OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

[rhino]

Outside of sheer numbers, the Haitian Revolution and the early stirrings of the French Revolution might disprove your thesis.

About the Haitian Revolution:

An independent government was created in Haiti, but the country's society remained deeply affected by patterns established under French colonial rule. Since many planters had provided for the mixed-race children they had by African women, by giving them education and (for males) training and entrée into the French military, the mulatto descendants who along with the wealthy freedmen had been orchestrators of the revolution became the elite of Haitian society after the war's end. Many of them had used their social capital to acquire wealth, and some already owned land. Some had identified more with the French colonists than the slaves.

Mulatto domination of politics and economics after the revolution created another two-caste society, as most Haitians were rural subsistence farmers.[13] In addition, the nascent state's future was compromised in 1825 when France forced it to pay 150 million gold francs in reparations to French ex-slaveholders—as a condition of French recognition and to end the nation's political and economic isolation.[14] Though the amount of the reparations was reduced in 1838, Haiti was unable to finish paying off its debt until 1947, and the payments left the country's government deeply impoverished, causing instability.​

"Early stirrings" doesn't really count. I think those that stand to benefit the most from a revolution, some power and wealth but not enough, will co-op any movement to make sure they are the beneficiaries. The French revolution is a great example of this. It also got pretty gnarly because as heads started to roll there was a steady supply of new people to benefit.

 

[rhino]

That, along with religion, anti-science, anti-intellectualism, racism, bigotry, free market economics, anti-government paranoia, states rights, fear of socialism, Fox News, hatred of taxation, etc., having poisoned the minds of voters.

I agree with alot of this, but everybody gets a voice and they all don't think the same way you do.

I just wish the anti-government paranoia crowd would try to block things like the patriot act instead of only applying that logic to more deregulation for big businesses and bitching about healthcare reform.

 

[VoidTerraFirma]

what the hell did I just watch? I am going to have nightmares about the wolf in sheep's clothing, I hope you are happy.

You've been Carlyfied! Live each day burdened by gnawing fear.

 

[mongooz]

So politics without the Republican Party. I like it.

certainly the way it exists today.
i think there may be a few ideas that are generally considered Rep. are useful. strong military and the stones to use them. strong deterents for terrorist attacks. decent (honest) foreign intel group(s). the (use to be) notion that less government in everyone's lives is a good one.
not kissing other countries ass all the time is a good idea. etc.

 

[Flamencology]

the media would NEVER go along with that. they'd have nothing to do. and candidates voting records only is useful if they've been in office before running for Pres. privateers like trump HAVE no voting record.
i think they SHOULD say what they're going to do, what their plans are. but if they take pot shots at their opponents, it should be an automatice $100,000 deduction from their campaign fund. and EVERYONE MUST have a publicly funded campaign fund. NO PRIVATE MONEY!!!

I find it bewildering that people see "the media" as a single entity. I understand that a lot of newspapers are owned by a small number of businesses, that TV news is mostly shit, and that talk radio is essentially Satanism without the good qualities.

But there's still plenty of excellent journalism out there, and there are still publications who hire hardcore fact-checkers.

 

[mongooz]

I find it bewildering that people see "the media" as a single entity. I understand that a lot of newspapers are owned by a small number of businesses, that TV news is mostly shit, and that talk radio is essentially Satanism without the good qualities.

But there's still plenty of excellent journalism out there, and there are still publications who hire hardcore fact-checkers.

i was referring to ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and sometimes PBS. what's on tv every night. they spin and dramatize everything. even the damn weather.

 

[rhino]

I find it bewildering that people see "the media" as a single entity. I understand that a lot of newspapers are owned by a small number of businesses, that TV news is mostly shit, and that talk radio is essentially Satanism without the good qualities.

But there's still plenty of excellent journalism out there, and there are still publications who hire hardcore fact-checkers.

I find the BBC to be pretty good and more neutral than most options in the US.

 

[Chad]

the media would NEVER go along with that. they'd have nothing to do. and candidates voting records only is useful if they've been in office before running for Pres. privateers like trump HAVE no voting record.
i think they SHOULD say what they're going to do, what their plans are. but if they take pot shots at their opponents, it should be an automatice $100,000 deduction from their campaign fund. and EVERYONE MUST have a publicly funded campaign fund. NO PRIVATE MONEY!!!

who gives a shit if the media would go along with it? They can talk all they want, but no interviews or commercials.

I am also talking about congress as well. And you're right, if you haven't been in office, you don't have a record, but once you are in, you will pay more attention to how you vote and if you show up to vote. I wonder how many folks would get reelected if their constituents knew how and if they voted on bills?

Honestly, there is no need for money in campaigns at all anymore. The domain name registrar could give free urls to the candidates. The government web servers could host those pages at no cost to the candidates and any messages could be posted on youtube for free with transcripts in the papers for folks who don't have internet.

 

[rhino]

i was referring to ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and sometimes PBS. what's on tv every night. they spin and dramatize everything. even the damn weather.

With the exception of PBS, they're main job is to sell advertising. Dramatizing everything keeps people watching and profits go up.

 

[rhino]

who gives a shit if the media would go along with it? They can talk all they want, but no interviews or commercials.

I am also talking about congress as well. And you're right, if you haven't been in office, you don't have a record, but once you are in, you will pay more attention to how you vote and if you show up to vote. I wonder how many folks would get reelected if their constituents knew how and if they voted on bills?

Honestly, there is no need for money in campaigns at all anymore. The domain name registrar could give free urls to the candidates. The government web servers could host those pages at no cost to the candidates and any messages could be posted on youtube for free with transcripts in the papers for folks who don't have internet.

The people who give a shit are the ones that profit the most from the current system, both Democrats and Republicans alike, and won't allow it to happen.

 

[Chad]

That, along with religion, anti-science, anti-intellectualism, racism, bigotry, free market economics, anti-government paranoia, states rights, fear of socialism, Fox News, hatred of taxation, etc., having poisoned the minds of voters.

I think if you got rid of the money, the rest would eventually shake itself out.

 

[Flamencology]

I find the BBC to be pretty good and more neutral than most options in the US.

I don't feel that neutrality is necessary for good reporting, as long as it's factual and transparent.

 

[Tig]

Who the fuck would take their child to a modern political protest?
They are probably the kind of parent that lets their kid run loose in restaurants and ride in the car without a child seat a seat belt.

 

[rhino]

I don't feel that neutrality is necessary for good reporting, as long as it's factual and transparent.

I think the idea of neutrality was something thought up by guys like Walter Cronkite to pat themselves on the back. The media has never been without bias. Thomas Jefferson was a newspaper man that was run of New Jersey (?) for being too radical.

I think the closer we can get to true objectivity, the better.

 

[Flamencology]

I think the idea of neutrality was something thought up by guys like Walter Cronkite to pat themselves on the back. The media has never been without bias. Thomas Jefferson was a newspaper man that was run of New Jersey (?) for being too radical.

I think the closer we can get to true objectivity, the better.

Ideally, but it's an impossible ideal. People will always argue about things that are worth arguing about. Of course, US elections tend to focus on the wrong issues.

 

[mongooz]

Sorry, I only came to here to say that I can't believe this thread has gotten to 52 pages in general, let alone without being locked. Good job by the MWGL forumites for proving the ability of people with differing perspectives and opinions to engage in civil discourse.

That said, I haven't read much since the first five or so pages of the thread, so you all may have been terrible to each other and a stain on the underwear of humankind, but I want assume better.

you get a thread that goes this far on a subject that is subjective and impassioned as heck when the folks posting their thoughts and opinions do so in a (reasonably) respectful manner and DO NOT stoop to name calling and disparaging remarks. and we have done that.
(that, and i don't think there are too many rabid trump supporters here, so there's that)

 

[micwalt]

I think if you got rid of the money, the rest would eventually shake itself out.

And the religion.

 

[jp_nyc]

Who the fuck would take their child to a modern political protest?
They are probably the kind of parent that lets their kid run loose in restaurants and ride in the car without a child seat a seat belt.

Most protests are pretty mellow. Police riots like we saw in NYC and Ferguson are rare. And having children around is a good way to keep the pigs in line, because even the FOP can't save a cop who starts beating protestors in front of children while cameras are rolling.

 

[rhino]

Ideally, but it's an impossible ideal. People will always argue about things that are worth arguing about. Of course, US elections tend to focus on the wrong issues.

Of course. It's still an ideal to strive for. I also think there is something to be said for opinion pieces, no matter how biased. Just don't parade it as news.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I think the idea of neutrality was something thought up by guys like Walter Cronkite to pat themselves on the back. The media has never been without bias. Thomas Jefferson was a newspaper man that was run of New Jersey (?) for being too radical.

I think the closer we can get to true objectivity, the better.

I agree that there was never any true and pure objectivity. Really no way to do that IMO. What bothers me more is the broad brushing, lack of attention to detail, lack of fact checking, and teamsmanship/flag waving that seems to be more common these days. At least with the more popular news outlets. @Flamencology and @Tig , you guys were mentioning some good journalism out there. I am interested in broadening my horizons. Can you suggest a few places to start? I already enjoy going to BBC. I also enjoy PBS and NPR, though I know that some would not view those as neutral or objective. And, I don't think they are quite as good as they used to be.