USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes early
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
Be sure to vote Trump by shooting the first NBA relative you find!
Be sure to vote Trump by shooting the first NBA relative you find!
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
"No, you can't have a McCarran Act now, it's unconstitutional."
"But that's my point too. People can look at it and say, this is ridiculous, that's unconstitutional, you can't have that. Or they can say, that may work, and I'd like to hear more about it."
You don't actually know what "unconstitutional" means, do you?
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
"No, you can't have a McCarran Act now, it's unconstitutional."
"But that's my point too. People can look at it and say, this is ridiculous, that's unconstitutional, you can't have that. Or they can say, that may work, and I'd like to hear more about it."
You don't actually know what "unconstitutional" means, do you?
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
Just because something is unconstitutional is no reason not to go ahead and try it anyway.
Just because something is unconstitutional is no reason not to go ahead and try it anyway.
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
I'm rather surprised that we have yet to reach the point where conservatives -- or what passes for conservatives in this presidential race -- bother coming on MSNBC or their Democratic counterparts show up at FOX. It's one thing to preach to the choir but to attempt to speak to a subset of people who insist your truthiness is in question if you say the sky is blue or 2+2=4 seems like a waste of time. It seems to me that the networks could all do just as well showing the Trump events, or portions and snippets of them, and then inviting the requisite liberal or Trump spin doctor to come on and spin it for people who have already made up their minds about what they just heard.
I'm rather surprised that we have yet to reach the point where conservatives -- or what passes for conservatives in this presidential race -- bother coming on MSNBC or their Democratic counterparts show up at FOX. It's one thing to preach to the choir but to attempt to speak to a subset of people who insist your truthiness is in question if you say the sky is blue or 2+2=4 seems like a waste of time. It seems to me that the networks could all do just as well showing the Trump events, or portions and snippets of them, and then inviting the requisite liberal or Trump spin doctor to come on and spin it for people who have already made up their minds about what they just heard.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
I don't know, but a wise Trump will never allow himself to be questioned by anyone but a friendly. We want him to because it's good entertainment, but his campaign is just not capable of gaining from the experience, just as McCain's campaign never gained from Palin's real exposure.
I don't know, but a wise Trump will never allow himself to be questioned by anyone but a friendly. We want him to because it's good entertainment, but his campaign is just not capable of gaining from the experience, just as McCain's campaign never gained from Palin's real exposure.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
CNN gets ripped a lot, but I think Anderson Cooper's 'round-table' bits do the best job of trying to offer up two sides to every coin compared with FNC or MSNBC. The panel of 6 is the closest thing to a split side and Cooper will challenge liberal guests every bit as much as conservative ones.
CNN gets ripped a lot, but I think Anderson Cooper's 'round-table' bits do the best job of trying to offer up two sides to every coin compared with FNC or MSNBC. The panel of 6 is the closest thing to a split side and Cooper will challenge liberal guests every bit as much as conservative ones.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
I like Cooper, and Lemon isn't bad at all.
I like Cooper, and Lemon isn't bad at all.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
I'm pretty sure most members of this board could school what passes for the conservative "intelligentsia" in 2016.
I mean, Kellyanne Conway has no problem going on Maher's show and getting owned, and he's pretty d@mn idiotic when it comes to some issues. So she's far from the sharpest bottle blonde in the Allies arsenal.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
you pass it and let the court decide when it gets there whether or not it is in fact.
then you work on changing it (there is that bor thingy
).
you pass it and let the court decide when it gets there whether or not it is in fact.
then you work on changing it (there is that bor thingy
).Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
Good call. This time even more so than usual. Trump's core is very hard supporters and the nature of an underlying interview won't faze them one bit. On the other hand, its time for him to swing for the fences...and softballs are easier to hit out of the park.
Frankly, that's the way its been. Media on the right has baked that. It has created an agenda of attack to a lesser part on policy and a greater part on personal issues. This actually carries over to the GOPs current role as the opposition to the party in power...which operates a bit strange when they have the majorities in congress. Outside of cutting (if that counts), the right has been ill equipped to identify and develop problem solving policy solutions for years.
Good call. This time even more so than usual. Trump's core is very hard supporters and the nature of an underlying interview won't faze them one bit. On the other hand, its time for him to swing for the fences...and softballs are easier to hit out of the park.
Frankly, that's the way its been. Media on the right has baked that. It has created an agenda of attack to a lesser part on policy and a greater part on personal issues. This actually carries over to the GOPs current role as the opposition to the party in power...which operates a bit strange when they have the majorities in congress. Outside of cutting (if that counts), the right has been ill equipped to identify and develop problem solving policy solutions for years.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
This is more of CNN's problem than an attribute. Both-siderism (the 100% fidelity to the concept of both sides do it in the media, which makes for absurd false equivalencies) is why nobody watches that network or a lot of traditional media anymore. The Associated Press is currently getting roasted for the same thing.
Cooper-Blitzer-King = The Three Stooges. Crappy journalists on a dying network.
This is more of CNN's problem than an attribute. Both-siderism (the 100% fidelity to the concept of both sides do it in the media, which makes for absurd false equivalencies) is why nobody watches that network or a lot of traditional media anymore. The Associated Press is currently getting roasted for the same thing.
Cooper-Blitzer-King = The Three Stooges. Crappy journalists on a dying network.
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
Maybe, but I think the way these bits have come to be SOP on a lot of the "news" channels is just another part of the problem. Almost every time there is some political "news" being presented, there are representatives from both sides there to spin things to the favor of their candidate or the side their party has staked out. But the only reason we see this is so the particular channel doesn't get accused of bias. God forbid we report and discuss what Trump or Clinton say without a Clinton or Trump surrogate their to defend them. It's phony, pandering and rarely brings clarity to the subjects that are discussed.
I don't know just when we started seeing the opposition party response to the president's state of the union address televised, but it's the same concept. It feeds the whole "us against them" mentality that has poisoned politics in this country. This concept is even followed in years when a brand new president makes a speech to a joint session of congress that is not officially a State Of The Union address. God forbid we can listen to a president, the one elected official in nation who theoretically represents EVERY American, without feeling the need to then immediately listen to someone say something else. A person of one party makes a statement and someone from another party gets to disagree with it and tell us why they think its a lie. It doesn't further our knowledge or foster cooperation or compromise. It actually does just the opposite.
This was generally not how news was presented for the first 30 or 40 years of TV news. Then CNN came along and unknowingly and unwittingly became the first domino in the downfall of TV news. When Ted Turner decided to start a 24 hour all news channel, it signaled that someone who made a lot of money thought News could make money. Eventually, very quickly actually, all of the networks decided "we can make money on news too." And the race to the lowest common denominator began. The garbage and endless preaching to the choir messages of MSNBC and FOX News are simply the inevitable by-product of the evolution of TV news. And 99% of the time you walk away from your TV no better informed than you were when you sat down because you already believe whatever it was that Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly or John Stewart just said.
Imagine if you will the Watergate scandal taking place in 2016 instead of 1972. Nixon was re-elected in 1972 with 2/3rds of the popular vote and when he was inaugurated for his second term his approval rating was 70%. In the weeks following the Saturday Night Massacre (just 9 months later) his approval rating had dropped to 25% and more Americans thought he should be removed from office than approved of his performance. I don't see this happening today because today everyone makes up their mind and then goes to FOX or MSNBC and gets their daily dose of confirmation. Maybe a few of the 2/3rds who voted for Nixon would come to regret that vote, or maybe a few of the 70% who approved of him would have seen a change in their opinion. But most people would simply be tuning in day after day to their go-to channels and dig themselves deeper and deeper into their opinion. Thankfully the most corrupt and criminal administration during the lifetime of anyone who is alive today happened when most Americans knew how to consume news and responsibly did so.
Maybe, but I think the way these bits have come to be SOP on a lot of the "news" channels is just another part of the problem. Almost every time there is some political "news" being presented, there are representatives from both sides there to spin things to the favor of their candidate or the side their party has staked out. But the only reason we see this is so the particular channel doesn't get accused of bias. God forbid we report and discuss what Trump or Clinton say without a Clinton or Trump surrogate their to defend them. It's phony, pandering and rarely brings clarity to the subjects that are discussed.
I don't know just when we started seeing the opposition party response to the president's state of the union address televised, but it's the same concept. It feeds the whole "us against them" mentality that has poisoned politics in this country. This concept is even followed in years when a brand new president makes a speech to a joint session of congress that is not officially a State Of The Union address. God forbid we can listen to a president, the one elected official in nation who theoretically represents EVERY American, without feeling the need to then immediately listen to someone say something else. A person of one party makes a statement and someone from another party gets to disagree with it and tell us why they think its a lie. It doesn't further our knowledge or foster cooperation or compromise. It actually does just the opposite.
This was generally not how news was presented for the first 30 or 40 years of TV news. Then CNN came along and unknowingly and unwittingly became the first domino in the downfall of TV news. When Ted Turner decided to start a 24 hour all news channel, it signaled that someone who made a lot of money thought News could make money. Eventually, very quickly actually, all of the networks decided "we can make money on news too." And the race to the lowest common denominator began. The garbage and endless preaching to the choir messages of MSNBC and FOX News are simply the inevitable by-product of the evolution of TV news. And 99% of the time you walk away from your TV no better informed than you were when you sat down because you already believe whatever it was that Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly or John Stewart just said.
Imagine if you will the Watergate scandal taking place in 2016 instead of 1972. Nixon was re-elected in 1972 with 2/3rds of the popular vote and when he was inaugurated for his second term his approval rating was 70%. In the weeks following the Saturday Night Massacre (just 9 months later) his approval rating had dropped to 25% and more Americans thought he should be removed from office than approved of his performance. I don't see this happening today because today everyone makes up their mind and then goes to FOX or MSNBC and gets their daily dose of confirmation. Maybe a few of the 2/3rds who voted for Nixon would come to regret that vote, or maybe a few of the 70% who approved of him would have seen a change in their opinion. But most people would simply be tuning in day after day to their go-to channels and dig themselves deeper and deeper into their opinion. Thankfully the most corrupt and criminal administration during the lifetime of anyone who is alive today happened when most Americans knew how to consume news and responsibly did so.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
Problem is why in 2016 would any one watch 24 hours of news (except for the addicted types and addicted types aren't watching news).
Problem is why in 2016 would any one watch 24 hours of news (except for the addicted types and addicted types aren't watching news).
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
Best take down the media I ever say was Bill Moyers report on the coverage of the Iraq War. Beyond their total and complete failure, even of so called liberal outfits like CNN and the NY Times (the lead cheerleader of the war with Judith Miller on page 1), it got into how all of this evolved.
An older Washington Post reporter said it really started in the early 80's. Reagan would give a press conference and have a bunch of inaccuracies in his comments (trees cause pollution for example). When the Post would call that out they'd get some blowback from their readers telling them to give the old guy a break and all that. So, they decided that it was no longer their job to point out facts. It was up to the opposition party to do so if he said something incorrect. Once you cross that divide, you no longer are interested in the truth, and you've set up a he said-she said dynamic that prevails today. With that in place, you also need to implement a both sides do it mentality so as not to be accused of "bias". The hilarious thing in all of this is nobody's watching compared to generations ago. Yes, its certainly true that you can get your info elsewhere now, but that doesn't discount how laughable mainstream media coverage is nowadays. How do John King, Cokie Roberts, and Bill Kristol for example still have jobs?
Best take down the media I ever say was Bill Moyers report on the coverage of the Iraq War. Beyond their total and complete failure, even of so called liberal outfits like CNN and the NY Times (the lead cheerleader of the war with Judith Miller on page 1), it got into how all of this evolved.
An older Washington Post reporter said it really started in the early 80's. Reagan would give a press conference and have a bunch of inaccuracies in his comments (trees cause pollution for example). When the Post would call that out they'd get some blowback from their readers telling them to give the old guy a break and all that. So, they decided that it was no longer their job to point out facts. It was up to the opposition party to do so if he said something incorrect. Once you cross that divide, you no longer are interested in the truth, and you've set up a he said-she said dynamic that prevails today. With that in place, you also need to implement a both sides do it mentality so as not to be accused of "bias". The hilarious thing in all of this is nobody's watching compared to generations ago. Yes, its certainly true that you can get your info elsewhere now, but that doesn't discount how laughable mainstream media coverage is nowadays. How do John King, Cokie Roberts, and Bill Kristol for example still have jobs?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
This is because of corporate sponsorship. In the first few months leading up to war and then after hostilities commence the vast majority of people are baboons and if you denounce the war you are a traitor to the tribe and should be strung up. In times of fear and violence most people become temporarily reactionary and authoritarian. Corporate culture already accentuates these characteristics since they make people easier to control and assemble as armies, whether literal, or in employment, or in consumption. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." War fever is terrifying and a commercial entity is going to march right alongside it.
This is because of corporate sponsorship. In the first few months leading up to war and then after hostilities commence the vast majority of people are baboons and if you denounce the war you are a traitor to the tribe and should be strung up. In times of fear and violence most people become temporarily reactionary and authoritarian. Corporate culture already accentuates these characteristics since they make people easier to control and assemble as armies, whether literal, or in employment, or in consumption. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." War fever is terrifying and a commercial entity is going to march right alongside it.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e
they are not news channels, they are entertainment channels. anything with Sharpton is not reporting news.
they are not news channels, they are entertainment channels. anything with Sharpton is not reporting news.
- Status