black321 wrote:

 
Exactly. 

And that is why this bothers me.  We, in the aggregate, do not believe or believe in our institutional actors — most prominently, the government and the media.  That does not bode well.  The question becomes: In what or whom do we believe?  

 steeler wrote:
Of course there is some bias, always has been.  But in general the issue of media bias is BS...equivalent to propaganda created by both extremes to create an environment of unrest, where we're not supposed to believe anyone.

p.s., thought Bloomberg nailed it last night.  Is Clinton perfect? No.  Has she made mistakes and even lied about it?  Sure, every politician does. But ultimately, she always worked for the best of this country, and in that regard is trustworthy and the obvious right choice, particularly compared to a narcissist, with no experience in the political arena and who's business dealings are questionable to say the least.  Hell, even most bankers don't want to do business with him!

Steely_D wrote:

 steeler wrote:

 
The reason I have persisted in asking about this is that the media regularly is criticized for being biased — or, in the parlance of your original post, telling lies.  The charges of bias come from liberals and conservatives (although the Republicans have made somewhat of a cottage industry out of it; their candidates know it is a ready-made applause line to blast or blame the media), creating the peculiar circumstance where there is widespread agreement that the media is biased — with disagreement as to which side is benefitting from that institutional bias.   

To the particulars of your original post:  That the media covers elected officials and candidates for office and quotes them on their positions on issues does not mean the newspaper or broadcast or podcast  is endorsing those statements.  If the official or candidate is playing fast and loose with the truth, that is for the reader of the story or listener of the broadcast to decide.  (although it is common practice now for major newspapers to also run fact-checking stories after major speeches or statements by high officials).  

 

You spoke of Americans needing to take responsibility.  I would suggest that blaming the media for all kinds of societal ills runs contrary to that position.         

 

 

  .     

 kcar wrote: 


But he scored a series of hot wives. Money talks...

 Steely_D wrote: 
Props to you for flagging "high yellow", although there may have been good reasons for using that term that weren't racially charged. My former neighbor who grew up in NC during a different era, referred to her skin tone as high yellow. 

As for Lynn Westmoreland: not the greatest way to represent your state, Congresswoman.  

Kurtster, I had to look up Alex Jones as I don't listen to talk radio. Guess I don't want to sound like him. BTW, we are a far, far ways away from becoming a nanny state like the Scandinavian countries. 

Lemme boil down my two posts: there is no earthly good reason to vote for Donald Trump. If you don't like professional politicians like KurtfromLaQuinta, vote for Michael Bloomberg or Bill Gates. Trump is serial con artist. Joe Biden was right: Trump has no clue. A President Trump would make Dubya look like a genius. 

Oh, but hey! Donald now says he was being sarcastic about Putin hacking for Clinton's emails. (Bitch, please).

He still thinks Putin's a better leader than Obama, though. Trump has the personality of a prolapsed, pus-marbled anus. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Ironic since I'd already been removed and returning to my mom wouldn't happen again for four decades. But that's another story.

 kcar wrote: 

You might have missed this when it happened, but it's what I was making reference to. Having grown up in the deep south, this caught my attention. 
(At a meeting once in California, I was the only one in the room that recognized - and prevented - a giant company from having a grading scale that included the term "high yellow." Folks from other parts of the country wouldn't usually recognize it but in the Bay Area, oh that woulda been something. They owe me a LOT for having thwarted that publicity...)

Westmoreland calls Obama ‘uppity'

Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.

 kcar wrote: 
You're sounding like Alex Jones ... 

 marko86 wrote: 



I saw no endorsement of Trump in this post, I am surely not going to vote for him. This is just how far the leftright divisive sham has gotten us where any criticism of one "side" is an endorsement of the other "side", didn't realize we lived in a 2 dimensional world where there is no God beyond Republicans and Democrats.

 Steely_D wrote: 
I didn't miss it and understood exactly what you meant.  You expressed a valid observation that was intended to support the rest of your argument.  Doesn't mean that is what you think about Obama.  This is just more about my frustration with the content police around here.  You have now fallen victim to the PC police.  This is how it works.  Its used to shut down anyone and I mean anyone who dares go off the reservation to make valid points that can only be made by using certain techniques or expressions.

No, you aren't mean, you are not a racist and you don't have a fever.  You're behaving like an adult in a room full of spoiled children who have gotten away with too much for too long.
.
Edit:  On the Twinkie thing ...  think about this ... here we today in 2016 ... if your Mom had done this today and posted about it on Facebook ... Children Services would be all over her for child abuse and you more than likely would be removed from your home and placed in protective custody and your Mom would have to take nutrition counseling before they would return you to her.  That is where we are today and this scenario is not a stretch of the imagination at all.

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
So that is your argument for Trump? Wow. You know there are some jobs that require some degree of professionalism, you know, knowledge of how stuff works.

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
Succinct, you nailed it.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
If Steely_D is actually suggesting that we should elect Trump just to let Trump f*ck up and make angry Trump supporters realize the foolishness of their choice, I'm sorry but that's got to be the dumbest idea I've read in at least a year. The GOP should not be allowed to install a fool who'd easily be worse than Dubya aka Worst President Ever. 

BTW—Love Pittsburgh. My brother went to school there. Great city. Love the Steelers (apart from Rapistberger).  

Just watched the video of Trump's invitation to Russia to find Hillary's emails. Bill Shatner could do a perfect Trump parody. 

why do I get the feeling you guys are talking at cross purposes 

 Steely_D wrote: 
You wrote 

Fully half the nation is angry and already intent on terrorizing Clinton for all 4-8 years, obstructing any progress we'd want to make as a nation...
So, if this disgruntled half of America doesn't get Trump into office, we face another decade of gridlock and breath holding and anger. 

I wrote 

Let me get this straight. You say, let's elect Trump because we don't want to be bullied by do-nothing politicians and people angry at America. 

I think I re-phrased your thinking accurately. Let me try again: you think that electing Clinton will lead to gridlock and more anger and that electing Trump will...what? Save us from that gridlock and anger?

As I stated, that idea is ridiculous. Trump has shown that he doesn't understand how Washington works. He doesn't even have a working relationship with his party. He hasn't prepared at all for the most important and perhaps toughest job in the world. He constantly lies and exaggerates about his successes. He's totally screwed people over time and again in business. His disapproval rating is already stratospheric. Every day he mobilizes more Americans against him with his stupidity and bigotry. More people hate Trump than Clinton. He is making goo-goo eyes towards a tyrant who would like to return his country to Stalinism.   

I don't think I missed a goddamned thing about your post. The mere act of writing about eating too many Twinkies as a three year-old should have snapped you out of your "let's elect him" thinking about Trump. In your own words:

Seemed like a good idea, but found out that everything that seems like a good idea isn't necessarily what you want.  

If you hired someone as sleazy and bombastic as Trump to fix your roof and he unsurprisingly screwed you over with a botched job, you'd be on the horn toot sweet to your lawyer. Your lawyer, upon hearing that you knew Trump had no experience with fixing roofs but hired him anyway, would tell you that story about Twinkies and how everything that seems like a good idea isn't necessarily what you want.  

You're right: maybe I expected too much of the three-year old you and your childhood gusto for Twinkies. But you're in your 50s now and Steely_D, you should be able to recognize a scam artist like Trump, especially when he stands a good chance of trashing your country. I invite you to think back to your losing battle with the box of Twinkies and reflect that 

everything that seems like a good idea isn't necessarily what you want.  

Your words, not mine.

You wouldn't enroll in Trump University now if it still existed, would you? Then why would you let this utter flaming douchebag incompetent run your country? I'm sorry, but Trump has no golden solution to gridlock and anger. 

As for referring to Obama as "that other uppity guy" and later saying that you were making a snide reference to the racism he faced, you camouflaged your snideness beautifully. Frankly, I still don't see it.

 kcar wrote: 
That first sentence isn't what I said, so you set up a straw man and then went after it. Plus, you missed some subtleties.

For instance, my Twinkie story is about me when I'm 3-4 years old. It's a bit strange to invoke "experience and commonsense" since the point was that sometimes you give people what they think they want, and then they develop experience from the result. You move from that to telling me I should know he's bad. I do; that was never the point of the post.

And, of course I used uppity in that way. It's what someone else had to say about him after he took office, and I was making a snide reference to the obvious racism that he has been dealing with since he took office. You missed that, and tool me to task for it.

So, I appreciate your reading the post but you missed parts of it. 

 FourFortyEight wrote: 
I said hyperbole three times, I didn't use any though.  Nah, don't kid yourself, if you don't like me after all these years, you never will.  I'm just blunt because I've been doing this too long.  Anyone else here get called a racist or a bigot more than me ?  I say things that others won't and most disagree with.  My perspective has been deemed irrelevant long ago.   What thoughts of mine aren't ignored get taken apart 8 ways to Sunday.  Is what it is.  

I am puzzled by the bolded.  I don't know what I said that would inspire that thought.  Unless it was my criticism of those who play hyperbole police here on these boards and stop discussion in its tracks because they are morally offended by the slightest hint of it or sarcasm for that matter.  If that's it, then oh well, just another day at the office ... fire me.

 Steely_D wrote: 
Let me get this straight. You say, let's elect Trump because we don't want to be bullied by do-nothing politicians and people angry at America.

Let me break the BAD news to you:

1. Trump would face just as much gridlock and anger as Clinton. He doesn't  have the support of his own party. He's already PISSED off the majority of Americans. His disapproval ratings are near 60%. 

2. Trump as President would be a freaking disaster. This thread has gone over and over this. The man consistently boasts of great things and then screws people over with lies, criminal activity and broken promises. Think Trump University and Trump Institute whenever you hear him talk about bringing back jobs to America. 

His own party would dearly love to flush him. He doesn't have the knowledge base to be an effective president. He has no experience in politics which might be OK if he were running for state Congressman. But he's not. He has already alienated our major allies and practically grabbed his ankles when talking about Putin. 

THIS DOUCHEBAG WANTS PUTIN TO INTERFERE IN OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. HE HAS PRACTICALLY ADMITTED THAT RUSSIAN HACKED THE DNC SERVERS. HE STILL LIKES PUTIN. WHY IS THAT OK WITH YOU? 
 
3. Whoever becomes President is going to face gridlock and will struggle to get major stuff done. That was clear when there was a chance that Rubio, Cruz, Jeb or Bernie was going to be President. 

The Republican party has become so good at doing nothing and blocking progress that it destroyed its own chances of nominating a decent candidate from 17 different choices. Do you really think they're going to pull it together if Trump wins? The GOP is all about gridlock and EPIC FAIL. 

Your story about eating a box of Twinkies and realizing it wasn't such a good idea? Experience and commonsense could have warned you. Your experience and commonsense should be SCREAMING at you right now. GW Bush was a relative non-politician (the Governorship in TX is largely a powerless position). Did you like 9/11, the war in Iraq that we never had to fight, the lost chance to control Afghanistan, the botched response to Hurricane Katrina or the near-total meltdown of our economy?

Dubya's approval rating at the end of his administration was around Nixon's after his resignation. 

Trump would 10x worse than Dubya. 

Final thoughts: "that other uppity guy" you wrote about are you talking about Obama? Obama's about as uppity as a houseplant. Interesting that you chose that word "uppity"; thankfully you don't hear that cliche "uppity n*gger" anymore but I'm wondering if that crossed your mind when you chose that word. Election season is dog-whistling season for both sides. 

4. America doesn't listen to bullies when it elects Presidents. 
 

FourFortyEight wrote: 
Thanks, Dad.

 kurtster wrote: 
You used hyperbole three times, by the way. Everyone's perspective is relevant. You'd be cool to converse with if you weren't so degrading.