What's new
By:
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 XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Brenthoven said:
My father, who once was a conservative, and now is beyond liberal....way beyond liberal....like 2390846x Wellstone liberal
Click to expand...

Glad to hear of more of these. My dad was an FDR / Reagan Democrat who was right on the fence of switching parties with the Gipper. The last 25 years of his life he stayed in exactly the same place and the parties moved so far right that by the end he was a pinko by MSM standards.

The kids really have no idea how far the media has been yanked to the right on economics and fiscal policy. It's been hidden considerably by the gradual move of society away from the old rightwing bigotries, but on pocketbook issues the corporate MSM of today is about where the Manchester Union Leader was in 1975. :mad:

When righties yap about the "liberal media" on social issues I get it. When they try to whip that one out about tax policy I laugh at them so hard I hurt myself.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Kepler said:
There's a distinction between the news and the editorial board. NY Times and WaPo are obviously liberal editorially (educated readership) but they wall of their news coverage well. WSJ used to do the same from the right until Murdoch bought it. Now like all his properties there is no difference between the editorial board and the "news."

The Globe is one of those 2nd tier papers that doesn't so much have a bias as an unerring sense of what well-scrubbed suburbanites want to read over their morning English muffins. It's Newsday with college hockey scores. Almost every small city has a paper like that: Newark Star-Ledger, Portland Oregonian, Seattle Times.

Then there are papers with obvious axes to grind: SF Chronicle (a.k.a., "the Comical") is the worst from the left. From the right there are tons -- mostly bloids -- especially now that the average subscriber is 80-years old. Most of the southern and southwestern papers seem to be trying to lap up some of the Echo Chamber crumbs. They don't really mix news with editorial because there is not much opportunity to mix political bias into "F.D. rescues cute blonde child's kitty from tree (with photos!)." About the only place it shows up is the Police Blotter and that's more about the local P.D.'s racism than the paper.
Click to expand...

It's all in the specific language. The subtle spin. We all recognize click-bait at this point. Newspapers are a bit more subtle about it. The Mpls Trib leans left. So, that just means if you have half a brain, you take that into account. And I'll say the same for the right-leaning newspapers, too.

MN is, has been, and probably will be Dems forever. Hell, we voted for MONDALE. MON. DALE. Ok, sure, Ventura for Guv once, but it sure wasn't the Dems voting for him. I even was about to vote Dem in that election before a last minute decision.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Brenthoven said:
MN is, has been, and probably will be Dems forever. Hell, we voted for MONDALE. MON. DALE.
Click to expand...

Favorite son. That used to mean something before all politics became national.

The place where liberal bias comes out is in the slick paper mags and their web copy cats. Atlantic, New Republic, New Yorker, Harper's. All beautiful; all limousine liberal crack. But they never claimed to be otherwise. The right seems to need to sneak its agitprop in under cover of "News." The left gets the difference and turns to quality papers for real news and then the hardcore, unapologetic lefty porn for its backscratching. :p

Although sometimes I wonder whether the truly hard right even understands the difference. The authoritarian personality -- the real ones, like Trump -- seem to honestly believe that their beliefs are fact and others' facts are belief. They do not appear to understand or even acknowledge the difference. Stuff like evolution, OK, that falls under the religion brain off-switch, fine, we'll give them that. But the rest? Cigarettes, climate change, basic macro-economics? Come on, folks -- math isn't leftist, it's math. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Kepler said:
Favorite son. That used to mean something before all politics became national.

The place where liberal bias comes out is in the slick paper mags and their web copy cats. Atlantic, New Republic, New Yorker, Harper's. All beautiful; all limousine liberal crack. But they never claimed to be otherwise. The right seems to need to sneak its agitprop in under cover of "News." The left gets the difference and turns to quality papers for real news and then the hardcore, unapologetic lefty porn for its backscratching. :p

Although sometimes I wonder whether the truly hard right even understands the difference. The authoritarian personality -- the real ones, like Trump -- seem to honestly believe that their beliefs are fact and others' facts are belief. They do not appear to understand or even acknowledge the difference. Stuff like evolution, OK, that falls under the religion brain off-switch, fine, we'll give them that. But the rest? Cigarettes, climate change, basic macro-economics? Come on, folks -- math isn't leftist, it's math. :eek:
Click to expand...

I know you're smarter than that. The libs have the "we tolerate everything...unless you disagree. Then we shut you down because you're a hater." ;)

I won't defend the nut-cases in the ultra-conservative arm of things. I prefer the central ground where there are SOME differences, but BOTH sides at least hear each other out without shouting down others, and even though there is disagreement, there is at least tolerance, or even a shrug of the shoulders as in "if that is what you want to believe, then whatever," sort of view. Most of my family is like that. Unfortunately, my dad is NOT like that. He's a shouter. Drives the family nuts. Although, I will say it's rather entertaining to see him and my bro's FIL (ultra-conservative) go at it. Talk about a popcorn show as to who is more ignorant. ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

I'd agree that Brent is on track with this:


Brenthoven said:
It's all in the specific language. The subtle spin. We all recognize click-bait at this point. Newspapers are a bit more subtle about it.
Click to expand...

To be fair, liberals are as ill-equipped to pick up on subtle left bias as conservatives are to pick up on subtle right bias. People just don't see it if it generally follows their own point of view.

Journalists as a group are overwhelmingly liberal (otherwise they obviously would have chosen to be hedge fund managers) and as such, even in cases where it's unintentional and every effort is made, (I may be overly generous in the assumption that actually happens much) I just don't think people are all that good at completely editing their biases out of their work. Where no or little effort is made, it's glaring.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

I disagree with that first line in the second paragraph. That's hogwash.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

dxmnkd316 said:
I disagree with that first line in the second paragraph. That's hogwash.
Click to expand...

I would agree they are not overwhelmingly liberal, if that's the phrase you are talking about. The majority lean that way, but it's not as bad as many make it out to be.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Sorry, poor wording on my part. I meant an overwhelming percentage of journalists are liberal leaning.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Sorry, poor wording on my part. I meant an overwhelming percentage of journalists are liberal leaning.
Click to expand...

I would still disagree. Not overwhelming.

Just throwing out numbers with no backup...60-40? Maybe 70-30 if you're reaching? For every CNN, there is a Fox News, it seems like.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Kepler said:
100% of campaign contributions from people with brain activity went to the Clinton campaign. This is not the election to whinge about that.
Click to expand...

whinge

I ken jes tell -- thats one a them fancydan lefty jobberdoos ain't it -- Kind what means somthin else like not what you think -- prolly sum kinda secret commie code is what it is.

Imma gitin my gun.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Kepler said:
100% of campaign contributions from people with brain activity went to the Clinton campaign. This is not the election to whinge about that.
Click to expand...

I agree. Give it a what, maybe 5 election sample? 20 years? Sample that reporting to get a better read on liberalism in politics.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Jimjamesak said:
Commercial and Delivery vehicles will be the last to go self-driving if ever.
Click to expand...

They already have self-driving trucks that are fine the highway, which is where they spend the majority of their time. It's just a matter of fine-tuning the sensors for the beginning and end of the journey. Who knows how long it will be, but with the financial incentive involved, I would bet on sooner rather than later.
 
MaizeRage said:
They already have self-driving trucks that are fine the highway, which is where they spend the majority of their time. It's just a matter of fine-tuning the sensors for the beginning and end of the journey. Who knows how long it will be, but with the financial incentive involved, I would bet on sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
Most likely it'll be equivalent to airline pilots, the truck may be mostly automated but somebody will still be in the cab looking after things.

It's one thing to have an automated truck on a test bed or practicing in a trial, it's another to actually have one on a route hauling a few million dollars worth of inventory.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Jimjamesak said:
It's one thing to have an automated truck on a test bed or practicing in a trial, it's another to actually have one on a route hauling a few million dollars worth of inventory.
Click to expand...

I still feel pretty comfortable betting on the technology. I've seen some of the people currently entrusted with that cargo and they aren't exactly astronauts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top