See 2008
[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
- Status
I think the problem is with the semantic content of 'bias'. The word has been taken to require the treating of unequals equally, or the commensurability of incommensurables. Thus, news coverage is seen as earning the descriptor 'biased' if it fails to normalise the abnormal, or fails to present 'both sides' of each Trump scandal. It took quite a while to break out of that bind, and such a break was treated as quite binary - before the news was even, and then it was biased, and that latter mode was a position the news media was willing to consciously take. If 'bias' were instead thought of in terms of rationality rather than partisanship, there would've been no faux balance at the beginning, and it wouldn't have cleanly broken into something which can be spun as "the media is out to get us".
Lexicus
Deity
There is not only one kind of growth. I'm not a huge fan of the kind of growth we had in the '90s, with the majority of gains going to the very wealthy. We need ecologically sustainable growth which is driven by more disposable income in the pockets of ordinary people. Growth driven by speculation on Wall Street and trashing the planet isn't good for anyone except criminal bankers.
Not sure if that true. Wall Street growth is mostly paper. Disposable income growth leads to higher consumption. On that scale, the one is more ecologically damaging than the other. Sustainability is paid for out of growth, but it doesn't require growth to be of a certain flavour before it can be afforded.
Perception becomes reality. I think it really is that straightforward. After Trump gets blasted in this election, the new perception will be that running a white nationalist, or white-nationalist-pandering (whichever label you prefer) campaign is unacceptable and has no hope whatsoever at succeeding. Anyone else who tries will immediately be compared (ironically) to the "Trump disaster", laughed off the stage and pilloried by the media. Perception will be so unfavorable towards a Trump-style campaign, that the media will have little to fear in immediately marginalizing it.
Now on the other hand, if there is a ton of third party voting and thus Trump keeps the election close as a result, then the perception will be that a a white nationalist, or white-nationalist-pandering (whichever label you prefer) campaign is quite viable and only lost because of Trump himself. Therefore, the next such campaign and its supporters will easily be able to demand the kind of "unbiased" normalizing that Trump benefited from for so long this cycle. To put a finer point on it... third party voting in this cycle helps normalize Trump.
Last edited:
Somm, i like you, but i think the above is way too simplistic. Even if Trump loses with +10 points, it won't mean much regarding a future campaign you or other people (with varying degree of reason) may call 'white nationalist'. People tend to not bother with what was voted upon a decade ago, and this won't change even if your media have a "Trump disaster" to trumpet (
) all the way. In the end the media consisting of dubious characters is part of the problem. If Trump loses very badly ( use your preferred numbers for that) it will just mean the end of Trump as a viable candidate. It will not really mean anything else.FWIW, i think Trump would lose with more than 10 points to any mildly likable dem candidate. Not sure what will happen now, and your political climate is way past just toxic.
Lexicus
Deity
The built-in assumption here, that consumption must be ecologically damaging, is incorrect. Which is why I included 'ecological sustainability' as a desirable trait of growth as well.
Downloading iTunes is only damaging in a secondary sense. The people you give money to will then spend it in net destructive ways.
Hmmmn, your phrasing might not be communicating what you're trying to say. I misread the intention of your 'which'. Though I think you're incorrect regardless.
You're right, in that consumption doesn't necessarily have to be ecologically damaging. But we currently don't have enough supply on that front. Our relative poverty on this front is a supply problem, not a demand problem.
And filling this supply using bottom-up demand won't get us there in any type of efficient way. Giving an extra $10k to every household will not spur the demand for sustainable growth in any significant way. Some of that spending would spur growth, for sure. But it wouldn't shift the ratios. All it would do is drastically increase the amount of nonsustainable consumption. Sure, we'll buy a lot of low-impact goods (iTunes, movies, etc.), but not in a way that shifts the demand for sustainable production.
Sustainable consumption currently has a supply problem. Creating sustainable goods requires large scale investment. Governments would be vastly better off spending* $10k per household on large scale projects that would create opportunities for more sustainable consumption. Direct hiring, or tax incentives ... it doesn't matter. Spending is spending.
Now, obviously, this spending would also spur growth through increased demand. And it would spur consumption of nonrenewable resources through increased demand. But you don't most efficiently get sustainable growth through "more disposable income in the pockets of ordinary people". It's a supply side deficit. Not a demand side deficit. People will switch to sustainable when it's relatively affordable to the alternative product. Increased disposable income increases nonsustainable consumption.
There's a reason why the richest nations consume at "multiples of Earth's carrying capacity" while the poorer ones don't.
Hmmmn, your phrasing might not be communicating what you're trying to say. I misread the intention of your 'which'. Though I think you're incorrect regardless.
You're right, in that consumption doesn't necessarily have to be ecologically damaging. But we currently don't have enough supply on that front. Our relative poverty on this front is a supply problem, not a demand problem.
And filling this supply using bottom-up demand won't get us there in any type of efficient way. Giving an extra $10k to every household will not spur the demand for sustainable growth in any significant way. Some of that spending would spur growth, for sure. But it wouldn't shift the ratios. All it would do is drastically increase the amount of nonsustainable consumption. Sure, we'll buy a lot of low-impact goods (iTunes, movies, etc.), but not in a way that shifts the demand for sustainable production.
Sustainable consumption currently has a supply problem. Creating sustainable goods requires large scale investment. Governments would be vastly better off spending* $10k per household on large scale projects that would create opportunities for more sustainable consumption. Direct hiring, or tax incentives ... it doesn't matter. Spending is spending.
Now, obviously, this spending would also spur growth through increased demand. And it would spur consumption of nonrenewable resources through increased demand. But you don't most efficiently get sustainable growth through "more disposable income in the pockets of ordinary people". It's a supply side deficit. Not a demand side deficit. People will switch to sustainable when it's relatively affordable to the alternative product. Increased disposable income increases nonsustainable consumption.
There's a reason why the richest nations consume at "multiples of Earth's carrying capacity" while the poorer ones don't.
But that's not what we should be after. I don't want the consequence to be that the press is more willing to point out and condemn white nationalism and otherwise carry on as usual. Not that that wouldn't be a start, but I'm more interested in a fundamental change of priorities in that questionable behaviour is investigated and criticised no matter if it only applies to one party, and no matter if there is an exonerating "both sides do it". This is important for democracy. I don't want media to choose the right side, I want them to stop holding back from doing their part.
I want a $1 trillion dollar, 5-year plan which builds a humongous grid built on renewable energy. This needs to be the new NASA. The U.S. used to advance humanity as a whole, with space exploration and the International Space Station. Now, we need to shift our research to energy. Yup, it's deficit spending. Yup, it's consumption. But we make the investment back over time; and with the inevitable scientific advances, the payback will be all the more handsome. It creates jobs--more than the job losses the petroleum and coal sectors allegedly would face. And if our nation would just focus on the positive and make this our new enemy, the rest of the world will see the U.S. as the world's force for good again, and the terrorism problem will 75% take care of itself.
There's my sustainable consumption. Lots of it.
I disagree. The legacy of Pres W Bush still stains the Republicans... bigly, and they get eviscerated in our press for saying anything that can be connected to Prez-Bush-like policies or ideologies. I think an excellent example of this is how hard Hillary gets hammered for being a "hawk"... what she is really being punished for, and she simply can't shake off, is being associated with the Pres Bush war legacy. That is at least a third of people's problem with her... including you. Another example is that Clinton's campaign approach in 92/96 was a direct reaction to how soundly left wing ideologies/policies were rejected in 1984 and 88.Somm, i like you, but i think the above is way too simplistic. Even if Trump loses with +10 points, it won't mean much regarding a future campaign you or other people (with varying degree of reason) may call 'white nationalist'. People tend to not bother with what was voted upon a decade ago, and this won't change even if your media have a "Trump disaster" to trumpet (
In other words... the American electorate, and our media have much longer memories than you give us credit for. I don't know how it works in Greece, but that's how things have gone here.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
So, I've been arguing with a friend over this video:
I don't think its real, but he's basing his argument on the pay stubs, which can be seen here:
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursem...ulema&min_date=01/01/2015&max_date=10/22/2016
So is this conclusive proof that Clinton did incite riots at the trump campaign?
I don't think its real, but he's basing his argument on the pay stubs, which can be seen here:
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursem...ulema&min_date=01/01/2015&max_date=10/22/2016
So is this conclusive proof that Clinton did incite riots at the trump campaign?
An excellent contrast between mom's garage produced convoluted conspiracy theories featuring tenuous allegations of complex webs criminality... versus the candidate himself, from the podium directly calling for acts of violence against his opponents... directly threatening to jail and prosecute his opponents...
You can't run a campaign like this for 2 years and then whine that the media isn't covering the accusations you make on your opponent. The media gave you your chance Donald, they gave you your shot at "balanced" coverage... and you used it to call Mexicans rapists, pander to the Klan, call for the complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country, and tell 75% lies (as rated by Politico)...
The credibility of the Trump campaign and his supporters is shot... no one is listening to them anymore because they don't deserve to be listened to. They did it to themselves.
You can't run a campaign like this for 2 years and then whine that the media isn't covering the accusations you make on your opponent. The media gave you your chance Donald, they gave you your shot at "balanced" coverage... and you used it to call Mexicans rapists, pander to the Klan, call for the complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country, and tell 75% lies (as rated by Politico)...
The credibility of the Trump campaign and his supporters is shot... no one is listening to them anymore because they don't deserve to be listened to. They did it to themselves.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/22/13366570/trump-comcast-nbc
"Trump wants to stand up to media conglomerates because he suspects they treat him unfairly. The rest of us should stand up to them because we know they treat us unfairly."
"Trump wants to stand up to media conglomerates because he suspects they treat him unfairly. The rest of us should stand up to them because we know they treat us unfairly."
Ehm...
So, were those people (one of them previously convicted for fraud) fired from the democratic party due to no reason at all?
Maybe politicians should give an answer sometime. Whataboutism of this level wouldn't even fly in our own CFC OT forum
So, were those people (one of them previously convicted for fraud) fired from the democratic party due to no reason at all?
Maybe politicians should give an answer sometime. Whataboutism of this level wouldn't even fly in our own CFC OT forum
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Ehm...
So, were those people (one of them previously convicted for fraud) fired from the democratic party due to no reason at all?
Maybe politicians should give an answer sometime. Whataboutism of this level wouldn't even fly in our own CFC OT forum
"Ehm..." back.
What part of the Democratic party FIRING them is NOT the poltiicians giving an answer to you?
- Status
Similar threads
