General US Politics

[Life]

I can't find a source citing Hillary or her campaign saying anything about Trump's family, so if you could be more specific? The media has run some pieces for sure, but the media doesn't speak for the candidate.

When journalists applaud atrocious interviews like the ones that Hilary does whenever she is asked a serious question, then I say that the media speaks for the candidate.

Julian Assage claims that he can prove that Hilary Clinton was complicit in the murder of an Iranian asset that magically disappeared from the USA and ended up in Iran (who was then hanged a few days later). And Assage has already proved that he has access to thousands of documents every time his bluff is called. So why isn't the media reporting about this or even asking Senator Clinton about the mis-use of information that may have costs lives?

I think there's a term for that. Second degree murder, was it? If I have no intent to kill someone but my negligence or inaction directly led to their death, that would be punishable by a criminal court.

If this is true, why are we still trying to prove that Senator Clinton is an angel?

[Tangerine]

I can't find a source citing Hillary or her campaign saying anything about Trump's family, so if you could be more specific? The media has run some pieces for sure, but the media doesn't speak for the candidate.

The media absolutely speaks for the campaign (under the guise of not speaking for the campaign), that's why the relationship exists at all - the exact same relationship exists on the right with networks like Fox News. The company that owns CNN is one of Clinton's biggest donors, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the democratic party (and Clinton campaign) have significant pull. For a network so closely linked to them to be putting articles out about Trump's family (the most recent being trying to push the narrative that his wife broke immigration laws 30 years ago) to divert attention away from Clinton scandals is a huge red flag.

Trump is abhorrent, and he involves and insults a lot of people unnecessarily, by all accounts he is not a polite or nice person. But it's not a trait exclusive to him; you just hear it coming out of his mouth instead of in attack articles by "journalists". This election is exposing a lot of the dirty politics in US government that we already knew existed but were never brought to the forefront of discussion.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Tangerine

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

oh yeah there is some definite media bias here, in this one political game i play there's even a stat called "Media Bias"

comparing the two, Trump has 3 and Hillary has 7 (both of these are out of 10)

it sounds about right give or take.

EDIT: funny enough they both have the same rating for Credibility, 3.

Edited August 9, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[-Cynthia-]

The media absolutely speaks for the campaign (under the guise of not speaking for the campaign), that's why the relationship exists at all - the exact same relationship exists on the right with networks like Fox News. The company that owns CNN is one of Clinton's biggest donors, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the democratic party (and Clinton campaign) have significant pull. For a network so closely linked to them to be putting articles out about Trump's family (the most recent being trying to push the narrative that his wife broke immigration laws 30 years ago) to divert attention away from Clinton scandals is a huge red flag.

Trump is abhorrent, and he involves and insults a lot of people unnecessarily, by all accounts he is not a polite or nice person. But it's not a trait exclusive to him; you just hear it coming out of his mouth instead of in attack articles by "journalists". This election is exposing a lot of the dirty politics in US government that we already knew existed but were never brought to the forefront of discussion.

Well I'm not going to deny that political parties have a major influence on the media- but claiming that every media story is created by a political campaign is getting into tinfoil hat territory. Ultimately, I don't think we can hold candidates responsible for media outlets who find it in their best interests to support them unless we can somehow determine who is 'independent' and who isn't. I don't hold Trump responsible for whatever Fox News says either, I consider them separate entities despite their relationship.

@Pharoahe It would probably be a more newsworthy story if Assange actually produced whatever incriminating documents he supposedly has.

[Phoenix Wright]

Phoenix, if we were face to face, would you be willing to sit down and discuss this argument in a civil manner or do my viewpoints disgust you too much to do so?

i didn't see this. sure, we could talk over a beer or some shit. like i said though, i was bored and you get mad really fast so i'm not gonna miss the opportunity to have some fun.

i would like to say i don't take back what i said; you certainly have traces of bigotry in your views. i think this stems from, as lord raven said, ignorance on the science. ignorance on science is common here, though, as it happens.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Tangerine]

Well I'm not going to deny that political parties have a major influence on the media- but claiming that every media story is created by a political campaign is getting into tinfoil hat territory. Ultimately, I don't think we can hold candidates responsible for media outlets who find it in their best interests to support them unless we can somehow determine who is 'independent' and who isn't. I don't hold Trump responsible for whatever Fox News says either, I consider them separate entities despite their relationship.

@Pharoahe It would probably be a more newsworthy story if Assange actually produced whatever incriminating documents he supposedly has.

My argument isn't that every media story is influenced by a particular campaign, it's that networks and websites that are very clearly in league with political parties (your CNNs and Foxs) are as much a part of their campaign as anyone with an official title.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Tangerine

[Phoenix Wright]

would you argue there exists reliable, if at least somewhat credible, journalism? i hold the same opinion as you when it comes to big media outlets, but i wanna know how you feel.

[-Cynthia-]

My argument isn't that every media story is influenced by a particular campaign, it's that networks and websites that are very clearly in league with political parties (your CNNs and Foxs) are as much a part of their campaign as anyone with an official title.

The thing is that more 'independent' news sources are probably even less trustworthy. Is Mother Jones or Breitbart (let's say these sources are not officially affiliated with major political parties for the sake of argument) actually a better news source than CNN given their highly partisan slant? One has to get the news from somewhere and a nonpartisan independent source seems like a mythical creature at this point.

[Crysta]

i think i might trust fox news over breitbart when it comes to bias and that's saying a lot

EDIT: i'd say 'independent' or less well-known organizations probably have less oversight in general (less of a reputation to uphold) but don't quote me on that

Edited August 9, 2016 by Crysta

[CyborgZeta]

Breitbart is basically the conservative equivalent of Huffington Post; neither should be taken as credible, barring articles that regurgitate other sources.

[Person123]

My argument isn't that every media story is influenced by a particular campaign, it's that networks and websites that are very clearly in league with political parties (your CNNs and Foxs) are as much a part of their campaign as anyone with an official title.

The DNC email leaks provide very good examples of this sort of collaboration.

"I think the best reporter to give the news to ahead of time is Greg Sargent at the Washington Post. But, the specific reporter is not as important as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control the narrative on the front" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11242

(Politico) "Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back." https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Planting stories in the Washington Post https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8157

DNC wanting to promote pro-Hillary news during primary, discussion of "quietly sharing". https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8744

[Thane]

Anti-vaxxers do not have a leg to stand on. This man, on top of the media, is where that garbage came from. I would also like to note that the media itself has fucked up science beyond what science actually is, because of an issue that goes beyond just anti-vaxxers and goes into science in general.

The best paragraph in that article:

It's really questionable why that doesn't get reported. Probably isn't clickbaity. Andrew Wakefield's paper in 1998 got over-reported here most likely due to the thing from that John Oliver segment.

That's what I don't understand; it has been debunked over and over, yet enough people keep believing it to get a presidential candidate to pander to them.

Not supporting gay marriage: I think politicians who preach this also preach other restrictions on LGBT people, so to me it ends up going hand in hand. The thing is that the shift towards a more liberal view of this in our left wing is something that seems very recent, because around 2014 is when gay marriage was legalized nationwide and I remember Obama not being for gay marriage back in 2010, but don't quote me on that. This is actually a new concept for our politicians to adjust to, because now former politicians who were against gay marriage are now in favor of it.

I see. Whichever way the wind blows, huh? I suppose that's just like anywhere else in the world, I'm just surprised it's still such a big deal. People's sexual preferences don't affect anyone else, so why waste time debating it?

My only response is because the majority of people in this nation are Christian and are afraid of their Christian values being taken away by a non-Christian president. It is actually told to us in schools that freedom to go by whatever christian denomination you wish to be a part of is a reason for our founding fathers to escape to here, and people tend to cling to the word of the founding fathers quite heavily. To me it seems like a bunch of shit, because a lot of very very conservative people I've talked to believe that freedom of religion comes from a more Christian mindset than a generalized mindset. It's really nonsensical.

But what values are those? This is very hard for me to understand, and I realize I must come across as either a naïve idiot or yet another pretentious European, but I simply don't get this. That people fled from the Old World to the new one due to a wide variety of reasons is an undeniable fact that has most likely shaped a big part of America's culture, but things have changed quite a bit since those days. What do people think would happen if an atheist came into power? Do they think they'd ban churches or what?

There were more than a few gun control debates on this forum so you can check those out, but a lot of conservatives tend to cling to the constitution, namely the second amendment, and believe it makes them feel safer and it's a form of self-defense. Some are also against regulation because... I never understood this myself, and I hesitate to link a segment from a fake news show because it's just making fun of the guy, but you should probably google this one. The only argument I know is that it's not written into our constitution.

I'm familiar with the second amendment, but surely things have changed a lot in the hundreds of years that have passed. I'm loath to bring it up, but the numerous mass shootings and gun-related accidents don't happen in he U.S just because criminals are more active there, but because guns are so easily accessible. I realize there are other contributing factors, but I don't understand why it's considered a right ot have a tool that was designed to kill people when it's clearly affecting society negatively.

My personal theory is that some Americans don't care strongly about policy (because talking about politics is bad, right?), so they look at how relatable the candidates are. If a candidate shares my values and upbringings, I'll like them more. Combine that with 70% of Americans identifying as Christians, and Christianity becomes a political staple. Plus the reasons Lord Raven said.

I like to call it "beer factor". As in "can I sit down and enjoy a beer with this guy".

For example, say what you will but Hillary Clinton has absolutely no beer factor. Obama had lots. Bush and Clinton had it in spades.

It gives the voter a sense of "this candidate actually cares about my needs".

But...aren't most of the important politicians in America rich as all get-out, and studied at the nicer universities? I mean, the "beer factor" seems like a flawed concept from the start. I'm very unfamiliar wih this, so correct me if I say something false, but aren't many politicians also against taxing the rich more? That seems like a fundamental flaw in a country that pays very little taxes.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your replies. It's very intriguing to hear what you all have to say and find out just how different the U.S is.

[blah the Prussian]

What do people think would happen if an atheist came into power? Do they think they'd ban churches or what?

For a good portion of the population? Probably, yes.

[Lord Raven]

I see. Whichever way the wind blows, huh? I suppose that's just like anywhere else in the world, I'm just surprised it's still such a big deal. People's sexual preferences don't affect anyone else, so why waste time debating it?

Easy: politicians can utilize it to get people on their side. Just throw out a dose of homophobia, quote the bible, and bam you got support.

But what values are those? This is very hard for me to understand, and I realize I must come across as either a naïve idiot or yet another pretentious European, but I simply don't get this. That people fled from the Old World to the new one due to a wide variety of reasons is an undeniable fact that has most likely shaped a big part of America's culture, but things have changed quite a bit since those days. What do people think would happen if an atheist came into power? Do they think they'd ban churches or what?

I should've written "Christian values", to make it obvious that I was sort of mocking the concept. But people do say this.

People would also believe an atheist president would eliminate all religion. I would like to note that a lot of idiots shit on Obama on the grounds that he is Muslim (lol because if he's black he can't possibly be a Christian right?), and some are also irrationally afraid that this will lead to him enforcing Sharia Law. People honestly do believe that America is a Christian nation; almost one step below a theocracy.

I'm familiar with the second amendment, but surely things have changed a lot in the hundreds of years that have passed. I'm loath to bring it up, but the numerous mass shootings and gun-related accidents don't happen in he U.S just because criminals are more active there, but because guns are so easily accessible. I realize there are other contributing factors, but I don't understand why it's considered a right ot have a tool that was designed to kill people when it's clearly affecting society negatively.

Guns are also a strange issue to deal with. Remember that America is diverse in landscape and culture, and one's livelihood from state to state varies heavily. Someone in Maine will need a gun so they can more easily afford food for their family (due to being in a relatively remote area); someone in New York City is better off without a gun. Simply holding onto our second amendment as an argument is foolish, although there are a number of people who believe that should a tyrannical government take over American we can take up arms and defend ourselves. Having that said, that argument is ludicrous, considering how any civilians with a bunch of guns would get completely bodied by the military.

But...aren't most of the important politicians in America rich as all get-out, and studied at the nicer universities? I mean, the "beer factor" seems like a flawed concept from the start. I'm very unfamiliar wih this, so correct me if I say something false, but aren't many politicians also against taxing the rich more? That seems like a fundamental flaw in a country that pays very little taxes.

Yes, many of them are. I don't relate to many politicians and I find it ludicrous to be able to want to relate to politicians. In general when you're looking at celebrities or anything on TV that is larger than life, you want to be able to think you'd be able to hang out with them, which is why celebrity gossip culture exists all throughout the world (which I can't necessarily claim but I know for a fact that Pakistan/India has the same tabloid gossip shit that we have here for their actors/actresses). You definitely want to think of these people as closer to human and that's comforting, even though said celebs don't give a shit about you.

I'm actually surprised that you don't understand this at the very least, because this "beer factor" as Life describes it is not exclusive to the United States.

[Thane]

For a good portion of the population? Probably, yes.

But...why? Even if a candidate wanted to do that, which is hard to imagine, actually saying it would turn the entire country against them!

Easy: politicians can utilize it to get people on their side. Just throw out a dose of homophobia, quote the bible, and bam you got support.

I guess I'm just surprised by how many people care so much about who sleeps with who.

I should've written "Christian values", to make it obvious that I was sort of mocking the concept. But people do say this.

People would also believe an atheist president would eliminate all religion. I would like to note that a lot of idiots shit on Obama on the grounds that he is Muslim (lol because if he's black he can't possibly be a Christian right?), and some are also irrationally afraid that this will lead to him enforcing Sharia Law. People honestly do believe that America is a Christian nation; almost one step below a theocracy.

Hah, yeah I've read plenty about that. It's like with the birther movement that somehow wasn't stopped even though they even showed his birth certificate. The sheer amount of conspiracy theories encircling that man is almost impressive, really.

Guns are also a strange issue to deal with. Remember that America is diverse in landscape and culture, and one's livelihood from state to state varies heavily. Someone in Maine will need a gun so they can more easily afford food for their family (due to being in a relatively remote area); someone in New York City is better off without a gun. Simply holding onto our second amendment as an argument is foolish, although there are a number of people who believe that should a tyrannical government take over American we can take up arms and defend ourselves. Having that said, that argument is ludicrous, considering how any civilians with a bunch of guns would get completely bodied by the military.

Of course I'm not arguing against people who need rifles or things like that in remote areas, forgive me if I wasn't clear enough about that. I was mostly talking about the major cities or even calm suburbs where people think they need one for whatever reason. I think it's sad that so many people feel so unsafe in their own homes, honestly.

Yes, that argument doesn't really hold water. If I'm not mistaken, you need a lot of training to handle a gun properly, right? I don't understand the mentality of being able to prevent crimes and mass shootings from happening just by giving the populace guns, much less stand up against the military.

Yes, many of them are. I don't relate to many politicians and I find it ludicrous to be able to want to relate to politicians. In general when you're looking at celebrities or anything on TV that is larger than life, you want to be able to think you'd be able to hang out with them, which is why celebrity gossip culture exists all throughout the world (which I can't necessarily claim but I know for a fact that Pakistan/India has the same tabloid gossip shit that we have here for their actors/actresses). You definitely want to think of these people as closer to human and that's comforting, even though said celebs don't give a shit about you.

I'm actually surprised that you don't understand this at the very least, because this "beer factor" as Life describes it is not exclusive to the United States.

It's not that I don't understand the concept, it's that I'm not sure it could be applied to the top American politicians for the most part. Again, I'm not talking about things I'm very familiar with, so I welcome anyone correcting me, but I was under the impression that most of the bigwigs in the country came from prestigious backgrounds, went to the best universities, etc. What I meant to say was that those things aren't very relatable to the average American. Of course it's preferable if a candidate feels more human (which is probably why Ted Cruz failed and why Hillary Clinton is so unpopular), and of course it exists all over the world, I just got stuck up on the word "relatable".

I also seem to remember the media complaining about Obama drinking a beer at a baseball game...

[Ansem]

For a good portion of the population? Probably, yes.

I don't think an atheist would go around banning churches moreso he/she would remove references from schools at most. I guess the "In God we Trust" on the dollar bill would stay because its a minor thing and who cares. Persecuting religion is against the constitution, and as an Atheist I would rather not see other peoples views shut down because that leads to negativity.

[Lord Raven]

An atheist would not do that, but some politician would probably convince people that he would in an election.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

real talk, i don't think the senate would allow an atheist president to remove any religious stuff.

[blah the Prussian]

I wasn't saying that an Athiest President would do that, I was saying that that's what a good portion of the public would think n Athiest President would do.

[-Cynthia-]

It's not that I don't understand the concept, it's that I'm not sure it could be applied to the top American politicians for the most part. Again, I'm not talking about things I'm very familiar with, so I welcome anyone correcting me, but I was under the impression that most of the bigwigs in the country came from prestigious backgrounds, went to the best universities, etc. What I meant to say was that those things aren't very relatable to the average American. Of course it's preferable if a candidate feels more human (which is probably why Ted Cruz failed and why Hillary Clinton is so unpopular), and of course it exists all over the world, I just got stuck up on the word "relatable".

I also seem to remember the media complaining about Obama drinking a beer at a baseball game...

I get why it can be confusing because American politicans are very frequently from the upper classes as opposed to the working classes and pretty much everyone can agree on this. https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/06/03/white-collar-government/ However, most Americans are working class so these upper class politicans have to put on their most convincing act that they are really just like people like us. It's a big sham really.

Some media outlets will complain that Obama sneezed disrespectfully, it's one of the perils of being president.

Edited August 9, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Person123]

Well this is shady.

[Crysta]

i want less suggestions and more facts pls

seriously why even go there if you truly have nothing to back it up

Edited August 10, 2016 by Crysta

[Phoenix Wright]

#shockvalue

assange is useful, but he's not a god, and just because he thinks something doesn't make it true.

[Irysa]

I know some of y'all can't stand NYTimes but I thought this piece summed up Trump's latest Trumpeting pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/opinion/trumps-ambiguous-wink-wink-to-second-amendment-people.html

[Water Mage]

I know some of y'all can't stand NYTimes but I thought this piece summed up Trump's latest Trumpeting pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/opinion/trumps-ambiguous-wink-wink-to-second-amendment-people.html

I didn't read this a NYTimes, but I've heard of this.

Does this guy have a brain to mouth filter?

Is he aware that are some unstable people that might actually do that?

And I'm hearing he's losing votes due to the things he's saying recently.