If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
There is going to be a wide range of issues we (left and right) never agree upon, and I'm sure the right's overall tune on Obama's legacy will not change anytime soon, but can we all agree that in contrast to Trump, Obama:
- provided a far more overall positive image of America
- did not demonstrate obvious character weaknesses such as Trump's narcissism which can so easily be exploited
- rarely publicly focused on stupid shit like Rosie O'Donnell, MSNBC hosts, etc.
- had an administration that seemed far more in-sync with each other
- had an administration with usually obvious qualifications in contrast to Trump's EPA guy that goes against what 97% of scientists embrace as consensus, or his education lady who has literally no experience in public education
- was a far more stable and steady overall influence
- was a decent role model of personal character and family values (at least what the public saw regularly)
- was far more articulate
- hard to imagine him disinterested in learning about ways Russia may have interfered in our elections
Can we agree that this counts for something, without rehashing all of the same points about Obama's failures and your overall take on him? Can we at least agree on most of these points, for whatever this is worth?
(
Last edited by besson3c; Jul 2, 2017 at 07:12 PM.
)
1) **** what they think.
2) Over inconsequential things.
3) Nobody cares.
4) He was better at doing shit I didn't want... great.
5) Ditto.
6) This is rich... as if the Democrats acting like it's the end of the world is a "stabilizing influence". Christ, almighty.
7) Who gives a ****?
8) Nobody cares.
"In this thread I demand you admit Obama is more articulate than Trump!"
Just what the **** is that?
Please stop derailing by hyper focusing on the language of a single point in a larger list. If you don't care for the thread you don't need to participate in it.
I had differences with Obama. But I'm mostly agreeing with besson here.
Daily weirdness on twitter gets old.
Yeah, I guess the point of this thread is that we tend to feel that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, but we sometimes take for granted what we have until we don't have it any longer.
We've had less civil presidents than Trump, the internet simply amplifies everything nowadays. For instance, he's a far cry from LBJ, the man liked slapping senators with his dick in the bathroom, for Christ's sake (and he never passed up the chance to show "Jumbo" off to anyone who wanted to see, including foreign dignitaries). He also couldn't form a sentence without a few expletives, and this included interviews, and lied about everything, so reporters had to edit everything the president said for public consumption. Andrew Jackson was even worse, but with the added horror that he was also a serial rapist (not the figurative variety, either).
Can't forget Wilson either, who literally tried to **** everything with a skirt, while drinking a gallon of whiskey a day and running a secret service version of Fight Club. T. Roosevelt was also a fighter, drinker, never told the truth, and turned the White House into a stable. Kennedy essentially ran an escort service out of the Oval Office. Lincoln fathered more children out of wedlock than the Miami Heat. etc. etc. etc.
The thing is, we're accustomed to a very generic, PC person in the White House (Obama). In fact, ever since Nixon we've had, comparatively, very mild-mannered presidents (except for Bubba's sexcapades). Sooner or later we were bound to break out of that cycle and get someone a bit "rowdy" again, it was only a matter of time.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Hell no.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
We've had less civil presidents than Trump, the internet simply amplifies everything nowadays. For instance, he's a far cry from LBJ, the man liked slapping senators with his dick in the bathroom, for Christ's sake (and he never passed up the chance to show "Jumbo" off to anyone who wanted to see, including foreign dignitaries). He also couldn't form a sentence without a few expletives, and this included interviews, and lied about everything, so reporters had to edit everything the president said for public consumption. Andrew Jackson was even worse, but with the added horror that he was also a serial rapist (not the figurative variety, either).
Can't forget Wilson either, who literally tried to **** everything with a skirt, while drinking a gallon of whiskey a day and running a secret service version of Fight Club. T. Roosevelt was also a fighter, drinker, never told the truth, and turned the White House into a stable. Kennedy essentially ran an escort service out of the Oval Office. Lincoln fathered more children out of wedlock than the Miami Heat. etc. etc. etc.
The thing is, we're accustomed to a very generic, PC person in the White House (Obama). In fact, ever since Nixon we've had, comparatively, very mild-mannered presidents (except for Bubba's sexcapades). Sooner or later we were bound to break out of that cycle and get someone a bit "rowdy" again, it was only a matter of time.
Hell no.
This is not a good argument. We've evolved socially since the 1960s and the era from which LBJ was raised, even if what you've said here is true (and I'm not necessarily saying it is), so I'm not buying this idea of looking back this far for benchmarks. What LBJ thought about gay marriage, for example, is irrelevant because the way we view gay rights is much different in this modern era.
Moreover, there are many points on my list that have little to do with being rowdy, so please don't think that you've successfully blown off this entire list with this point.
Please stop derailing by hyper focusing on the language of a single point in a larger list. If you don't care for the thread you don't need to participate in it.
I'll fully admit I allowed my replies to be unnecessarily aggressive, and for that I apologize.
That said, I stand by singling out the point because it best illustrates my complaint.
The premise of the thread is "can we all agree you're wrong".
I'll fully admit I allowed my replies to be unnecessarily aggressive, and for that I apologize.
That said, I stand by singling out the point because it best illustrates my complaint.
The premise of the thread is "can we all agree you're wrong".
No, the premise of the thread is trying to learn how perspectives change.
Many perspectives have changed. Many among the left couldn't have imagined a more incompetent president than W. Bush until now. Many among the right thought Obama was pretty much Satan, and perhaps had Trump pegged differently before the election.
Perspectives change, very few of us are absolutist in our thinking and never acknowledge it change over time.
Just skip over me, then, there's no need for you to reply.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I think Trump is much better than the media portrays, due to his war with 50% of it and their need to castigate him for everything (something that is already biting them, as people get tired of it), esp now that Russia has turned out to be a 10-ton Nothingburger. Only the dyed-in-the-wool Dem sycophants believe half of what CNN says anymore, and the NY Times is worse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I think Trump is much better than the media portrays, due to his war with 50% of it and their need to castigate him for everything (something that is already biting them, as people get tired of it), esp now that Russia has turned out to be a 10-ton Nothingburger.
What planet do you live on, really?
The Russia investigation is still ongoing, and the CIA, FBI, and NSA have reached consensus that Russia did indeed try to affect the election results https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/u...ck-report.html edit: I see that you think the NYTimes is trash. Fine, Google this yourself, there are plenty of other media sources to choose from reporting these facts. This is not a matter of editorial opinion.
Just because you feel it should be doesn't change the facts. We don't know Trump's exact connection, if any, to these attempts. Hopefully the investigation will shine light on this once it is complete, but what we have seen is Trump meddling with this investigation. No matter who benefitted or was victimized by these attacks, this is information we need to learn from to hopefully prevent this from happening again.
After rattling of a list of violations that contradicted Hillary's public statements, and those made under oath before congress, most people watching thought Comey was going to announce the FBI was going to recommend charges be filed, After his recent Congressional testimony, we now know why he didn't.
He was moved by an an alleged email between Lynch and Wasserman that said the DOJ was not going to do anything regardless of what the FBI found. Add that to the Lynch -Bubba tête-à -tête and one can see why Comey thought there was a deal struck. Hillary also stated her desire to keep Lynch as AG.
Add this to the Washing Post story stating Obama knew and did nothing prior to the election because he like Hillary, thought Trump would lose, Big League.
It's not a nothing burger until the investigation is complete and we have all the facts. I know you guys aren't always a fan of the facts, but I'm going to stick with what the FBI, CIA, and NSA agree upon because they know better than all of us random people on the internet.
While we're at it, I'm also going to stick with what the vast majority of scientists say about climate change.
Now who's focusing on a single argument when a larger point is being made?
I shall exit.
I told you, I'm not particularly interested in this thread becoming your critique of me, my approach, or anything else where I'm put under the microscope. It's not that I'm opposed to that per say, it's just that we've done that before and sometimes I just want a thread to progress as one would expect.
Why don't you start a new thread about this, and perhaps I'll join. Maybe you could do the same for all of the regulars here?
Besides, I'm actually interested in this idea of not necessarily respecting alleged consensus/expert opinion, because this mistrust may point to something much bigger and prevalent in the world we live in.
It would help explain global warming denying too, which is also something that has puzzled me for years.
There's a causal connection between the approach and threads not progressing as expected. I brought it up in the first place because I assume there's a genuine desire for this to change.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, my opening gambit was losing my cool. This doesn't help, and for that I again apologize.
I'm still unsure how exactly this is supposed to progress. Is the question has Trump changed my opinion of Obama? Not really.
There's a causal connection between the approach and threads not progressing as expected. I brought it up in the first place because I assume there's a genuine desire for this to change.
To be honest, I'm pretty much in "I don't give a shit, there is no way of rationalizing with Trump supporters" mode right now. Maybe that will change over time, but that's where I'm at. I'm hoping the harsh reality which is unfolding coupled with this sort of brutal and blunt approach will force some people to wake up. It probably won't, but I feel compelled to try it for some reason.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, my opening gambit was losing my cool. This doesn't help, and for that I again apologize.
It's okay, but I'm curious as to what you are hoping to accomplish with your approach with everybody here? I don't mean that as criticism of it necessarily, it's just that you seem to feel strongly about certain approaches being productive and counter-productive.
I'm still unsure how exactly this is supposed to progress. Is the question has Trump changed my opinion of Obama? Not really.
Thank you. I'm not super surprised because you were never in that weird "Elitist Obama is eating arugula lettuce and terrorist fist pumping his wife" camp
It's not a nothing burger until the investigation is complete and we have all the facts. I know you guys aren't always a fan of the facts, but I'm going to stick with what the FBI, CIA, and NSA agree upon because they know better than all of us random people on the internet.
While we're at it, I'm also going to stick with what the vast majority of scientists say about climate change.
So you are NOT going to take Comeys word on Hillarys email server either?
I focus on approach because I'm an arugula lettuce eating, terrorist fist bumping, cosmopolitan, elitist asshole.
In other words, I'm on your side and would prefer you won.
As a tan jacket, gay agenda, no flag pin, taco truck loving asshole, I get being in the "I don't give a shit, there is no way of rationalizing" mode. I really do. Go ahead, you're entitled to it.
However, quite simply, this is not compatible with a quest for discovery. That's exactly where all these threads go south. They're indictments masquerading as questions. Everybody sees it, and they react accordingly.
What's the most important part of this thread, expanding horizons, or being right?
It's not a nothing burger until the investigation is complete and we have all the facts. I know you guys aren't always a fan of the facts, but I'm going to stick with what the FBI, CIA, and NSA agree upon because they know better than all of us random people on the internet.
While we're at it, I'm also going to stick with what the vast majority of scientists say about climate change.
The facts we have dictate this is a nothing burger.
Even CNN's supervising producer is calling it a nothing burger (CNN is not denying it in response) - though their ratings are higher than ever thanks to you wanting to believe it ohh so bad. This is just your wishful thinking bess - don't claim facts on your side, then say "we need to wait for the facts to come out!", then ignore the facts we do have, which clearly show this to be a money driven farce exploiting your partisan biases all the way to the bank.
If there was anything to nail Trump on, Trump would have been nailed by now. Unless you believe this is some illuminati plot or something.
As usual, you want agreement not actual opinions, and when your expectations aren't met you hurl insults (with a touch of gaslight).
IOW, it's just a typical besson thread.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The facts we have dictate this is a nothing burger.
Even CNN's supervising producer is calling it a nothing burger (CNN is not denying it in response) - though their ratings are higher than ever thanks to you wanting to believe it ohh so bad. This is just your wishful thinking bess - don't claim facts on your side, then say "we need to wait for the facts to come out!", then ignore the facts we do have, which clearly show this to be a money driven farce exploiting your partisan biases all the way to the bank.
If there was anything to nail Trump on, Trump would have been nailed by now. Unless you believe this is some illuminati plot or something.
-CNN's supervising producer has stated it's ratings driven and that there almost definitely is nothing there.
-CNN's CEO has neglected real news about important issues to continue non-stop coverage.
-CNN, and other left leaning news outlets have made a ton of money feeding you fantasy.
-Trump thinks Mike Flynn is a good guy, and said as much to Comey.
-A random russian bank server made DNS requests about one of the Trump organizations general email servers.
-An investigation going on for the better part of a year involving literally every 3 letter agency in the US has revealed precisely nothing.
So, your turn to tell me how this isn't wishful thinking on your part.
Unless you believe it is scientifically and/or logically valid to investigate indefinitely to prove a negative. Maybe we should also do the same for Trump to find out if he colluded with Kim Jong Un prior to the election. I mean, think of the ratings!
At the least, I'd add to that Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner all failing to disclose meetings with Kislyak.
As evidenced by the shit I gave Hillary, I take this kind of stuff seriously.
Politicians met with an ambassador of Russia? I'm just having a hard time understanding how this is unnatural, surprising or indicative of anything but these people doing their jobs. Sessions was a senator on the armed services committee. I'd be more surprised and concerned if he didn't meet with the ambassadors of major world powers especially with Syria going on.
Also, none of those people are Trump.
Can I ask why Comey didn't leak any hard evidence just before he got fired? He wanted a special prosecutor, and gave the press what he thought would be enough to get one. Why wouldn't he leak direct evidence to seal the deal? If the head of the FBI at the time had anything at all, so would we.
-CNN's supervising producer has stated it's ratings driven and that there almost definitely is nothing there.
-CNN's CEO has neglected real news about important issues to continue non-stop coverage.
-CNN, and other left leaning news outlets have made a ton of money feeding you fantasy.
-Trump thinks Mike Flynn is a good guy, and said as much to Comey.
-A random russian bank server made DNS requests about one of the Trump organizations general email servers.
-An investigation going on for the better part of a year involving literally every 3 letter agency in the US has revealed precisely nothing.
So, your turn to tell me how this isn't wishful thinking on your part.
Unless you believe it is scientifically and/or logically valid to investigate indefinitely to prove a negative. Maybe we should also do the same for Trump to find out if he colluded with Kim Jong Un prior to the election. I mean, think of the ratings!
My turn? Okay...
1) I have not made any claims about what happened beyond what is known, which isn't a ton, so there is no wishful thinking beyond simply wishing that people wouldn't be premature to call this a nothing burger at this point in time for a host of reasons already covered. I have said that there sure seems to be a lot of smoke and pointed out the consensus among the FBI/CIA/NSA, but that is not the same as saying that I know something to be true.
2) If this is a nothing burger, where were many of you conservatives when liberals declared Iraq a nothing burger during Bush's term? Many of you have acknowledged Iraq to be a mistake (and I guess the term "nothing burger" didn't exist back then, but could apply), and my point is not to rub this in your face, but simply point out the lesson here that, yes, sometimes people are quick to rush to conclusions. But, if this provides fodder for people like Badkosh and some sort of anti-liberal rant, the same applies for the whole Iraq thing. Do you think this is a fair point, Snow-i?
3) Why would CNN have special access to classified intelligence? Of course it is a media circus, of course they are capitalizing and profiting on spinning this as the next Watergate, but this doesn't mean that there is nothing there either, necessarily. This means that free market capitalism is sometimes ugly. If you're a free market conservative doesn't this go with the territory?
Politicians met with an ambassador of Russia? I'm just having a hard time understanding how this is unnatural, surprising or indicative of anything but these people doing their jobs.
"Failing to disclose [under oath]" is what puts it in the other category.
1) I have not made any claims about what happened beyond what is known, which isn't a ton, so there is no wishful thinking beyond simply wishing that people wouldn't be premature to call this a nothing burger at this point in time for a host of reasons already covered. I have said that there sure seems to be a lot of smoke and pointed out the consensus among the FBI/CIA/NSA, but that is not the same as saying that I know something to be true.
Premature? The investigation has been going on for the better part of a year.
If there were anything there the director of the FBI, James Comey, would have leaked it as he was oh so willing to do right before he got canned.
2) If this is a nothing burger, where were many of you conservatives when liberals declared Iraq a nothing burger during Bush's term? Many of you have acknowledged Iraq to be a mistake, and my point is not to rub this in your face, but simply point out the lesson here that, yes, sometimes people are quick to rush to conclusions. But, if this provides fodder for people like Badkosh and some sort of anti-liberal rant, the same applies for the whole Iraq thing. Do you think this is a fair point, Snow-i?
Uhh, what?
Some people were wrong about Iraq a decade ago, some general platitude about rushing to conclusions and somehow that justifies your wishful thinking here? You've lost me.
Are you arguing a possibility exists that Trump colluded with Russia? Mathematically you are correct, but then again the same can be said for Hillary Clinton actually being a man. Prove she's not
3) Why would CNN have special access to classified intelligence?
Not CNN. Read what I said again. James Comey.
Of course it is a media circus, of course they are capitalizing and profiting on spinning this as the next Watergate, but this doesn't mean that there is nothing there either, necessarily. This means that free market capitalism is sometimes ugly. If you're a free market conservative doesn't this go with the territory?
Yes, and as a free market capitalist the only reasonable response here is for CNN to suffer a free-market death for fabricating news and preying upon the ignorant. i.e. stop consuming CNN's flawed and dishonest product or referring to them as anything but the partisan tabloid they are. Would you not agree?
"Failing to disclose [under oath]" is what puts it in the other category.
True, but none of those people are Trump.
However, if you read the full Q&A it's clear sessions was talking about his role as Trump's campaign adviser. Not his role as a Senator on the armed services committee. I do agree with your thinking here, sub ego, but then why is the investigation aimed at Trump and not sessions?
Premature? The investigation has been going on for the better part of a year.
If there were anything there the director of the FBI, James Comey, would have leaked it as he was oh so willing to do right before he got canned.
Uhh, what?
Some people were wrong about Iraq a decade ago, some general platitude about rushing to conclusions and somehow that justifies your wishful thinking here? You've lost me.
Are you arguing a possibility exists that Trump colluded with Russia? Mathematically you are correct, but then again the same can be said for Hillary Clinton actually being a man. Prove she's not
Not CNN. Read what I said again. James Comey.
Yes, and as a free market capitalist the only reasonable response here is for CNN to suffer a free-market death for fabricating news and preying upon the ignorant. i.e. stop consuming CNN's flawed and dishonest product or referring to them as anything but the partisan tabloid they are. Would you not agree?
If you self-identify as a free market capitalist and there is no grey area there or room to question exceptions, yes I would agree.
As far as everything else, I honestly feel that we are so severely disconnected I literally don't know where to begin parsing and sorting things out.
Maybe I should start with some questions:
1) Do you feel that our intelligence agencies are all corrupt and motivated by liberal politicians and policies?
2) What information sources do you trust, and why?
3) Do you feel that being connected to an intelligence agency is a requirement to form accurate conclusions here?
If you self-identify as a free market capitalist and there is no grey area there or room to question exceptions, yes I would agree.
Even without the If - what do you think should happen to CNN? Let's also throw in them threatening to dox someone who made a meme they didn't like.
1) Do you feel that our intelligence agencies are all corrupt and motivated by liberal politicians and policies?
The former? No. The latter yes, but not just liberal politicians. The ruling class. Do you want to know how I know? It's because they are run by politicians (part of the ruling class) and increasingly rely upon a lack of oversight to hide their dealings from public scrutiny. The FISC court is an enemy of our free state, make no mistake.
2) What information sources do you trust, and why?
Those that report facts and leave their opinions and agendas out of it, or at least mostly out of it. It's surprisingly easy to spot, and I am dumbfounded with how it's even easier to capitalize on people's outrage without doing any real journalism or even providing real facts.
3) Do you feel that being connected to an intelligence agency is a requirement to form accurate conclusions here?
No. I feel that critical thinking is a requirement to be able to form accurate conclusions here.
I even asked for you bess when I was going 10 rounds with Paco on some bullshit article about DNS requests that CNN wrote 3 pages of fantasy on, because I know you know your shit when it comes to web technologies. Excuse my rant, but it was clear from that point forward that there were many in these forums and outside that have absolutely no interest in discovering the truth unless the truth just so happens to align with what they would prefer to believe. Hence my hostility towards this story and those who subscribe to it.
Even without the If - what do you think should happen to CNN? Let's also throw in them threatening to dox someone who made a meme they didn't like.
Nothing, but I feel differently than you as you expressed in the other thread that market corrections just happen on their own over time. I think sometimes correction needs to be forced via stimulation, and I think this is now one of those times.
If it were no longer profitable to peddle complete bullshit, would anybody do that? If an independent panel of private and public sector, left and right, etc. were to award tax breaks or fines based on truthiness, what would the net-effect be? I know it is super easy to blow apart the practicality of financing such a system, keeping corruption out of it, sorting out the public/private relationship, etc. Don't bother blowing it apart because I'm doing it now...
However, I believe these are the sorts of conversations and outside-the-box thinking that needs to take place in our society.
Values often are formed over time when people get used to something and like it okay. Take health care in Canada, for example. The debate is literally over as fas as whether the government should be involved. However, to get a bill like this passed and the public onboard with it, there were surely many conversions about what kind of society Canadians wanted.
I think America needs to start having MANY conversations about MANY things. It is, although right now we are really mired in left vs. right politics and winning and losing.
The former? No. The latter yes, but not just liberal politicians. The ruling class. Do you want to know how I know? It's because they are run by politicians and the ruling class.
Those that report facts and leave their opinions and agendas out of it, or at least mostly out of it. It's surprisingly easy to spot, and I am dumbfounded with how it's even easier to capitalize on people's outrage without doing any real journalism or even providing real facts.
So are you saying that the ruling class do not control what we consider as facts?
Why can't we agree upon global warming then? Sure a number of scientific agencies have been corrupt by the ruling class, but not the vast majority of them, and scientists themselves are not the ruling class.
It may seem like I'm just trying to complicate this discussion, but I think this is literally the heart of it.
No. I feel that critical thinking is a requirement to be able to form accurate conclusions here.
And therefore you distrust certain sources of alleged information? What is this based on?
I even asked for you bess when I was going 10 rounds with Paco on some bullshit article about DNS requests that CNN wrote 3 pages of fantasy on, because I know you know your ganja when it comes to web technologies. Excuse my rant, but it was clear from that point forward that there were many in these forums and outside that have absolutely no interest in discovering the truth unless the truth just so happens to align with what they would prefer to believe. Hence my hostility towards this story and those who subscribe to it.
I don't remember this story, but generally DNS servers can and are compromised, although they are decentralized so the damage is often limited.
Nothing, but I feel differently than you as you expressed in the other thread that market corrections just happen on their own over time. I think sometimes correction needs to be forced via stimulation, and I think this is now one of those times.
I'm open to ideas.
If it were no longer profitable to peddle complete bullshit, would anybody do that? If an independent panel of private and public sector, left and right, etc. were to award tax breaks or fines based on truthiness, what would the net-effect be?
The effect would be a gradual yet complete politicization of that "independent" panel. The treatment would end up being worse than the disease because now you would have a corrupted "news authority". At least right now, people have the choice to kill bad news outlets by not watching them. Doesn't mean they will make the right choice, but at least it's there.
Also, what do you do with free speech? Would literally every article of speech purveying information then be subject to tax breaks and fines? How would you get enough manpower given the internet?
I know it is super easy to blow apart the practicality of financing such a system, keeping corruption out of it, sorting out the public/private relationship, etc. Don't bother blowing it apart because I'm doing it now...
Oh. whoops. I already wrote that up there so i'll just leave it
However, I believe these are the sorts of conversations and outside-the-box thinking that needs to take place in our society.
Agreed, however I think you can take that idea and instead of applying it to a "higher authority" work to apply it to the ultimate authority - the consumers of the news itself.
Values often are formed over time when people get used to something and like it okay. Take health care in Canada, for example. The debate is literally over as fas as whether the government should be involved. However, to get a bill like this passed and the public onboard with it, there were surely many conversions about what kind of society Canadians wanted.
These are conversations we all need to be having, especially while raising kids in the internet age. Critical thinking, healthy skepticism, and rationality ought to be the names of the game. Oh yeah and learning how to respect, and listen opposing viewpoints without agreeing with them.
I think America needs to start having MANY conversations about MANY things. It is, although right now they are really mired in left vs. right politics and winning and losing.
I argued a few years back it's no longer right v left, that it's ruling class vs the people. I think it's never been more true than today.
So are you saying that the ruling class do not control what we consider as facts?
No I am saying they try to every part of every day as humans with power are ought to do.
Why can't we agree upon global warming then? Sure a number of scientific agencies have been corrupt by the ruling class, but not the vast majority of them, and scientists themselves are not the ruling class.
A number of reasons. Patience is a virtue. Look at a gay marriage for instance. When Obama, the liberal democrat took office, he publicly opposed gay marriage. Trump, the republican, is the first president to take office endorsing gay marriage. Progress is slow, bess, especially with cultural shifts. Along the way the ruling class tries to co-opt the narrative for their own ends, slowing it down, again as humans are ought to do.
It may seem like I'm just trying to complicate this discussion, but I think this is literally the heart of it.
On the contrary, I think you've touched on the meat of it.
And therefore you distrust certain sources of alleged information? What is this based on?[/QUOTE]
Agreed, however I think you can take that idea and instead of applying it to a "higher authority" work to apply it to the ultimate authority - the consumers of the news itself.
Then you have a herding cats sort of thing which we are seeing now with some political movements. It is slow, disorganized, messy, easy to derail, etc.
I think one of the reasons why conservatives are interested in health care solutions that involve things like tax breaks is because with this sort of stimulation, you can herd cats far more effectively. Both essentially accomplish the same goal of encouraging certain kinds of behavior and discouraging others.
I would say that both involve our society figuring necromancy out first though.
To go back to my example of global warming, whether you do carbon credits, emission fees, try to galvanize everybody to stop buying from companies that do the greatest damage to the environment, or buy more from companies that are environmentally friendly (despite often costing the consumer more, which is obviously a HUGE deterrent or else perhaps we'd probably all buy our groceries from Whole Foods), none of this is going to be very effective if you still have a significant part of the population that doesn't even believe that global warming is a thing.
I know it's much more satisfying to ring the bells of freedom and say that everybody will just make the right call without a more elite class meddling, but I just don't buy this. Sorry, I know I'm going to sound like an elitist douche, but people are sheep, and what costs them the least often prevails. It is nearly impossible to get people to care about something like the environment (or whatever) while contending with powerful lobby groups that are funnelling money into making the sheep think and do what they want. I'll soften this by admitting that I'm a sheep in many ways - we all are. I don't buy all organic, my car burns gas, etc. Perhaps you and me are simply more aware of things, but there are very few things that any of us do that are really expressions of freedom and individuality. We just put ourselves into different groups of sheep, for the most part.
Sometimes you just have to make the call as to what the sheep ought to be doing based on what is best for society by stimulating the desired behavior. I know you are probably not going to let this point go, but it's true. Here's a very benign example... Microsoft wanted people to abandon Windows XP. They slowly, slowly, slowly phased it out, but people weren't volunteering to phase themselves out.
We need a ruling/elite class to help with this, but we need to try to ensure that they are as benevolent as possible.
I argued a few years back it's no longer right v left, that it's ruling class vs the people. I think it's never been more true than today.
Only it's a certain subset of the ruling class, because many people aren't buying any of that global warming stuff, but will happily buy into other things coming out of the ruling class. It seems to me like more of a fundamental question of trust, and a lot of this does come back to right v left.
That's why I want to tell people like Badkosh to **** off with his liberal rants. I don't feel exactly the same way about the left (if we were to have a Badkosh equivalent here on MacNN) mostly because I don't see a complete equivalency, but the same sports-like mentality exists there too, for sure. I feel this way because conservatives have let us all down in a very big way with many issues, as have democrats. They aren't our "friends" so this self-identification thing is, IMO, really dumb and exactly part of this sheep thing that ruling elites benefit from.
It's about these conversations and the direction for the country, but it is impossible to have these conversations without talking about Hillary's emails, Trump and Russia, or basically political x and y, or political party x and y.
A number of reasons. Patience is a virtue. Look at a gay marriage for instance. When Obama, the liberal democrat took office, he publicly opposed gay marriage. Trump, the republican, is the first president to take office endorsing gay marriage. Progress is slow, bess, especially with cultural shifts. Along the way the ruling class tries to co-opt the narrative for their own ends, slowing it down, again as humans are ought to do.
On the contrary, I think you've touched on the meat of it.
Thanks, but you lost me here.
The problem with global warming is a fundamental rejection of facts based on mistrust, whereas gay marriage is our social values and sense of morals, religion factoring in strongly.
Top