been done to fight this... Why not talk about opioids. Maybe because she is corrupt

Housing
We need housing policies that connect working families to opportunity.

Yes but how will you get this done

Immigration reform
We need comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship.

How

Jobs and wages
We can make the boldest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II.

how

K-12 education
Strong public education is the key to preparing our children for the future.

how. and she has been in office again for 20 + years and our schools don't seem any better

Labor and workersí rights
When unions are strong, America is strong.

meh

LGBT rights and equality
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans deserve to live their lives free from discrimination.

This is cool

Making college debt-free and taking on student debt
Hillary will make debt-free college available to everyone and take on student loan debt.

Who will pay for this

Manufacturing
Hillary Clintonís plan to strengthen manufacturing so we always ďMake it in America.Ē

She stole this from trump and barely campaigned in the Midwest. Which has been hurt bad in the manufacturing decline. Many people here blame nafta which her husband voted for. She has no credibility on this subject.

Mental health
We have to address the mental health crisis in America and end the stigma and shame associated with treatment.

Yes

Military and defense
We should maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, and strongest military the world has ever known.

yes but we spend way to much on it. We have to cut spending here. Also making drugs legal would help vets with ptsd which again she didn't campaign on and never worked on fixing during her political career. Even though anyone who is making their decisions on facts and not corruption would have never supported drugs being illegal.

National security
With policies that keep us strong and safe, America will lead the world in the 21st century.

created isis with Obama

Ok I'm exhausted. The rest are more just quotes than issues, but you're up. What do you think? I'll hit on trump and the rights problems tomorrow but if you see all these problems with Hillary and still rig her into getting the party nomination then how could I possible support you and you're party. You're on a team. You don't care about the problems with your candidate you just care about the problems with the other teams candidate.

Feel free to question any of my points.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 5:23:24 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Fair enough. Give me a little bit of time and I will find a whole host of things.


To be clear, Democrats have been involved of plenty of scandals. What I'm getting at is that they haven't simultaneously waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them.



TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Well you just proved my earlier point. I'll still go super in depth because I feel like it will be needed.

To my earlier point you challenged me on what the left has done to lose the trust of the country... You just said they have been involved in a lot of scandals. That alone should be enough to lose the trust of the country. The only reason it hasn't is because the right has been involved in just as many scandals. Your second point about them "haven't simultaneously waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them." just isn't true.

Why isn't that true? Honestly I don't even know where to began and this will take awhile. Lets just start with this past election. My goal here is to convince you that both the political parties are corrupt and we need a third. You disagree and think only the right needs to change. So let's just take this issue by issue based on this past election.


First things first, you're not categorizing what I think fairly. Nothing about what I've said indicates that "only the right needs to change" or that we couldn't benefit from additional parties. I'm more than happy to have this conversation with you, but let's just agree to some terms up front. Namely that you have this conversation with me, based on things I'm saying. Don't have this conversation with some idea of a liberal you think you know. Have it with me. Engage with what I say and don't assume beliefs on my behalf. The Democratic party is a mess. I support them only because the options available are terrible. I'm very critical of them.

Next: you didn't actually address my points. I said that the right (namely Trump has "waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them
"
You didn't address ay of that. All I need to do is quote any of the two dozen tweets where Trump attacks the FBI and claims fake news. That's damaging for the Right's credibility, because much of it has been obviously demonstrated to be lies.

For Hilary. Here is a link to her platform that she ran on from her website. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues /

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Ok First she has.....

A fair tax system
Making sure the wealthy, Wall Street, and corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

Alright this is painful for me to hear from her. She talks about making sure the wealthy and wall street pay their fair share in taxes. Yet isn't this the same lady who gets paid half a million per speech from wall street bankers.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clin...

Here is the link. Look she never released the transcripts from these speeches and even if she did can't you see the problem here. They're giving her money so she can get into office. Once she is in office don't you think there is a high chance that she will think "hey they scratched my back so I'll scratch theirs."
Not to mention that we don't need more tax revenue. We have a spending problem. We need to cut the size of our fed. People already pay to much in taxs. Let capitalism prevail. Also wasn't she one of the people pushing for a bailout back in 08

SMH.... Corrupt


That's actually just hypothetical corruption. You're suggesting that because of her ties to Wall Street she likely wouldn't have made true on her campaign promises around taxes. Maybe that's true; but until it's the case, it's not corruption. Honestly, more that anything it just sounds like you disagree with Clinton on tax policy and that you think she's a hypocrit. Those things are both fine. But they're not corruption.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Next we have

Addiction and substance use
Through improved treatment, prevention, and training, we can end this quiet epidemic once and for all.

This on gets me even more pissed off. This lady has been in offices for how long? Yet the war on drugs is still going on. She could've stopped this issue a long time ago. We have spent years trying to stop drugs from coming into this country and what has happened?? It has made things worse. Just like with alcohol if you make it illegal you create a black market for these substances which increase crime as well as make it more difficult for the people with these issues to get help. Not to mention by making it illegal you see police officers discriminating against minorities and create a whole job market off our prison system which we have to pay for in taxes.

SMH....... Corrupt


In which role in government did Hillary Clinton have the ability to end the war on drugs? I admit it's been a while since I took a civics class, but it seems a but disingenuous to lay that at her feet. I hate the war on drugs, too. It's been unquestionably bad for our country. Trump seems to be doubling down on it. He's also doubling down on private prisons, and wants to implement the DEATH PENALTY for drug dealers. Don't get me wrong: as a country we have a terrible history on this. Both parties have a ton of blood on their hands here. But again, this just seems like a policy disagreement. Not sure where I see the corruption.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Next we have

An economy that works for everyone
We need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.

Can't argue with this but notice how she doesn't say how to do this... Hey maybe cutting taxes and making drugs legal would help


Okay, so you disagree with her on tax policy/drugs. That's fine.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

An end to Alzheimerís disease
We can prevent, effectively treat, and make an Alzheimerís cure possible by 2025.

Cool but again she's not a scientist and outside of taxes us more I don't see how she gets this done. This should be done by private companies. Which unfortunately if you look at the pharma industry pumping opioids into our streets is also corrupt. Something she never dealt with in her long time in government.


Not really sure what's happening here, honestly. Again, it mostly sounds like you just really dislike Clinton. Which is fair. But how are we any closer to proving corruption?

Autism
Millions of Americans live with autismóand weíve got to do more to support them and their families.

This is cool

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Campaign finance reform
Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.

Yes but my god who is less guilty of this than her.


Everybody who supported Citizens United is more guilty of this than her.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Campus sexual assault
Itís not enough to condemn campus sexual assault. We need to end it.

I agree with this but I will say I don't like the way the left has viewed men in recent history. Google Jordan Peterson and he will let you know the truth about what theyre doing.

I know who Jordan Peterson is. For every good point he makes, he makes twelve bad ones. The notion that 'the left' views men negatively is not really worth dignifying with much thought. So I'll just say this: holy shit do we as a society need to stop acting like victims of oppression constantly.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Combating terrorism and keeping the homeland safe
Itís not enough to contain ISIS and the threat of terrorismówe have to defeat it.

She created ISIS when she was in office with Obama. Terrible foreign policy.

Also didn't she vote for the Iraq war?? The most important vote of her career and she screws it up.... Yet this is the best choice the left can muster. How was she not destroyed in her debates on this? Maybe because the DNC wanted her to win?? Shout out to Bernie


Our Middle East foreign policy has been bad, I dunno, forever. We **** up everything we touch there. Do I think Obama and Hillary played more of a role than George W. Bush, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, etc? Nope. What I think is that our country has a shitty propensity for war and that we've played a role in destabilizing an entire region. We've created the enemy for ourselves. That was true of Al Qaeda during the Bush admin and it's true of ISIS now. It'll be true of whatever comes out of Libya and Syria next, and if the Trump admin gets their way, Iran after that.


TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Health care
Universal, quality, affordable health care for everyone in America

Don't know enough about it but it seems as if this is another issue where neither side will listen to each other.


Agreed.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

HIV and AIDS
We have reached a critical moment in our fight against HIV and AIDS.

This is a pretty random health choice to pick. much has been done to fight this... Why not talk about opioids. Maybe because she is corrupt


She already addressed addiction and drug use above. You dismissed it. The reason HIV/AIDS is at a critical juncture is that we have the resources to eliminate it now.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Housing
We need housing policies that connect working families to opportunity.

Yes but how will you get this done

Immigration reform
We need comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship.

How

Jobs and wages
We can make the boldest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II.

how

K-12 education
Strong public education is the key to preparing our children for the future.

how. and she has been in office again for 20 + years and our schools don't seem any better


You seem to mainly be complaining about her website design. Do you expect each of these talking points to include deeply researched policy?


TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Making college debt-free and taking on student debt
Hillary will make debt-free college available to everyone and take on student loan debt.

Who will pay for this


To be fair, she suggested changes to the tax code. You didn't like them. Taxes would, theoretically pay for this.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Manufacturing
Hillary Clintonís plan to strengthen manufacturing so we always ďMake it in America.Ē

She stole this from trump and barely campaigned in the Midwest. Which has been hurt bad in the manufacturing decline. Many people here blame nafta which her husband voted for. She has no credibility on this subject.


She handled this issue incredibly poorly, I agree.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
Ok I'm exhausted. The rest are more just quotes than issues, but you're up. What do you think? I'll hit on trump and the rights problems tomorrow but if you see all these problems with Hillary and still rig her into getting the party nomination then how could I possible support you and you're party. You're on a team. You don't care about the problems with your candidate you just care about the problems with the other teams candidate.

Feel free to question any of my points.


Again, nowhere did I claim the left is perfect. Nor do I think Hilary was a perfect candidate. As you point out, there were a ton of issues with her.

The point I'm making about the right -- and when I say the right, I'm talking specifically about the right since the rise of Trump -- is that in addition to shitty policy (and to be clear, I'm acknowledging shitty policy on the left, too) they've also begun to wage a systematic war on governmental oversight. Trump's attacks on the "deep state", his criticisms of FBI and CIA agents, his continued insistence that stories that are unfavorable are "fake news" -- that is all about providing a framework in which his administration can operate without oversight. He lies constantly, and nobody seems to care. When the news is unfavorable, it's fake. When a story breaks, it's fake.

I understand where you're coming from about the left's credibility issues, but it's unquestionable to be that the Trump administration has doubled down on lying and deception as common practice.

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 6:24:26 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Fair enough. Give me a little bit of time and I will find a whole host of things.


To be clear, Democrats have been involved of plenty of scandals. What I'm getting at is that they haven't simultaneously waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them.



TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Well you just proved my earlier point. I'll still go super in depth because I feel like it will be needed.

To my earlier point you challenged me on what the left has done to lose the trust of the country... You just said they have been involved in a lot of scandals. That alone should be enough to lose the trust of the country. The only reason it hasn't is because the right has been involved in just as many scandals. Your second point about them "haven't simultaneously waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them." just isn't true.

Why isn't that true? Honestly I don't even know where to began and this will take awhile. Lets just start with this past election. My goal here is to convince you that both the political parties are corrupt and we need a third. You disagree and think only the right needs to change. So let's just take this issue by issue based on this past election.


First things first, you're not categorizing what I think fairly. Nothing about what I've said indicates that "only the right needs to change" or that we couldn't benefit from additional parties. I'm more than happy to have this conversation with you, but let's just agree to some terms up front. Namely that you have this conversation with me, based on things I'm saying. Don't have this conversation with some idea of a liberal you think you know. Have it with me. Engage with what I say and don't assume beliefs on my behalf. The Democratic party is a mess. I support them only because the options available are terrible. I'm very critical of them.

Next: you didn't actually address my points. I said that the right (namely Trump has "waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them
"
You didn't address ay of that. All I need to do is quote any of the two dozen tweets where Trump attacks the FBI and claims fake news. That's damaging for the Right's credibility, because much of it has been obviously demonstrated to be lies.

For Hilary. Here is a link to her platform that she ran on from her website. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues /

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Ok First she has.....

A fair tax system
Making sure the wealthy, Wall Street, and corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

Alright this is painful for me to hear from her. She talks about making sure the wealthy and wall street pay their fair share in taxes. Yet isn't this the same lady who gets paid half a million per speech from wall street bankers.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clin...

Here is the link. Look she never released the transcripts from these speeches and even if she did can't you see the problem here. They're giving her money so she can get into office. Once she is in office don't you think there is a high chance that she will think "hey they scratched my back so I'll scratch theirs."
Not to mention that we don't need more tax revenue. We have a spending problem. We need to cut the size of our fed. People already pay to much in taxs. Let capitalism prevail. Also wasn't she one of the people pushing for a bailout back in 08

SMH.... Corrupt


That's actually just hypothetical corruption. You're suggesting that because of her ties to Wall Street she likely wouldn't have made true on her campaign promises around taxes. Maybe that's true; but until it's the case, it's not corruption. Honestly, more that anything it just sounds like you disagree with Clinton on tax policy and that you think she's a hypocrit. Those things are both fine. But they're not corruption.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Next we have

Addiction and substance use
Through improved treatment, prevention, and training, we can end this quiet epidemic once and for all.

This on gets me even more pissed off. This lady has been in offices for how long? Yet the war on drugs is still going on. She could've stopped this issue a long time ago. We have spent years trying to stop drugs from coming into this country and what has happened?? It has made things worse. Just like with alcohol if you make it illegal you create a black market for these substances which increase crime as well as make it more difficult for the people with these issues to get help. Not to mention by making it illegal you see police officers discriminating against minorities and create a whole job market off our prison system which we have to pay for in taxes.

SMH....... Corrupt


In which role in government did Hillary Clinton have the ability to end the war on drugs? I admit it's been a while since I took a civics class, but it seems a but disingenuous to lay that at her feet. I hate the war on drugs, too. It's been unquestionably bad for our country. Trump seems to be doubling down on it. He's also doubling down on private prisons, and wants to implement the DEATH PENALTY for drug dealers. Don't get me wrong: as a country we have a terrible history on this. Both parties have a ton of blood on their hands here. But again, this just seems like a policy disagreement. Not sure where I see the corruption.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Next we have

An economy that works for everyone
We need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.

Can't argue with this but notice how she doesn't say how to do this... Hey maybe cutting taxes and making drugs legal would help


Okay, so you disagree with her on tax policy/drugs. That's fine.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

An end to Alzheimerís disease
We can prevent, effectively treat, and make an Alzheimerís cure possible by 2025.

Cool but again she's not a scientist and outside of taxes us more I don't see how she gets this done. This should be done by private companies. Which unfortunately if you look at the pharma industry pumping opioids into our streets is also corrupt. Something she never dealt with in her long time in government.


Not really sure what's happening here, honestly. Again, it mostly sounds like you just really dislike Clinton. Which is fair. But how are we any closer to proving corruption?

Autism
Millions of Americans live with autismóand weíve got to do more to support them and their families.

This is cool

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Campaign finance reform
Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.

Yes but my god who is less guilty of this than her.


Everybody who supported Citizens United is more guilty of this than her.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Campus sexual assault
Itís not enough to condemn campus sexual assault. We need to end it.

I agree with this but I will say I don't like the way the left has viewed men in recent history. Google Jordan Peterson and he will let you know the truth about what theyre doing.

I know who Jordan Peterson is. For every good point he makes, he makes twelve bad ones. The notion that 'the left' views men negatively is not really worth dignifying with much thought. So I'll just say this: holy shit do we as a society need to stop acting like victims of oppression constantly.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Combating terrorism and keeping the homeland safe
Itís not enough to contain ISIS and the threat of terrorismówe have to defeat it.

She created ISIS when she was in office with Obama. Terrible foreign policy.

Also didn't she vote for the Iraq war?? The most important vote of her career and she screws it up.... Yet this is the best choice the left can muster. How was she not destroyed in her debates on this? Maybe because the DNC wanted her to win?? Shout out to Bernie


Our Middle East foreign policy has been bad, I dunno, forever. We **** up everything we touch there. Do I think Obama and Hillary played more of a role than George W. Bush, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, etc? Nope. What I think is that our country has a shitty propensity for war and that we've played a role in destabilizing an entire region. We've created the enemy for ourselves. That was true of Al Qaeda during the Bush admin and it's true of ISIS now. It'll be true of whatever comes out of Libya and Syria next, and if the Trump admin gets their way, Iran after that.


TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Health care
Universal, quality, affordable health care for everyone in America

Don't know enough about it but it seems as if this is another issue where neither side will listen to each other.


Agreed.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

HIV and AIDS
We have reached a critical moment in our fight against HIV and AIDS.

This is a pretty random health choice to pick. much has been done to fight this... Why not talk about opioids. Maybe because she is corrupt


She already addressed addiction and drug use above. You dismissed it. The reason HIV/AIDS is at a critical juncture is that we have the resources to eliminate it now.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Housing
We need housing policies that connect working families to opportunity.

Yes but how will you get this done

Immigration reform
We need comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship.

How

Jobs and wages
We can make the boldest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II.

how

K-12 education
Strong public education is the key to preparing our children for the future.

how. and she has been in office again for 20 + years and our schools don't seem any better


You seem to mainly be complaining about her website design. Do you expect each of these talking points to include deeply researched policy?


TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Making college debt-free and taking on student debt
Hillary will make debt-free college available to everyone and take on student loan debt.

Who will pay for this


To be fair, she suggested changes to the tax code. You didn't like them. Taxes would, theoretically pay for this.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Manufacturing
Hillary Clintonís plan to strengthen manufacturing so we always ďMake it in America.Ē

She stole this from trump and barely campaigned in the Midwest. Which has been hurt bad in the manufacturing decline. Many people here blame nafta which her husband voted for. She has no credibility on this subject.


She handled this issue incredibly poorly, I agree.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
Ok I'm exhausted. The rest are more just quotes than issues, but you're up. What do you think? I'll hit on trump and the rights problems tomorrow but if you see all these problems with Hillary and still rig her into getting the party nomination then how could I possible support you and you're party. You're on a team. You don't care about the problems with your candidate you just care about the problems with the other teams candidate.

Feel free to question any of my points.


Again, nowhere did I claim the left is perfect. Nor do I think Hilary was a perfect candidate. As you point out, there were a ton of issues with her.

The point I'm making about the right -- and when I say the right, I'm talking specifically about the right since the rise of Trump -- is that in addition to shitty policy (and to be clear, I'm acknowledging shitty policy on the left, too) they've also begun to wage a systematic war on governmental oversight. Trump's attacks on the "deep state", his criticisms of FBI and CIA agents, his continued insistence that stories that are unfavorable are "fake news" -- that is all about providing a framework in which his administration can operate without oversight. He lies constantly, and nobody seems to care. When the news is unfavorable, it's fake. When a story breaks, it's fake.

I understand where you're coming from about the left's credibility issues, but it's unquestionable to be that the Trump administration has doubled down on lying and deception as common practice.



Ok yes so I donít get why you disagreed with my original post. I roughly said both the left and right are both corrupt and we need a 3rd party. Do you not think that if both parties are corrupt then we need a new one?
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 6:33:22 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
I think itís fair to say that both sides have lost any credibility after this past election.


Why is this fair to say? What did the left do to lose credibility last election?

There's a very big difference between a party nominating an unlikable candidate and what's happening on the right. The constant lies, attacks on the constitution, blatant racism and desire to avoid any and all oversight by this current administration's killing the Right's credibility. "Both sidesing" this is crazy.

The President claims, regularly, a deep state cabal is trying to overthrow him. He lies constantly. He endorsed Roy Moore. There's currently a GOP candidate in West Virginia who stands a very good chance of winning the primary who is running a blatantly racist campaign and claims the government blew up a mine in West Virginia killing 29 people.



lets focus on this. You agree that the left and the right is corrupt. Even if there is a difference between how theyíre corrupt theyíre both still corrupt. We need a new party.

As far as his constant lies that doesnít really bother me. Havenít both sides been lying for years. I kinda agree with him on fake news too. All of the major networks are terrible. You should stop watching them and go to YouTube instead. They put two people on a panel to discuss an issue that neither have an expertise in and then they put up straw men of eachother arguments. There are places where the news still reports the facts but two often it is twisted into using a single correct fact on a multi level issue, that is then turned into a opinion on the issue, without addressing the other components of it. CNN is waging a war on the right just like fox is waging a war on the left. And as this happens the country gets pulled farther and farther apart.

I get what youíre saying that what the right is doing is dangerous but I would argue theyíre doing it because their base feels disenfranchised and the media refuses to achnolegde the true reason why Hillary lost. instead of accepting all the flaws you and me agree Hillary had they just blames it on trump and racism.

Last Edited: 5/7/2018 6:37:58 PM by TheBobcatBandit

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 6:39:36 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit] I think itís fair to say that both sides have lost any credibility after this past election.


Why is this fair to say? What did the left do to lose credibility last election?

There's a very big difference between a party nominating an unlikable candidate and what's happening on the right. The constant lies, attacks on the constitution, blatant racism and desire to avoid any and all oversight by this current administration's killing the Right's credibility. "Both sidesing" this is crazy.

The President claims, regularly, a deep state cabal is trying to overthrow him. He lies constantly. He endorsed Roy Moore. There's currently a GOP candidate in West Virginia who stands a very good chance of winning the primary who is running a blatantly racist campaign and claims the government blew up a mine in West Virginia killing 29 people.



lets focus on this. You agree that the left and the right is corrupt. Even if there is a difference between how theyíre corrupt, theyíre both still corrupt. Wouldnt corruption be good grounds for a new party?

As far as his constant lies that doesnít really bother me. Havenít both sides been lying for years. I kinda agree with him on fake news too. All of the major networks are terrible. You should stop watching them and go to YouTube instead. They put two people on a panel to discuss an issue that neither have an expertise in and then they put up straw men of eachother arguments. There are places where the news still reports the facts but two often it is twisted into using a single correct fact on a multi level issue, that is then turned into a opinion on the issue, without addressing the other components of it. CNN is waging a war on the right just like fox is waging a war on the left. And as this happens the country gets pulled farther and farther apart.

I get what youíre saying that what the right is doing is dangerous but I would argue theyíre doing it because their base feels disenfranchised and the media refuses to achnolegde the true reason why Hillary lost. instead of accepting all the flaws you and me both agree Hillary had, they just blame it on trump and racism.




Last Edited: 5/7/2018 6:48:22 PM by TheBobcatBandit

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 7:55:47 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit] I think itís fair to say that both sides have lost any credibility after this past election.


Why is this fair to say? What did the left do to lose credibility last election?

There's a very big difference between a party nominating an unlikable candidate and what's happening on the right. The constant lies, attacks on the constitution, blatant racism and desire to avoid any and all oversight by this current administration's killing the Right's credibility. "Both sidesing" this is crazy.

The President claims, regularly, a deep state cabal is trying to overthrow him. He lies constantly. He endorsed Roy Moore. There's currently a GOP candidate in West Virginia who stands a very good chance of winning the primary who is running a blatantly racist campaign and claims the government blew up a mine in West Virginia killing 29 people.



lets focus on this. You agree that the left and the right is corrupt. Even if there is a difference between how theyíre corrupt, theyíre both still corrupt. Wouldnt corruption be good grounds for a new party?

As far as his constant lies that doesnít really bother me. Havenít both sides been lying for years. I kinda agree with him on fake news too. All of the major networks are terrible. You should stop watching them and go to YouTube instead. They put two people on a panel to discuss an issue that neither have an expertise in and then they put up straw men of eachother arguments. There are places where the news still reports the facts but two often it is twisted into using a single correct fact on a multi level issue, that is then turned into a opinion on the issue, without addressing the other components of it. CNN is waging a war on the right just like fox is waging a war on the left. And as this happens the country gets pulled farther and farther apart.

I get what youíre saying that what the right is doing is dangerous but I would argue theyíre doing it because their base feels disenfranchised and the media refuses to achnolegde the true reason why Hillary lost. instead of accepting all the flaws you and me both agree Hillary had, they just blame it on trump and racism.


First, I never argued against the idea of another party. There are, in fact, already other parties. I've voted for some of them. You're having an argument I'm not. Bring on more parties. I'm all for that.

Second, The media has discussed, ad nauseam, the reasons Hillary lost. We have been treated to profile after profile of Trump voters and been lectured about 'the bubble' on the coasts non-stop since Trump won. There isn't a news source in the country that hasn't talked about manufacturing jobs or Hillary's failure to connect in the Midwest. Literally everything you wrote above has been covered in relation to the campaign by the "fake news media" you kind of agree with Trump on. It is, in fact, the mainstream narrative.

The notion that the media refuses to acknowledge the true reason Hillary lost is blatantly false. Full stop. There's not a reasonable argument to made otherwise. I could spend the next 48 hours doing nothing but posting links from main stream news sources that address all of Clinton's weaknesses and are endlessly critical of her campaign and not even post a quarter of them. Journalists from those mainstream sources have written books -- literally hundreds of books -- about exactly what you're saying they won't admit. There have been a hundred thousand think pieces and millions of tweets. It's a subject anybody with a pulse has digested from a dozen different news sources both mainstream and on YouTube.

There is no rational argument that the media's ignored that and wants to make Trump's win solely about racism. There is, however, a very rational argument to be made that the world's a multi-faceted, complicated place and sometimes many things are true at once. Trump unquestionably stoked racial resentment and racism in America's now far more emboldened than it's been in decades. Not everybody who voted for Trump is racist. Many did so for legitimate reasons. But Trump spoke to people's misguided views on race. He brought those people into the tent and gave them a louder voice. And when Trump supporters refuse to reckon with that fact it makes them just as hypocritical as the politicians they hate so much.

The same is true with constantly excusing Trump's lies. They don't bother you so much, but they should. He calls facts lies and insists that to be the case even when ample evidence is presented otherwise. And you let him get away with it because you disagree with CNN's editorial choices. It's corrosive to democracy. If you hate the news networks, don't watch the news networks. But that's not a good reason to look the other way when the President spits on the ****ing constitution. Or when racists are emboldened by his rhetoric.

In no uncertain terms: ignoring that makes you a hypocrite. You just spent 600 words pointing out all of Hillary's policy inconsistencies as a means of demonstrating how they inform your own cynicism about politicians. And then you turn around a post later and dismiss Trump's lies because you're cynical about the media, too. His lies increase public cynicism in both media and politicians. It's just lies on top of lies on top of lies: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/04/13/trumps-l... .

We should hold our politicians accountable. Instead, we make excuses for them. Your excusing Trump's lies is no different than a Hillary voter ignoring her hypocrisy about Wall Street. We should call out bullshit whenever we see it. What other politicians have done in the past shouldn't be relevant and what another politician might have done had she been elected most certainly isn't relevant.



Last Edited: 5/7/2018 8:03:45 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 5,188

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 7:59:02 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Fair enough. Give me a little bit of time and I will find a whole host of things.


To be clear, Democrats have been involved of plenty of scandals. What I'm getting at is that they haven't simultaneously waged a war on law enforcement, the free press, etc. in an attempt to convince the country that their misdeeds aren't, in fact, misdeeds but rather the world's in conspiracy against them.



Nor have they publicly stated that they will not pass one piece of legislation the President wants.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 9:58:35 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit] I think itís fair to say that both sides have lost any credibility after this past election.


Why is this fair to say? What did the left do to lose credibility last election?

There's a very big difference between a party nominating an unlikable candidate and what's happening on the right. The constant lies, attacks on the constitution, blatant racism and desire to avoid any and all oversight by this current administration's killing the Right's credibility. "Both sidesing" this is crazy.

The President claims, regularly, a deep state cabal is trying to overthrow him. He lies constantly. He endorsed Roy Moore. There's currently a GOP candidate in West Virginia who stands a very good chance of winning the primary who is running a blatantly racist campaign and claims the government blew up a mine in West Virginia killing 29 people.



lets focus on this. You agree that the left and the right is corrupt. Even if there is a difference between how theyíre corrupt, theyíre both still corrupt. Wouldnt corruption be good grounds for a new party?

As far as his constant lies that doesnít really bother me. Havenít both sides been lying for years. I kinda agree with him on fake news too. All of the major networks are terrible. You should stop watching them and go to YouTube instead. They put two people on a panel to discuss an issue that neither have an expertise in and then they put up straw men of eachother arguments. There are places where the news still reports the facts but two often it is twisted into using a single correct fact on a multi level issue, that is then turned into a opinion on the issue, without addressing the other components of it. CNN is waging a war on the right just like fox is waging a war on the left. And as this happens the country gets pulled farther and farther apart.

I get what youíre saying that what the right is doing is dangerous but I would argue theyíre doing it because their base feels disenfranchised and the media refuses to achnolegde the true reason why Hillary lost. instead of accepting all the flaws you and me both agree Hillary had, they just blame it on trump and racism.


First, I never argued against the idea of another party. There are, in fact, already other parties. I've voted for some of them. You're having an argument I'm not. Bring on more parties. I'm all for that.

Second, The media has discussed, ad nauseam, the reasons Hillary lost. We have been treated to profile after profile of Trump voters and been lectured about 'the bubble' on the coasts non-stop since Trump won. There isn't a news source in the country that hasn't talked about manufacturing jobs or Hillary's failure to connect in the Midwest. Literally everything you wrote above has been covered in relation to the campaign by the "fake news media" you kind of agree with Trump on. It is, in fact, the mainstream narrative.

The notion that the media refuses to acknowledge the true reason Hillary lost is blatantly false. Full stop. There's not a reasonable argument to made otherwise. I could spend the next 48 hours doing nothing but posting links from main stream news sources that address all of Clinton's weaknesses and are endlessly critical of her campaign and not even post a quarter of them. Journalists from those mainstream sources have written books -- literally hundreds of books -- about exactly what you're saying they won't admit. There have been a hundred thousand think pieces and millions of tweets. It's a subject anybody with a pulse has digested from a dozen different news sources both mainstream and on YouTube.


Just like my point at the bottom. Itís not like nobody has addressed it. Iím sure they have. Iíve seen some of it. Yet they donít address the flaws in the news system. If you have 100 minutes of airtime and 99% of it is anti trump, sure the 1% might be talking about other things but the overwhelming message the viewer will get is the news is anti trump and thatís all they talk about. I feel like every time I turn on the news theyíre talking about trump in one way or another and itís almost always negative. When I wouldíve watched news clip about Hillary they seemed to be mostly positive. Depending on the channel. Donít you see the problems in this?


There is no rational argument that the media's ignored that and wants to make Trump's win solely about racism. There is, however, a very rational argument to be made that the world's a multi-faceted, complicated place and sometimes many things are true at once. Trump unquestionably stoked racial resentment and racism in America's now far more emboldened than it's been in decades. Not everybody who voted for Trump is racist. Many did so for legitimate reasons. But Trump spoke to people's misguided views on race. He brought those people into the tent and gave them a louder voice. And when Trump supporters refuse to reckon with that fact it makes them just as hypocritical as the politicians they hate so much.

The same is true with constantly excusing Trump's lies. They don't bother you so much, but they should. He calls facts lies and insists that to be the case even when ample evidence is presented otherwise. And you let him get away with it because you disagree with CNN's editorial choices. It's corrosive to democracy. If you hate the news networks, don't watch the news networks. But that's not a good reason to look the other way when the President spits on the ****ing constitution. Or when racists are emboldened by his rhetoric.

In no uncertain terms: ignoring that makes you a hypocrite. You just spent 600 words pointing out all of Hillary's policy inconsistencies as a means of demonstrating how they inform your own cynicism about politicians. And then you turn around a post later and dismiss Trump's lies because you're cynical about the media, too. His lies increase public cynicism in both media and politicians. It's just lies on top of lies on top of lies: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/04/13/trumps-l... .

We should hold our politicians accountable. Instead, we make excuses for them. Your excusing Trump's lies is no different than a Hillary voter ignoring her hypocrisy about Wall Street. We should call out bullshit whenever we see it. What other politicians have done in the past shouldn't be relevant and what another politician might have done had she been elected most certainly isn't relevant.





Hand face. This is exactly why a third party wonít win. Youíre proving youíre on team left. Did you not just say in replying to my original post that it isnít fair to say the left has lost credibility over past election but not the right?

Yet in later post you admit the left is corrupt and Hillary was at least a bad candidate. I donít see how you canít bridge the gap here. If theyíre corrupt and put a bad candidate on the ballot where exactly is their credibility.

So we can agree here right? Both parties suck and have lost their credibility... right?

Now in terms of fake news you again you seem like youíre on team left. I never said trump was right about what news is fake and what news isnít. Heís full of it and is on team right. Iím sure he agrees with everything fox say and you disagree with everything they say correct? Do you like Fox News cause thatís clearly fake news. Just as CNN and other networks are fake on the left. Your argument doesnít address the main point of mine. You went on a huge tangent on trump. I get it. Trump has done terrible things and is a liar. Some of his supporters are racist, I agree with you. The problem is that doesnít change that the news is fake.

There are many ways it fake. The main way is trough the host or guest of the show. They will have an argument about a peticular issue. Letís say guns. They bring on one guest who talks about pro guns and another who is against it. Depending on a number of things including how the host reacts or how smart the people debating are, there are situations where one side wins the argument and one sides loses. So the viewers watching that program will come away with a certain view on the issue based on who wins. Now you could change the channel and have the same debate but depending on who they have on or the host the side with opposite opinion on the issue will appear that they won. So again canít you see the problem here. Both people who watch the two different channels will have two different views on which argument is correct. Because of that no one will win the debate. They will go to work or school the next day and be convinced theyíre right and not listen to the other person. It just becomes the endless same arguments over an over again. Thatís a problem because one of the opinions is right. With the way the news is set up our society canít come to a consensus. How you canít see this problem and based on your post are in the news industry is laughable.

Now thatís just one way.

Another way could be this, which is what I think trump is getting at. If you have 100 minutes of airtime and 99% of it is anti trump, sure the 1% might be talking about other things but the overwhelming message the viewer will get is the news is anti trump or think trump is bad and thatís almost all they talk about. I feel like every time I turn on the news theyíre talking about trump in one way or another and itís almost always negative. Now when I wouldíve watched news clip about Hillary they seemed to be mostly positive. Depending on the channel. Yet we both know Hillary shouldnít be portrayed as a positive candidate. Yet she was. Yes trump was negotive and accurately portrayed as negative. Yet Hillary was a negotive and portrayed as a positive I would say over 50% or the time. Donít you see the problems in this?

Another problem is isnít it weird how things couldnít be better in terms of human progress in the world and yet all the news is 90% negotive.


Also in terms of supporting a lying politician and how youíre calling me hypocritical. Iím not excusing Trumps lies but if you have read any history book ever isnít it true that almost all politicians lie. So when you point out how one politician is lying and how the other million arenít it seems like you have an agenda. Thatís why itís fake. If the news was evenly distributed with its criticism then I wouldnít have a problem. Yet it isnít.

So here we are. There are a lot of problems in this country and yes trump is one of them but I really couldnít care less about trump or any of the problems being reported on the news. I want solutions to be reported on the news, and we never get to hear solutions because both the problems and solutions are not being ethically debated. This is why itís fake news. Theyíre not promoting the things they should be promoting.

Last Edited: 5/7/2018 10:06:11 PM by TheBobcatBandit

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 10:47:51 PM 
In my first post, I asked why you felt the left has lost credibility in the last election cycle. Prior to that point, the conversation here had been about the President's lies. I was thinking the point you were making about credibility was specific to lying. You explained your point further, and I agreed with much of it. I don't think the gap between those be two things is as far as you think, given the context of the conversation prior.

Your critiques of news refer to one specific medium. I don't watch cable news. On occasion, I'll watch the nightly news. Can't really speak to it's accuracy, honestly. So again, you're arguing with an idea of a liberal you think you know. But not with me. You keep insisting there are teams. You don't know me or my voting record. You don't know my political views. I admit they align more closely with the Democrats than Republicans, but that's due to lack of choice more than anything else. A venn diagram of my beliefs laid over the Democratic platform is far from a single circle.

Further, and I mean this respectively: you're a whiny little "snowflake". Seriously. I know that sounds like an insult, and I don't mean it to be. That's why I'm putting it in quotes; because it's a word that means something specific these days and I think you might recognize it. But look at your assessment of the news. It's all based on your feelings.

"I feel like every time I turn on the news theyíre talking about trump in one way or another and itís almost always negative. Now when I wouldíve watched news clip about Hillary they seemed to be mostly positive."

"Another problem is isnít it weird how things couldnít be better in terms of human progress in the world and yet all the news is 90% negotive."

"If the news was evenly distributed with its criticism then I wouldnít have a problem. Yet it isnít."

Americans have become such sniveling little ****ing babies. Everybody thinks their viewpoint or opinion deserves equal billing. Do you honestly think that Donald ****ing Trump -- a guy who has ****ed and paid off a porn star, sexually harassed a dozen women, made fun of a disabled reporter, and a million other things -- hasn't earned the coverage he's received? Do you honestly think it isn't part of his plan? He knows what he's doing. He's manipulated the media into covering nothing but him and manipulated his followers into thinking is just so very unfair that little old him get criticized so much by mean people in New York and LA who don't understand real Americans at all. That's the entire point. He wants you to feel like it's unfair. He ran an entire campaign on the fact that people feel aggrieved and disenfranchised.

You think it's the media's job to portray Trump and Clinton exactly equally? It's not. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a fair, balanced press. The press has a right as citizens to hold opinions. They have the right as publications to voice those opinions. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

That's what all of this boils down to: feelings. That's what politics is now. On the left, it's identity politics. A feeling that the world's unjust and forces of oppression are keeping the world from becoming just. And on the right? The exact same ****ing thing; the forces of oppression are just different. It's the deep state. Or the fake media. Everybody is aggrieved. The person kneeling during the National Anthem's aggrieved and the person whose feelings he hurts is equally aggrieved.

But dismissing things you don't like as 'fake' without presenting evidence isn't helpful. Insisting that 99% of the media doesn't report facts is patently ridiculous. It requires an unbelievable level of cognitive dissonance to truly believe that.

Don't get me wrong, I think you get a lot right. The news is undoubtedly set up to pit two common opinions against each other. CNN/Fox News/MSNBC, etc. are notorious for 'both sidesing' things and in the end, all that happens is that existing or pre-disposed views are reinforced. I don't disagree with that assessment. But I think that's a mere fraction of the media landscape and that smart people can and do avoid that. There's a huge gulf between 'all news is fake' and 'cable news is bad.'

I also think you are over-simplifying just a tad. I mean, in your own assessment of Clinton's policy proposals you reached the conclusion on multiple points that "you don't know how to accomplish that" or "you don't know who would pay for that", etc. And yet your expectation of the news is that they should promote solutions?

What's the solution in the Middle East? How do we make healthcare affordable and widely available to everybody who needs it? How do we end gun violence?

There's a reason these debates wage on and on. It's because they're incredibly complex, difficult problems to solve. Are the debates always ethical? Not at all. Should politicians put solutions to these problems over special interests? Of course. Do I wish the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar got more attention than the royal wedding? Yep. But there's a fundamental reason it doesn't: Americans are dumb and clamor for more coverage of the dumb stuff.

Which is all just to say: there's good news out there. A lot of it. Read the Atlantic. Watch the Vice documentary on ISIS. Look at the work Ronan Farrow is doing taking down sleazy old men. There are a dozen examples a day. Writing off all news as fake because CNN and Fox suck is like saying every school in the MAC is like Akron and Kent. It's wrong and ultimately, it just gives people who don't know any better the wrong impression.



Last Edited: 5/7/2018 11:51:38 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
gedunkman
General User



Member Since: 5/2/2018
Location: South Carolina
Post Count: 12

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 11:04:20 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
gedunkman wrote:
Just curious how you folks would react to this question: When Obama said during his campaign for re-election that he was for traditional marriage and could not support same-sex marriage was he lying? Only a few short months later, after he was re-elected, he was singing a different tune. He said his position had evolved. How many believe he was telling the truth during the campaign. How about a show of hands.


Obama was being brazenly political. The Democratic strategy was to appeal to moderates during the general, and when it became politically expedient he switched his tune back to his original 1996 stance in favor of gay marriage. His position didn't evolve, and everyone knows it. He has received a lot of criticism from the left though the outcome was ultimately just.

Not really sure what your point is. I assume we'd all agree it's shitty when politicians care more about votes than principle, right?

Also, that's a bad comparison. Obama's 2004 stance was pro-civil union and civil rights for gay couples. He also opposed the Defense of Marriage act in 2004 and consistently supported the LGBTQ community. His history of thought on gay marraige is far, far, far more consistent than Trump's on abortion.

And, of course, Obama wasn't married to a guy when he was opposing gay marriage for the votes. Another big difference.






Not sure I understand your points either. You seem to be saying Obama's lying is kind of not that big a deal because it was strategic in some sense of the word. Whereas, Trump just lies for no good reason, or that he cant tell the truth. So, when Obama said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" it was a strategic lie, and therefore in the world of US politics an acceptable lie. The ends justifies the means. It helped pass Obamacare and that makes it less morally reprehensible than a lie about whether you knew that a porn star was paid hush money. It seems to me that Obama lies about big things that affect national policy and the social fabric. Trump tends to lie about more petty things, at least petty in the sense of national implications. I don't excuse either, but you seem to have an interesting way to categorizing lies that are only slightly damnable and those that should condemn the author to damnation.

Last Edited: 5/7/2018 11:08:20 PM by gedunkman

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 11:14:45 PM 
gedunkman wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
gedunkman wrote:
Just curious how you folks would react to this question: When Obama said during his campaign for re-election that he was for traditional marriage and could not support same-sex marriage was he lying? Only a few short months later, after he was re-elected, he was singing a different tune. He said his position had evolved. How many believe he was telling the truth during the campaign. How about a show of hands.


Obama was being brazenly political. The Democratic strategy was to appeal to moderates during the general, and when it became politically expedient he switched his tune back to his original 1996 stance in favor of gay marriage. His position didn't evolve, and everyone knows it. He has received a lot of criticism from the left though the outcome was ultimately just.

Not really sure what your point is. I assume we'd all agree it's shitty when politicians care more about votes than principle, right?

Also, that's a bad comparison. Obama's 2004 stance was pro-civil union and civil rights for gay couples. He also opposed the Defense of Marriage act in 2004 and consistently supported the LGBTQ community. His history of thought on gay marraige is far, far, far more consistent than Trump's on abortion.

And, of course, Obama wasn't married to a guy when he was opposing gay marriage for the votes. Another big difference.






Not sure I understand your points either. You seem to be saying Obama's lying is kind of not that big a deal because it was strategic in some sense of the word. Whereas, Trump just lies for no good reason, or that he cant tell the truth. So, when Obama said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" it was a strategic lie, and therefore in the world of US politics an acceptable lie. The ends justifies the means. It helped pass Obamacare and that makes it less morally reprehensible than a lie about whether you knew that a porn star was paid hush money. It seems to me that Obama lies about big things that affect national policy and the social fabric. Trump tends to lie about more petty things, at least petty in the sense of national implications. I don't excuse either, but you seem to have an interesting way to categorizing lies that are only slightly damnable and those that should condemn the author to damnation.



I actually just criticized Obama, while pointing out that the outcome (gay marriage) was, in my opinion, the right one. There's plenty of other shit I'll criticize Obama for, too.

I called him brazenly political and said it's shitty when politicians care more about votes than principle. Feel free to explain how you came to the rest. Sort of confused, because I didn't say any of the things you seem to think I did. Honestly, I'm not sure how you can read what I wrote as complimentary of Obama.

You brought up Obama's evolving ideas on gay marriage, I think, as a way to demonstrate that politicians beliefs change. The point I was trying to make and probably wasn't clear about is that I don't think that's an example of evolving views. I think it's an example of political opportunism. Obama's views on gay marriage were what they needed to be to get him elected. And that's shitty. Just as it should be shitty that Trump's views on abortion 'evolved' to lock in the Evangelical vote.

I think we can all agree it would be nice to have politicians whose views weren't always evolving based on polling data.


Last Edited: 5/7/2018 11:22:01 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
gedunkman
General User



Member Since: 5/2/2018
Location: South Carolina
Post Count: 12

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/7/2018 11:21:51 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


I think we can all agree it would be nice to have politicians whose views weren't always evolving based on polling data.




A point of total agreement.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 12:29:16 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
In my first post, I asked why you felt the left has lost credibility in the last election cycle. Prior to that point, the conversation here had been about the President's lies. I was thinking the point you were making about credibility was specific to lying. You explained your point further, and I agreed with much of it. I don't think the gap between those be two things is as far as you think, given the context of the conversation prior.

Your critiques of news refer to one specific medium. I don't watch cable news. On occasion, I'll watch the nightly news. Can't really speak to it's accuracy, honestly. So again, you're arguing with an idea of a liberal you think you know. But not with me. You keep insisting there are teams. You don't know me or my voting record. You don't know my political views. I admit they align more closely with the Democrats than Republicans, but that's due to lack of choice more than anything else. A venn diagram of my beliefs laid over the Democratic platform is far from a single circle.

Further, and I mean this respectively: you're a whiny little "snowflake". Seriously. I know that sounds like an insult, and I don't mean it to be. That's why I'm putting it in quotes; because it's a word that means something specific these days and I think you might recognize it. But look at your assessment of the news. It's all based on your feelings.

"I feel like every time I turn on the news theyíre talking about trump in one way or another and itís almost always negative. Now when I wouldíve watched news clip about Hillary they seemed to be mostly positive."

"Another problem is isnít it weird how things couldnít be better in terms of human progress in the world and yet all the news is 90% negotive."

"If the news was evenly distributed with its criticism then I wouldnít have a problem. Yet it isnít."

Americans have become such sniveling little ****ing babies. Everybody thinks their viewpoint or opinion deserves equal billing. Do you honestly think that Donald ****ing Trump -- a guy who ****ed and paid off a porn star, sexually harassed a dozen women, made fun of a disabled reporter, and a million other things -- hasn't earned the coverage he's received? Do you honestly think it isn't part of his plan? He knows what he's doing. He's manipulated the media into covering nothing but him and manipulated his followers into thinking is just so very unfair that little old him get criticized so much by mean people in New York and LA who don't understand real Americans at all. That's the entire point. He wants you to feel like it's unfair. He ran an entire campaign on the fact that people feel aggrieved and disenfranchised.

You think it's the media's job to portray Trump and Clinton exactly equally? It's not. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a fair, balanced press. The press has a right as citizens to hold opinions. They have the right as publications to voice those opinions. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

That's what all of this boils down to: feelings. That's what politics is now. On the left, it's identity politics. A feeling that the world's unjust and forces of oppression are keeping the world from becoming just. And on the right? The exact same ****ing thing; the forces of oppression are just different. It's the deep state. Or the fake media. Everybody is aggrieved. The person kneeling during the National Anthem's aggrieved and the person whose feelings he hurts is equally aggrieved.

But dismissing things you don't like as 'fake' without presenting evidence isn't helpful. Insisting that 99% of the media doesn't report facts is patently ridiculous. It requires an unbelievable level of cognitive dissonance to truly believe that.

Don't get me wrong, I think you get a lot right. The news is undoubtedly set up to pit two common opinions against each other. CNN/Fox News/MSNBC, etc. are notorious for 'both sidesing' things and in the end, all that happens is that existing or pre-disposed views are reinforced. I don't disagree with that assessment. But I think that's a mere fraction of the media landscape and that smart people can and do avoid that. There's a huge gulf between 'all news is fake' and 'cable news is bad.'

I also think you are over-simplifying just a tad. I mean, in your own assessment of Clinton's policy proposals you reached the conclusion on multiple points that "you don't know how to accomplish that" or "you don't know who would pay for that", etc. And yet your expectation of the news is that they should promote solutions?

What's the solution in the Middle East? How do we make healthcare affordable and widely available to everybody who needs it? How do we end gun violence?

There's a reason these debates wage on and on. It's because they're incredibly complex, difficult problems to solve. Are the debates always ethical? Not at all. Should politicians put solutions to these problems over special interests? Of course. Do I wish the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar got more attention than the royal wedding? Yep. But there's a fundamental reason it doesn't: Americans are dumb and clamor for more coverage of the dumb stuff.

Which is all just to say: there's good news out there. A lot of it. Read the Atlantic. Watch the Vice documentary on ISIS. Look at the work Ronan Farrow is doing taking down sleazy old men. There are a dozen examples a day. Writing off all news as fake because CNN and Fox suck is like saying every school in the MAC is like Akron and Kent. It's wrong and ultimately, it just gives people who don't know any better the wrong impression.





If you mean to say Iím whining about the problems with our democracy and how the news is playing a part in rigging it then I take that as a compliment. What should a democratic voter do. Not speak up!?! This is our democracy!!

Iím sorry that I labeled you on a team, but even if you arenít on one a lot of people are.

I say youíre on the left because every time I bring up the flaws with the news or the left you act like I am pro trump. I didnít vote for him either. You said he wants to make the news seem unfair to get elected right? I agree with you Iím sure he does want that, but I donít feel this way cause of trump, I feel this way because itís actually unfair. Trump is saying itís unfair to use it to his advantage, I agree with that, but that doesnít mean itís not fake news. Even once trump leaves office I will still feel this way. You say you donít watch the cable news but what about the rest of the country that does. I donít watch it either but my parents do. Do they not matter? Donít they deserve to get the actual news instead of this two headed debate. They arenít alone. I think older Americans as well as poorer Americans still get their news this way. So yeah you may say Iím whining but thatís a huge ****ing flaw in our system that nobody addresses. You canít just forget about a huge segment of our country. You complain about why trump says fake news then you admit you rarely watch it. Thatís a problem. Unfortunately itís not just cable. These new tech companies tend you lean very left and YouTube has been caught unrightfully censoring the right multiple times. Yeah Iím sure those news outlets have a lot of great stories as do most but Iím sure I could find a lot of bias in there too. So idk what else to say on fake news you kinda just admitted the cable outlets like fox and cnn were fake so idk what to say. I think you should realize thatís a huge problem tho and until itís fixed trump will keep saying fake news and the people who still watch those networks will agree. So you can ignore it but while you do the country is pulling apart. Thatís why Iím saying we need a 3rd party and hopefully we can find better news sources for the country. Personally I really like listening to podcast as my news source because you can have long drawn out, in depth discussions on these issues that our needed instead of these short 10 minutes debates. Also I just remembered donít these same news networks we agree our corrupt hold are national presidential debates....... isnít that a huge flaw!?!?!?!

Iíll leave it there


Last Edited: 5/8/2018 1:23:43 AM by TheBobcatBandit

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 10:18:22 AM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:

If you mean to say Iím whining about the problems with our democracy and how the news is playing a part in rigging it then I take that as a compliment. What should a democratic voter do. Not speak up!?! This is our democracy!!


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you're whining about the news but you're not being rigorous in your analysis of it. You've identified a problem -- a genuine one -- and you're being lazy and biased about the solution. Your thinking is unrigorous and lacks nuance. You point out problems and then use those problems to reach a grand, sweeping conclusion that casts all news as "fake." You're being selective in your outrage because doing so confirms existing biases. It's lazy and intellectually dishonest.

For instance, do you know what the single most covered story of the Presidential campaign was according the Columbia Journalism review? The Clinton email scandal. There were more sentences committed to that story, across mediums, than any other. That story received twice as many sentences than all of Clinton's policy opinions combined. A Harvard study had similar findings. Those are conclusions based on rigorous, peer-reviewed studies.

But you "feel" like Trump got more negative coverage and Clinton was covered positively. So therefore, that's what you've decided.

And that's why I'm complaining about your whining. Because your analysis is based on feelings not facts and you're allowing those feelings to bias your thinking. You don't mind Trump's lies or attacks on the media precisely because of those feelings. You feel like they treated him unfairly and that justifies his constant lies.

And therein lies the hypocrisy. You rail about the media because you care about our Democracy and want to call out bullshit, but you don't call it out wherever you see it. You just call it out when the bullshit seems well molded to what you already feel. You can accuse others political leanings of leading to bias all you want, but until you show yourself to be more honest in your thinking it's just more of the same. You think what you feel is right. It makes you no different. at least intellectually, than some kid at Evergreen State running a professor off campus because of safe spaces.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

I say youíre on the left because every time I bring up the flaws with the news or the left you act like I am pro trump. I didnít vote for him either. You said he wants to make the news seem unfair to get elected right? I agree with you Iím sure he does want that, but I donít feel this way cause of trump, I feel this way because itís actually unfair. Trump is saying itís unfair to use it to his advantage, I agree with that, but that doesnít mean itís not fake news. Even once trump leaves office I will still feel this way. You say you donít watch the cable news but what about the rest of the country that does. I donít watch it either but my parents do. Do they not matter? Donít they deserve to get the actual news instead of this two headed debate. They arenít alone. I think older Americans as well as poorer Americans still get their news this way. So yeah you may say Iím whining but thatís a huge ****ing flaw in our system that nobody addresses. You canít just forget about a huge segment of our country. You complain about why trump says fake news then you admit you rarely watch it. Thatís a problem.


There's a lot to unpack here and I'm a bit confused by it, so bear with me and I apologize if I misinterpret something.

But how is it a problem that I ignore shitty news? You're much more passionate about it's detrimental impact on the country than I -- though we agree completely about that -- so wouldn't the fact that I don't support them in any way be a good thing? The single biggest lever of power the general public holds over the media is that we're their customers. We can stop watching, stop reading, stop buying. I've done so in this case. I'm not sure where the problem lies.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Unfortunately itís not just cable. These new tech companies tend you lean very left and YouTube has been caught unrightfully censoring the right multiple times. Yeah Iím sure those news outlets have a lot of great stories as do most but Iím sure I could find a lot of bias in there too. So idk what else to say on fake news you kinda just admitted the cable outlets like fox and cnn were fake so idk what to say. I think you should realize thatís a huge problem tho and until itís fixed trump will keep saying fake news and the people who still watch those networks will agree. So you can ignore it but while you do the country is pulling apart. Thatís why Iím saying we need a 3rd party and hopefully we can find better news sources for the country. Personally I really like listening to podcast as my news source because you can have long drawn out, in depth discussions on these issues that our needed instead of these short 10 minutes debates. Also I just remembered donít these same news networks we agree our corrupt hold are national presidential debates....... isnít that a huge flaw!?!?!?!

Iíll leave it there


I think you're missing a couple of things:

1. Better news sources already exist. You keep citing them. So do I. There are good sources out there. Consumers need to be more discerning.

2. Letting this President -- or anybody else -- get away with calling facts lies puts all news sources, good and bad, at risk. Today Trump's calling CNN liars and you let him get away with it because you feel like it's true. But tomorrow he could be attacking the podcasts you think are valid sources, or the next President could. We need to be protective of facts and hold our politicians accountable to them. Always. That politicians lied before doesn't change that, all it does is reconfirm the importance of holding them accountable. Here's a perfect example:

The New York Times reported on March 10th that Trump that Ty Cobb would be leaving Trump's legal team: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/us/politics/trump-muel... .

Trump tweeted the following:

"The Failing New York Times purposely wrote a false story stating that I am unhappy with my legal team on the Russia case and am going to add another lawyer to help out. Wrong. I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow. They are doing a great job and........have shown conclusively that there was no Collusion with Russia..just excuse for losing. The only Collusion was that done by the DNC, the Democrats and Crooked Hillary. The writer of the story, Maggie Haberman, a Hillary flunky, knows nothing about me and is not given access."

A month later, the story was proven true.

The exact same thing happened with Rex Tillerson. There are hundreds of other examples.

That sort of bullshit should be called out. Instead, by lumping in that reporting as 'fake' you perpetuate the problem. It's intellectually dishonest and harmful.

You want better news coverage? Celebrate the good coverage, ignore the bad, and join the press in calling liars liars even when it conflicts with your feelings.
Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,129

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 10:25:58 AM 
Bobcat Bandit,

You seem to be conflating having an editorial slant with being "fake news", which I think is very dangerous. The problem with Fox News, in my opinion, is not that they have a conservative view point. It's that they are willing to report outright falsehoods to push their, and the President's, agenda. When you watch cable news and see two people debating an issue, it is very clear on MSNBC and CNN that those are opinions. Fox News lets their opinions seep into their news coverage to an extent that they actually report untrue things that fit their agenda.

I think all cable news as bad and probably makes people dumber, but you are drawing a false equivalency.

I think the same goes for Hillary/Trump. You said both parties and both candidates are corrupt. Then you listed off a bunch of policy positions that Hillary has taken, and how you disagree with them. That's not corruption. That's just disagreement. I don't agree with everything the Democratic Party believes in, but that doesn't make it corrupt. Hillary was the most qualified candidate for President in our history. She has done so much good in here decades in public life. I don't agree with her on everything, but the idea that she was an equivalent to Trump is mind blowing. And you claim that the media only put out good news about her and negative about Trump but that's not even close to being true. She actually dealt with overwhelmingly negative coverage that focused on her supposed email scandal. From the Washington Post:

ďClintonís controversies got more attention than Trumpís (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused,Ē noted study author Thomas E. Patterson. ďTrump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clintonís badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clintonís alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverageófour times the amount of press attention paid to Trumpís treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clintonís most heavily covered policy position.Ē

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/...

She made huge mistakes in campaigning. But she got no help from the media. They hammered home the email controversy, which turned out to be a big nothing-burger. In fact, several Trump officials used private email servers including Ivanka and Jared, but that got very little coverage. In an attempt to seem fair and balanced most media sources have let tons of stuff from the Trump administration just slide right by.

EDIT: Didn't see BLSS's post about email coverage, so props for pointing it out first.

Last Edited: 5/8/2018 10:31:40 AM by DelBobcat


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 11:36:31 AM 
DelBobcat wrote:
Bobcat Bandit,

You seem to be conflating having an editorial slant with being "fake news", which I think is very dangerous. The problem with Fox News, in my opinion, is not that they have a conservative view point. It's that they are willing to report outright falsehoods to push their, and the President's, agenda. When you watch cable news and see two people debating an issue, it is very clear on MSNBC and CNN that those are opinions. Fox News lets their opinions seep into their news coverage to an extent that they actually report untrue things that fit their agenda.

I think all cable news as bad and probably makes people dumber, but you are drawing a false equivalency.


Ok, I get your point. Iím not trying to say all news is factually fake. (Some of it is though). What Iím trying to point out is why the term fake news resonates. Itís because the news is flawed and isnít informing our population properly. You talk about how CNN and MSNBC put out opinions on issues. Yes thatís true but what if they put out opinions that are wrong. In these issues there is a middle ground and a right answer, yet itís never put on the news. Instead they just argue and blame the other side instead of talking about solutions. A perfect example of this is with the war on drugs. How hypocritical is it that these big news companies are pushing all these pharma commercials on their TV breaks and then when they form their opinions on the opioid crisis do they ever talk about regulating those same companies?? No they donít. Why wasnít that asked or brought up in the debates? Itís because those same companies are paying both the news networks in commercial money while also pushing money into these campaigns. thatís a huge conflict of interest. Itís not the only issue where this happens either. Through lobbying, big corporations can buy off the news and candidates to push a certain narrative. Yet this is never talked about.



I think the same goes for Hillary/Trump. You said both parties and both candidates are corrupt. Then you listed off a bunch of policy positions that Hillary has taken, and how you disagree with them. That's not corruption. That's just disagreement. I don't agree with everything the Democratic Party believes in, but that doesn't make it corrupt. Hillary was the most qualified candidate for President in our history. She has done so much good in here decades in public life. I don't agree with her on everything, but the idea that she was an equivalent to Trump is mind blowing. And you claim that the media only put out good news about her and negative about Trump but that's not even close to being true. She actually dealt with overwhelmingly negative coverage that focused on her supposed email scandal. From the Washington Post:

Again if you look at the paragraph above, itís corrupt. why are they pushing her email scandal on the news instead of drilling her on not doing anything about the war on drugs for the past 20 years. Or voting for the Iraq war. Itís because theyíre trying to distract you on the real issues and make you look at all these other things nobody really cares about. Thatís corruption and itís using their power as news networks to control the narrative.

ďClintonís controversies got more attention than Trumpís (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused,Ē noted study author Thomas E. Patterson. ďTrump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clintonís badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clintonís alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverageófour times the amount of press attention paid to Trumpís treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clintonís most heavily covered policy position.Ē

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/...

Yes again, they chose to pin in on one scandal instead of actually talking about the issues. They donít want the people to talk about the actually issues because if they do, everyone will see theyíre full of it. Another example of them not promoting what they should is with peoples diet. Sure they will show all of these foods that will kill you on their commercial break. Yet when the news comes on they bring in a million different doctors bringing up a million different diets that could work. By doing that they donít properly inform the citizens because by bringing up all these diets it doesnít allow citizens to figure out what you should eat. Wouldnít it be great if trump or Hillary went up on the debates and told every citizen. ďHey the best way you can get healthy is to stop smoking, cut out carbs, and cut out sugar. Yet they wonít do that. Why? Because they couldnít care less weither youíre healthy or not. They just want your money and your vote. Thatís a problem yet you never hear about it on the news. Just another reason on why when trump says fake news, it resonates so much.



She made huge mistakes in campaigning. But she got no help from the media. They hammered home the email controversy, which turned out to be a big nothing-burger. In fact, several Trump officials used private email servers including Ivanka and Jared, but that got very little coverage. In an attempt to seem fair and balanced most media sources have let tons of stuff from the Trump administration just slide right by.

EDIT: Didn't see BLSS's post about email coverage, so props for pointing it out first.

Again youíre missing the point. Itís corrupt because she was a terrible canidate who didnít actually talk about the issues. Same as Trump. They both were terrible candidates yet they were able to both win their partyís nominations. Doesnít that stink of corruption. How is it that the good canidates are being filtered out for these bad ones. Itís through the media. Theyíre full of it.



Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,129

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 12:40:14 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
Bobcat Bandit,

You seem to be conflating having an editorial slant with being "fake news", which I think is very dangerous. The problem with Fox News, in my opinion, is not that they have a conservative view point. It's that they are willing to report outright falsehoods to push their, and the President's, agenda. When you watch cable news and see two people debating an issue, it is very clear on MSNBC and CNN that those are opinions. Fox News lets their opinions seep into their news coverage to an extent that they actually report untrue things that fit their agenda.

I think all cable news as bad and probably makes people dumber, but you are drawing a false equivalency.


Ok, I get your point. Iím not trying to say all news is factually fake. (Some of it is though). What Iím trying to point out is why the term fake news resonates. Itís because the news is flawed and isnít informing our population properly. You talk about how CNN and MSNBC put out opinions on issues. Yes thatís true but what if they put out opinions that are wrong. In these issues there is a middle ground and a right answer, yet itís never put on the news. Instead they just argue and blame the other side instead of talking about solutions. A perfect example of this is with the war on drugs. How hypocritical is it that these big news companies are pushing all these pharma commercials on their TV breaks and then when they form their opinions on the opioid crisis do they ever talk about regulating those same companies?? No they donít. Why wasnít that asked or brought up in the debates? Itís because those same companies are paying both the news networks in commercial money while also pushing money into these campaigns. thatís a huge conflict of interest. Itís not the only issue where this happens either. Through lobbying, big corporations can buy off the news and candidates to push a certain narrative. Yet this is never talked about.



I think the same goes for Hillary/Trump. You said both parties and both candidates are corrupt. Then you listed off a bunch of policy positions that Hillary has taken, and how you disagree with them. That's not corruption. That's just disagreement. I don't agree with everything the Democratic Party believes in, but that doesn't make it corrupt. Hillary was the most qualified candidate for President in our history. She has done so much good in here decades in public life. I don't agree with her on everything, but the idea that she was an equivalent to Trump is mind blowing. And you claim that the media only put out good news about her and negative about Trump but that's not even close to being true. She actually dealt with overwhelmingly negative coverage that focused on her supposed email scandal. From the Washington Post:

Again if you look at the paragraph above, itís corrupt. why are they pushing her email scandal on the news instead of drilling her on not doing anything about the war on drugs for the past 20 years. Or voting for the Iraq war. Itís because theyíre trying to distract you on the real issues and make you look at all these other things nobody really cares about. Thatís corruption and itís using their power as news networks to control the narrative.

ďClintonís controversies got more attention than Trumpís (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused,Ē noted study author Thomas E. Patterson. ďTrump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clintonís badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clintonís alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverageófour times the amount of press attention paid to Trumpís treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clintonís most heavily covered policy position.Ē

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/...

Yes again, they chose to pin in on one scandal instead of actually talking about the issues. They donít want the people to talk about the actually issues because if they do, everyone will see theyíre full of it. Another example of them not promoting what they should is with peoples diet. Sure they will show all of these foods that will kill you on their commercial break. Yet when the news comes on they bring in a million different doctors bringing up a million different diets that could work. By doing that they donít properly inform the citizens because by bringing up all these diets it doesnít allow citizens to figure out what you should eat. Wouldnít it be great if trump or Hillary went up on the debates and told every citizen. ďHey the best way you can get healthy is to stop smoking, cut out carbs, and cut out sugar. Yet they wonít do that. Why? Because they couldnít care less weither youíre healthy or not. They just want your money and your vote. Thatís a problem yet you never hear about it on the news. Just another reason on why when trump says fake news, it resonates so much.



She made huge mistakes in campaigning. But she got no help from the media. They hammered home the email controversy, which turned out to be a big nothing-burger. In fact, several Trump officials used private email servers including Ivanka and Jared, but that got very little coverage. In an attempt to seem fair and balanced most media sources have let tons of stuff from the Trump administration just slide right by.

EDIT: Didn't see BLSS's post about email coverage, so props for pointing it out first.



Again youíre missing the point. Itís corrupt because she was a terrible canidate who didnít actually talk about the issues. Same as Trump. They both were terrible candidates yet they were able to both win their partyís nominations. Doesnít that stink of corruption. How is it that the good canidates are being filtered out for these bad ones. Itís through the media. Theyíre full of it.





I think you and I have a different definition of corrupt. Unless you think she broke some law to become the candidate?

And she talked about the issues A LOT. I think you're right that the media did a poor job covering that. Like I said, almost all of her coverage was negative, while they ignored her policy positions. She actually put out very detailed policy papers. Dozens of them and over 100,000 words of policy specifics. She ran on policy details. That was her entire appeal. On the other hand, Trump said this:

"I am a person who does not necessarily believe in plans that have 14 steps. Because when the second step gets out of whack, you're screwed. I don't think the voters care about specifics. I think the press cares, but I've never had a voter ask for my policy papers."

They took OPPOSITE approaches. She bet that voters and the media would want to hear about her detailed proposals and he bet that nobody was paying attention and they just wanted quick, easy, memorable soundbites with no actual details. He was right, apparently.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 2:55:32 PM 
Sure she might have put out detailed plans but A. She was never properly debated on them. The parties weed out any qualified canidates. There are many people that know more about all these subjects than her. The only reason she gets picks is because they know the have her in their pocket. Thatís where the corruption is and B. Thatís where my criticism of the media is and why I call it fake news. They donít debate either canidates based on the actually issues but rather these other issues that nobody cares about. When they do debate it, the forum is that two sides interview I talk about. Which is biased based on who the people on the show are, as well as who the host are. Unless you fake check on the internet, which most people donít. Itís not a reliable source for the American people to get their information and yet that is the one the majority use.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 2:57:19 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Yes again, they chose to pin in on one scandal instead of actually talking about the issues. They donít want the people to talk about the actually issues because if they do, everyone will see theyíre full of it. Another example of them not promoting what they should is with peoples diet. Sure they will show all of these foods that will kill you on their commercial break. Yet when the news comes on they bring in a million different doctors bringing up a million different diets that could work. By doing that they donít properly inform the citizens because by bringing up all these diets it doesnít allow citizens to figure out what you should eat. Wouldnít it be great if trump or Hillary went up on the debates and told every citizen. ďHey the best way you can get healthy is to stop smoking, cut out carbs, and cut out sugar. Yet they wonít do that. Why? Because they couldnít care less weither youíre healthy or not. They just want your money and your vote. Thatís a problem yet you never hear about it on the news. Just another reason on why when trump says fake news, it resonates so much.


Honestly man, what the shit are you even talking about anymore? What's your central thesis here? At one point, you were making some sense but the more you talk the more muddled your points become and the further we get from a coherent point of view.

You are, if I understand correctly, saying that the media, because they air commercials for foods that are bad for you, purposefully misinform citizens about healthy eating choices AND refuse to call out Presidential candidates for failing to make recommendations about healthy eating?

I say this kindly: what the ****?

If you want to try and make an argument that the media hasn't covered the fact that smoking and sugar are bad for you, knock yourself out. I'd be really curious to see you try.

But until you're able to do so, you just going to sound like a ranting conspiracy theorist who isn't smart enough to understand that the answer to affordable healthcare isn't as simple as Donald Trump telling people not to drink soda.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 3:04:46 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Sure she might have put out detailed plans but A. She was never properly debated on them. The parties weed out any qualified canidates. There are many people that know more about all these subjects than her. The only reason she gets picks is because they know the have her in their pocket. Thatís where the corruption is and B. Thatís where my criticism of the media is and why I call it fake news. They donít debate either canidates based on the actually issues but rather these other issues that nobody cares about. When they do debate it, the forum is that two sides interview I talk about. Which is biased based on who the people on the show are, as well as who the host are. Unless you fake check on the internet, which most people donít. Itís not a reliable source for the American people to get their information and yet that is the one the majority use.


Let's use a real-world, current, relevant example. Donald Trump just pulled out of the Iran deal.

Your thesis seems to be that the media doesn't care about detailed policy and therefore doesn't cover it beyond bickering talking head segments on Fox/CNN. So let's look at the coverage of the Iran deal.

Here's the New York Times coverage: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump...

Here's The Washington Post's coverage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-will-announ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mu...

That last article literally lays out the day-to-day of workers from the UN nuclear agency and the work they do as a result of the policy.

Here's another one. It's got nice pictures and everything. I found it by Googling "Iran deal explained." Complicated, I know. https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/8/17328858/iran-nuclear-...

That took two seconds for me to find. And two came from sources that Trump himself has referred to as "fake."

Now it's your turn. Illustrate how the media doesn't cover policy. Or how their coverage is fake. Knock yourself out. Bonus points if you can do so without talking about your feelings.

Last Edited: 5/8/2018 3:16:48 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,129

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 3:14:07 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Sure she might have put out detailed plans but A. She was never properly debated on them. The parties weed out any qualified canidates. There are many people that know more about all these subjects than her. The only reason she gets picks is because they know the have her in their pocket. Thatís where the corruption is and B. Thatís where my criticism of the media is and why I call it fake news. They donít debate either canidates based on the actually issues but rather these other issues that nobody cares about. When they do debate it, the forum is that two sides interview I talk about. Which is biased based on who the people on the show are, as well as who the host are. Unless you fake check on the internet, which most people donít. Itís not a reliable source for the American people to get their information and yet that is the one the majority use.


There were nine Democratic debates during the primary and 13 candidate forums that both Clinton and Sanders participated in (O'Malley was there for some of them too, and Webb and Chafee were at one of the debates). I don't know what you mean by "properly" debated on them. The rest of what you're saying relies on speculation, not facts.

And again, you seem to be conflating the "media" with cable news debate shows. I agree that cable news is a very flawed model but it's not the only source out there and it doesn't do us any good to buy into Trump's propaganda and call the media fake news. The fact that cable news focused more on scandal and such than on policy is disconcerting to me but you seem to think they were part of some conspiracy with the Clinton campaign. I think your energy would be much better directed at getting people to read newspapers than to vilify the entire media because you don't like cable news debate shows.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,129

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 3:20:17 PM 
gedunkman wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
gedunkman wrote:
Just curious how you folks would react to this question: When Obama said during his campaign for re-election that he was for traditional marriage and could not support same-sex marriage was he lying? Only a few short months later, after he was re-elected, he was singing a different tune. He said his position had evolved. How many believe he was telling the truth during the campaign. How about a show of hands.


Obama was being brazenly political. The Democratic strategy was to appeal to moderates during the general, and when it became politically expedient he switched his tune back to his original 1996 stance in favor of gay marriage. His position didn't evolve, and everyone knows it. He has received a lot of criticism from the left though the outcome was ultimately just.

Not really sure what your point is. I assume we'd all agree it's shitty when politicians care more about votes than principle, right?

Also, that's a bad comparison. Obama's 2004 stance was pro-civil union and civil rights for gay couples. He also opposed the Defense of Marriage act in 2004 and consistently supported the LGBTQ community. His history of thought on gay marraige is far, far, far more consistent than Trump's on abortion.

And, of course, Obama wasn't married to a guy when he was opposing gay marriage for the votes. Another big difference.






Not sure I understand your points either. You seem to be saying Obama's lying is kind of not that big a deal because it was strategic in some sense of the word. Whereas, Trump just lies for no good reason, or that he cant tell the truth. So, when Obama said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" it was a strategic lie, and therefore in the world of US politics an acceptable lie. The ends justifies the means. It helped pass Obamacare and that makes it less morally reprehensible than a lie about whether you knew that a porn star was paid hush money. It seems to me that Obama lies about big things that affect national policy and the social fabric. Trump tends to lie about more petty things, at least petty in the sense of national implications. I don't excuse either, but you seem to have an interesting way to categorizing lies that are only slightly damnable and those that should condemn the author to damnation.



Politicians lie and they should be called out for it when they do. I never gave Obama a pass. But conservatives today seem to jump to "what about Obama" like there is an equivalence. The fact of the matter is that there is no comparison. This NY Times interactive makes that case pretty succinctly...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/su...


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  76 - 100  of 343 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2019 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties