Random Politics Thread

[ceecee]

What's "ST" in this context?

Misogyny played a role, certainly. As did racism. But the size and breadth of the swing wouldn't be explained by just this.

I should note that a lot of progressives won their races handily. But they were known for true populist empathy--Sanders, Warren, AOC,...

The rank and file of the party that claims to be the big-tent, soft-skilled, people skilled party that empathizes, were anything but that. The party machine and the podcast sphere of the Democratic Party(Pod Save America in particular) might as well have been sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling, "I'm not listening! (* points over there *) Fascism!"

"I'm not listening!" "I just can't!" "I don't care!" "You're irideemable!" --are all losing parts of party branding.

Quite frankly, it's even worse, if you claim to be the party of empathy.

I place a good amount of blame on things like Pod Save America. The Atlantic. Peggy Noonan. The New York Times. David Axelrod.... It's job security for them and fuck everyone else.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm surprised Daily Kos still exists.

 

[Coriolis]

Yeah, the only problem is that the rule is one person one vote. While there is evidently more low and medium earners than high earners.

Therefore at some point you have to introduce some pragmatism into how you approach the question of who you represent.

When it comes to electing our president, it's not one person one vote due to our electoral college system.

 

[Virtual ghost]

When it comes to electing our president, it's not one person one vote due to our electoral college system.

This is wrong logic. Factually this is true but it misses the point.

1. You are choosing president by popular vote, it just that this is state based and not country based.

2. Even on the level of the country popular vote and EVs aren't that far from each other.


What leads us to my argument that you should think twice about who you are representing. Since turning away from the needs of clear majority will lose you the elections.

 

[LightSun]

“I’m not shocked that Donald Trump won. I am of course disappointed. Democrat, and Republican” alike wanted someone who was sane, had character and would be trustworthy as a president.

For those of like agreement I salute you. For those who elected him is a revelation of what a great majority want.

I don’t really watch any of the news networks. The networks just don’t have the professional journalism that I expect.

The news is a business. So the newscasters appeal to their base. They tell their audience what they wish to hear.

They appeal to emotion. They really don’t report unbiased news because that would not garner ratings.

So it’s a binary system. The populace will not watch the news if it is based on reason.

Nor will they tune In if the network reports facts and truth. Facts that may trigger the audience of and cause cognitive dissonance.

Well because of this those who wanted an honest president of character will have to suffer because what I shared is what the majority of America wanted.

This what follows is where the mind of people who elected him is at.

1. Reality TV: The Kardashians

2. Rush Limbaugh

3. Jerry Springer Show

4. Howard Stern Show

Now nothing surprises me. It says a lot that the majority of people would vote for such a man.

I don’t plan on posting anything about politics or on President Trump. Until if and when the audience matures and

demands professional hard truths and objective facts, the networks will continue to provide sensationalism.” LightSun

‘Celebrity Worship Syndrome’

“My term I call it ‘The Tower Of Babylon’ syndrome. That means the glorification of such areas as sex, beauty, wealth, fame, money, power, vicarious attention, and violence.

“Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.” Juvenal

“The fact that theee are 20 seasons of Kardashians and only three seasons of Cosmos tells you everything you need to know about humanity.” Unknown

“... watching shadows dancing on the wall of the cave, they think that's real life ...” Unknown

 

[Virtual ghost]

The average american mobile phone subscription costs $152.. The average european subsctiption costs $10,6

I am curious, based on your real life experiences does US number seem as a fact ?

 

[Totenkindly]

I am curious, based on your real life experiences does US number seem as a fact ?

It seems in the ballpark depending on what kind of service you get. Googling it gets a similar number. You can investigate further and maybe find more variance.

It could be lower for a single phone, but often multiple phones are on a plan. I think mine is around 150 and it includes my son's phone for 50$/month -- a non-5g phone.

https://www.t-mobile.com/dialed-in/wireless/average-phone-bill-per-month

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

“I’m not shocked that Donald Trump won. I am of course disappointed. Democrat, and Republican” alike wanted someone who was sane, had character and would be trustworthy as a president.

For those of like agreement I salute you. For those who elected him is a revelation of what a great majority want.

I don’t really watch any of the news networks. The networks just don’t have the professional journalism that I expect.

The news is a business. So the newscasters appeal to their base. They tell their audience what they wish to hear.

They appeal to emotion. They really don’t report unbiased news because that would not garner ratings.

So it’s a binary system. The populace will not watch the news if it is based on reason.

Nor will they tune In if the network reports facts and truth. Facts that may trigger the audience of and cause cognitive dissonance.

Well because of this those who wanted an honest president of character will have to suffer because what I shared is what the majority of America wanted.

This what follows is where the mind of people who elected him is at.

1. Reality TV: The Kardashians

2. Rush Limbaugh

3. Jerry Springer Show

4. Howard Stern Show

Now nothing surprises me. It says a lot that the majority of people would vote for such a man.

This is another part of Trump's success. People are attracted to the surface-level aesthetics. This is something I don't know how to address, really. Our media won't change; they'll keep platforming people like Trump and Vance if it gives them good ratings. Perhaps we could have people consume something other than cable news, but the biggest competitor is social media, and that's not much better.

Going along with what you said, organizations who have journalistic integrity struggle to keep the lights on, because that's not what the people want. I have no answer for this problem, and I wish I did.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Moody's Analytics' predictions comparison.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Like you said, organizations who have journalistic integrity struggle to keep the lights on, because that's not what the people want. I have no answer for this problem, and I wish I did.

There's a quote - not sure where it's from - about how a journalist's job isn't only to report whether a person says it's raining or it's sunny out; the journalist's job is to also look out the window and report the truth. Journalists are all behaving like they're merely press secretaries. It's easy to think that currently the truth - even when it's found - doesn't matter because tribal divisiveness is making people cling to confirmation bias. But I'm fed up with the press doing it for Dems too. I think that if a group of journalists started respectfully asking challenging questions - with a strong empasis on "respectfully" - and pushing back on claims that run contrary to evidence, I think people would be drawn to it. Give people a chance to support their claims, but make them effectively support it.

In debate, the best way to win is to understand your opponent's side so well that you could effectively make their argument for them. And then, build your argument on top of that understanding of what issues the other side has with your own argument. I think it would be amazing to watch journalist's doing this. And if more journalists were adept at this, people who basically need to dictate reality (as opposed to showing interest in learning more about the objective reality that exists out there) would shy away from interviews because they wouldn't be able to produce sufficient support for their claims.

A friend of mine, when I vent about this, argues that media sources currently can't afford the staff required to research all that heavily. But I feel like that's a poor excuse for doing a shit job. I'm not trained in journalism, and *I* get frustrated when I watch interviews in which they aren't asking questions that seem fundamentally essential and relatively obvious. Journalists are letting us all down in a colossal way.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I am curious, based on your real life experiences does US number seem as a fact ?

My son is a software engineer for a video game company owned AT&T. He gets a discount, and the more people he has on his account the bigger the discount. There are six family members, and the average for each of us is $40/mo each. (When he told me about it, I figured he must be mistaken - it's a ridiculously low rate). I was previously paying $90/mo for a somewhat shittier service.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There's a quote - not sure where it's from - about how a journalist's job isn't only to report whether a person says it's raining or it's sunny out; the journalist's job is to also look out the window and report the truth. Journalists are all behaving like they're merely press secretaries. It's easy to think that currently the truth - even when it's found - doesn't matter because tribal divisiveness is making people cling to confirmation bias. But I'm fed up with the press doing it for Dems too. I think that if a group of journalists started respectfully asking challenging questions - with a strong empasis on "respectfully" - and pushing back on claims that run contrary to evidence, I think people would be drawn to it. Give people a chance to support their claims, but make them effectively support it.

Would you say journalists have to ask questions in such a way that a coherent picture of what is going on is painted? A journalist needs to expose the truth, not just repeat PR, correct? Would people like that because now they are able to understand things in a non-biased way?

Would people really understand that positively to journalism if it actually helped them understand what is going on?

In debate, the best way to win is to understand your opponent's side so well that you could effectively make their argument for them. And then, build your argument on top of that understanding of what issues the other side has with your own argument. I think it would be amazing to watch journalist's doing this. And if more journalists were adept at this, people who basically need to dictate reality (as opposed to showing interest in learning more about the objective reality that exists out there) would shy away from interviews because they wouldn't be able to produce sufficient support for their claims.

Have you done forensics?

A friend of mine, when I vent about this, argues that media sources currently can't afford the staff required to research all that heavily. But I feel like that's a poor excuse for doing a shit job. I'm not trained in journalism, and I get frustrated when I watch interviews and they aren't asking questions that seem fundamentally essential. Journalists are letting us all down in a colossal way.

My dad was a journalist. I would like to know how he actually feels, and what the specifics are. The only thing I know at the moment is he seems to have had regrets about becoming a journalist and wishes that he had done something else, like be an accountant. He became a journalist because he thought he was doing something good, and seems disillusioned with that, although I don't know the specifics.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Would you say journalists have to ask questions in such a way that a coherent picture of what is going on is painted? A journalist needs to expose the truth, not just repeat PR, correct? Would people like that because now they are able to understand things in a non-biased way?

Would people really understand that positively to journalism if it actually helped them understand what is going on?

I think people who are trying to gain social influence (e.g. politicians) are the ones trying to paint a believable narrative of what is going on, and I think journalists should ask questions that shine light on the cracks in that narrative. It should be an opportunity for that person to fill in that crack with a coherent answer or realize there's a problematic crack in their own narrative. I'm just talking about interviews here. If a journalist is writing a story meant to shed new light on something, then I'd agree their job is to paint a coherent picture - preferably with lots of support for every claim they make. But when it comes to interviews, their job is to *respectfully* shine light on the cracks in the interviewee's narrative.

I keep emphasizing "respectfully" because in the rare moments that Orange Shitler has been asked such questions, the interviewer clearly felt hostility towards him - and he is able to get his base to summarily dismiss the fact that he didn't have an answer by whining about how the interview was "very nasty to me." If there's no apparent emotional charge, and an interviewer's tone remains pleasant and respectful while asking difficult questions, it's harder to dismiss a lack of a sufficient answer. (This is actually also the approach to getting people to leave a cult).

Have you done forensics?

Not even remotely.

My dad was a journalist. I would like to know how he actually feels, and what the specifics are. The only thing I know at the moment is he seems to have had regrets about becoming a journalist and wishes that he had done something else, like be an accountant. He became a journalist because he thought he was doing something good, and seems disillusioned with that, although I don't know the specifics.

I can't even imagine how hard that profession is right now. Like, it's probably not possible to do a job one can be proud of AND have a steady paycheck.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think people who are trying to gain social influence (e.g. politicians) are the ones trying to paint a believable narrative of what is going on, and I think journalists should ask questions that shine light on the cracks in that narrative. It should be an opportunity for that person to fill in that crack with a coherent answer or realize there's a problematic crack in their own narrative. I'm just talking about interviews here. If a journalist is writing a story meant to shed new light on something, then I'd agree their job is to paint a coherent picture - preferably with lots of support for every claim they make. But when it comes to interviews, their job is to *respectfully* shine light on the cracks in the interviewee's narrative.

Maybe people do respond to this. I've noticed a contradication, which is that I think people can't be trusted except on an individual level, but I also am skeptical of narratives suggesting that so many people are irredeemable. These people weren't always this way, so why should I conclude that they will always be this way in the future? I see arguments being put forth that I don't think help matters, which is why I'm trying to step away from FB for a bit.

Maybe the ability to reason is interfered with by intense emotional states. The idea I guess is to avoid stirring up those emotional states.

I keep emphasizing "respectfully" because in the rare moments that Orange Shitler has been asked such questions, the interviewer clearly felt hostility towards him - and he is able to get his base to summarily dismiss the fact that he didn't have an answer by whining about how the interview was "very nasty to me." If there's no apparent emotional charge, and an interviewer's tone remains pleasant and respectful while asking difficult questions, it's harder to dismiss a lack of a sufficient answer. (This is actually also the approach to getting people to leave a cult).





Not even remotely.

I wanted to use the word forensics. I find it funny that the word for debate team is the same word used for crime scene investigation.

 

[Stigmata]

While we are pointing fingers, I’m surprised no one has brought (if someone did I probably missed it) up how big an effect Elon buying Twitter had on this election, between shadow banning posts from prominent voices on the Democrat side while also propelling right-wing figures to the forefront.

I’m probably coping myself here but I find it strange how much we heard about record voter registration in different states and the record early voting numbers, only for Kamala’s defeat to be attributed to low voter turnout on Dem’s side, as well as Trump losing roughly 4 million votes from 2020

Also all the suspect comments from Trump, who notoriously can’t play anything close to the vest — “We don’t need your votes” and “Me and Mike (Johnson) have a little secret about the election” and “After this election you’ll never have to vote again”

Also, Bezos intervening and pulling the Washington Post presidential endorsement. Teamsters not endorsing anyone for president despite the Biden administration saving their pensions. Strange stuff.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

While we are pointing fingers, I’m surprised no one has brought (if someone did I probably missed it) up how big an effect Elon buying Twitter had on this election, between shadow banning posts from prominent voices on the Democrat side while also propelling right-wing figures to the forefront.

I’m probably coping myself here but I find it strange how much we heard about record voter registration in different states and the record early voting numbers, only for Kamala’s defeat to be attributed to low voter turnout on Dem’s side, as well as Trump losing roughly 4 million votes from 2020

Also all the suspect comments from Trump, who notoriously can’t play anything close to the vest — “We don’t need your votes” and “Me and Mike (Johnson) have a little secret about the election” and “After this election you’ll never have to vote again”

Also, Bezos intervening and pulling the Washington Post presidential endorsement. Teamsters not endorsing anyone for president despite the Biden administration saving their pensions. Strange stuff.

If it were true, do you think anybody would do anything about it?

Is there evidence for it beyond weird comments from Trump and other people?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Like, this could actually come out, and I'd expect people to do nothing about it. What's important would be to keep the show going.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

While we are pointing fingers, I’m surprised no one has brought (if someone did I probably missed it) up how big an effect Elon buying Twitter had on this election, between shadow banning posts from prominent voices on the Democrat side while also propelling right-wing figures to the forefront.

I’m probably coping myself here but I find it strange how much we heard about record voter registration in different states and the record early voting numbers, only for Kamala’s defeat to be attributed to low voter turnout on Dem’s side, as well as Trump losing roughly 4 million votes from 2020

Also all the suspect comments from Trump, who notoriously can’t play anything close to the vest — “We don’t need your votes” and “Me and Mike (Johnson) have a little secret about the election” and “After this election you’ll never have to vote again”

Also, Bezos intervening and pulling the Washington Post presidential endorsement. Teamsters not endorsing anyone for president despite the Biden administration saving their pensions. Strange stuff.

There were almost certainly shenanigans of many forms on the Republicans’ part

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Is this going to be the equivalent of Loose Change where people keep derailing the conversation with this, and insist on debating something irrelevant? What people need to focus on is how to face what is coming, on how to prepare for that. This is a distraction that nobody would do anything about even if it were true.

Like, let's suppose this is true. Fine. What do we do? That's what we need to figure out here.