American Politics

[kkck]

Republicans and conservatives always blame media and call it liberal, even though I don't see the media being liberal at all.

Well, I would argue that is because "liberal bias" is a bullshit term. It's meant specifically to end discussions, not to have them. The issue here is that republicans and conservatives use the term to shut down anything they do not like or disagrees with their worldview. Heck, according to republicans it's not only the media that has liberal bias but also pretty much everything else such as science and academia. Silicon valley also has a liberal bias and given how little love wall street has for trump they also have a liberal bias.... From their perspective and in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert "Reality has a liberal bias". As for the media specifically... they just report stuff people want to hear. So their bias is for the most part that of their target audience. If their audience demanded more of them then the media would have to adapt to that.

 

[M3J]

Well, I would argue that is because "liberal bias" is a bullshit term. It's meant specifically to end discussions, not to have them. The issue here is that republicans and conservatives use the term to shut down anything they do not like or disagrees with their worldview. Heck, according to republicans it's not only the media that has liberal bias but also pretty much everything else such as science and academia. Silicon valley also has a liberal bias and given how little love wall street has for trump they also have a liberal bias.... From their perspective and in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert "Reality has a liberal bias". As for the media specifically... they just report stuff people want to hear. So their bias is for the most part that of their target audience. If their audience demanded more of them then the media would have to adapt to that.

I know, I've said that many times. I don't think liberal media like Buzzfeed are completely honest, but I think it's more that they only present a point of view, they don't cover the whole ground completely, whereas conservative media will lie outright. Most anyway.

If conservative people fact checked stuff, then the media wouldn't be so biased and full of shit. If people who read liberal sources were also willing to read conservative sources, they'd be better educated as well.

 

[SharkBait]

If conservative people fact checked stuff, then the media wouldn't be so biased and full of shit. If people who read liberal sources were also willing to read conservative sources, they'd be better educated as well.

Why do we need to fact check stuff when our true conservative leaders already know whats up?

 

[M3J]

so you don't look stupid by stating the wrong information? Your "true conservative leaders" don't really know what's up, and they're willing to lie happily. Funny how no conservative had an issue with Fiorina interrupting a class to talk about anti abortion or conservative politicians doctoring videos of Planned Parenthood but they cry about liberal media or when anyone "lies" against GOP or their views. I don't see how anyone with common sense can trust the GOP when they do things like this....

 

[SharkBait]

so you don't look stupid by stating the wrong information? Your "true conservative leaders" don't really know what's up, and they're willing to lie happily. Funny how no conservative had an issue with Fiorina interrupting a class to talk about anti abortion or conservative politicians doctoring videos of Planned Parenthood but they cry about liberal media or when anyone "lies" against GOP or their views. I don't see how anyone with common sense can trust the GOP when they do things like this....

Why anyone would trust baby killers and people championing the selling of baby parts is what is most shocking.

 

[M3J]

Why would anyone trust a party that lies knowingly? You cannot complain about anyone lying when you're okay with republicans lying to get what they want. And if I recall, no one really championed the selling of baby parts, which they provided a good reason or two for anyway.

It's not a baby, it's a fetus. There's no such thing as pro-life, anyone who claimed to be pro-life has been pro-birth but anti-life, like you. It's sad people believe they're truly about preserving lives when they're okay with letting born babies and kids starve to death and blaming parents. It's annoying to get into this again, especially you/conservatives are wrong on this.

 

[xi0]

I would still make the point that what we know for a fact about trump is simply worst than what we know for a fact about bill (of course, if you believe everything that has been said about bill (and hillary) then even satan is a saint next to them.....).

I mean, I still think that's up in the air honestly. We could guess something like that and it would definitely be consistent with who he appears to be (as you mentioned), but that's not necessarily a smoking gun, so to speak. The guy could almost as easily be guilty of deceit or even confabulation, and that would be consistent with his person and campaign as well. There is still an important difference between what someone says and what they've done.

Neither do I, honestly. I can get an idea of what it's like to be a cop, and it's likely hard and uncomfortable when you're walking up to a driver who was pulled over for speeding, but still... to resort to shooting someone who warned you that he has a gun? To put someone in the back of a van, drive recklessly, and then claim weeks later you did it because he had a weapon on him, which is a bullshit justification? But then again, an officer who pointed his gun at a suspect got killed, and a popular officer with the community got blasted by someone with a gun.

I'm not going to argue that these incidents are justified, but there's still a distinct difference between wrongdoing and systemic murderous racism. I don't think it's okay for the guy who killed Eric Garner to still be working. Interdepartmental politics and police unions aren't enough of a justification for a person like that to still be employed IMO.

 

[M3J]

Politics and police being seen as good people are why most officers can get away with murder. The only exceptions I know of are Akai Gurley's murderer, six-shots officer, and I forgot who else.

 

[SharkBait]

Why would anyone trust a party that lies knowingly? You cannot complain about anyone lying when you're okay with republicans lying to get what they want. And if I recall, no one really championed the selling of baby parts, which they provided a good reason or two for anyway.

It's not a baby, it's a fetus. There's no such thing as pro-life, anyone who claimed to be pro-life has been pro-birth but anti-life, like you. It's sad people believe they're truly about preserving lives when they're okay with letting born babies and kids starve to death and blaming parents. It's annoying to get into this again, especially you/conservatives are wrong on this.

I think the means justifies the end. The sanctity of life is being pursued so they are not wrong for whay they did, in fact, I beleive that it was their moral obligation to do it.

 

[xi0]

Politics and police being seen as good people are why most officers can get away with murder. The only exceptions I know of are Akai Gurley's murderer, six-shots officer, and I forgot who else.

You don't know of it, because Peter Liang wasn't convicted of murder or even charged with it. I think you're making the mistake conflating the police being found guilty of a crime and being found guilty of murder. And this is part of the issue with these incidents, since when a prosecutor decides to bring charges against someone, the burden is on them to charge them with a crime that they think they will be able to convict them on. Trying to convict an on-duty police officer of murder itself is almost inherently more difficult, since murder requires proof of malice, intent, and premeditation. Even more so if you're trying to convict someone of a hate crime.

 

[M3J]

I think the means justifies the end. The sanctity of life is being pursued so they are not wrong for whay they did, in fact, I beleive that it was their moral obligation to do it.

They are not pursuing sanctity of life, they are pursuing controlling women's bodies. If they really cared about sanctity of life, then they would support welfare for family with babies and kids and find ways to make sure babies and kids are taken care of somehow and have a meal. Instead, these people are against welfare and raising minimum wage, so it's clear that the "sanctity of life" and "pro-life" are bullshit excuses. You should stop pretending to care about life when you have proven you do not care for lives.

You mean immoral obligation. You do realize abortion will never stop, even if it becomes illegal, right? All that does is make it more dangerous for women as they are less likely to have access to a safe environment. If you truly care about lives, then instead of focusing on unborn "lives," focus on the current lives that need help instead. Until then, "pro-lifers" aren't fooling anyone with a brain about their double standards and bullshit.

You don't know of it, because Peter Liang wasn't convicted of murder or even charged with it. I think you're making the mistake conflating the police being found guilty of a crime and being found guilty of murder. And this is part of the issue with these incidents, since when a prosecutor decides to bring charges against someone, the burden is on them to charge them with a crime that they think they will be able to convict them on. Trying to convict an on-duty police officer of murder itself is almost inherently more difficult, since murder requires proof of malice, intent, and premeditation. Even more so if you're trying to convict someone of a hate crime.

Liang was charged with improper procedure as he wasn't supposed to rest his finger on the trigger, right?

It's not that hard. Murder is murder, and they basically said it was murder when he didn't follow proper procedure when investigating suspicious buildings.

 

[xi0]

Liang was charged with improper procedure as he wasn't supposed to rest his finger on the trigger, right?

It's not that hard. Murder is murder, and they basically said it was murder when he didn't follow proper procedure when investigating suspicious buildings.

No, he was charged with more, but was convicted of manslaughter and official misconduct

You can say "it's not that hard" or that "murder is murder", but I don't think you really appreciate what that actually entails...

 

[SharkBait]

They are not pursuing sanctity of life, they are pursuing controlling women's bodies. If they really cared about sanctity of life, then they would support welfare for family with babies and kids and find ways to make sure babies and kids are taken care of somehow and have a meal. Instead, these people are against welfare and raising minimum wage, so it's clear that the "sanctity of life" and "pro-life" are bullshit excuses. You should stop pretending to care about life when you have proven you do not care for lives.

That is a false belief. We are not against more jobs domestically and are for keeping jobs in the fossil fuel market, therefore, we are supporting helping people support their families and keep food on the tables. To suggest we are against supporting people through life is simply poppycock. Just because we are against giving people freebies in life and paying them more for menial jobs that even kids with limited education can achieve doesnt mean we dont support people through their lives or care for them

Women can't control their bodies if they have already forfeited their rights by carrying the life of another body in them, that deserves to be protected.

You do realize abortion will never stop, even if it becomes illegal, right?

I dont understand this statement, you could insert any crime where abortion is in your statement and it would be true.

 

[shionoro]

That is a false belief. We are against more jobs domestically and keeping jobs in the fossil fuel market, therefore, we are supporting helping people support their families and keep food on the tables. To suggest we are against supporting people through life is simply poppycock. Just because we are against giving people freebies in life and paying them more for menial jobs that even kids with limited education can achieve doesnt mean we dont support people through their lives or care for them.

Women can't control their bodies if they have already forfeited their rights by carrying the life of another body in them, that deserves to be protected.


I dont understand this statement, you could insert any crime where abortion is in your statement and it would be true.

You have several misconceptions there.
First of all, you cannot forfeit the right of your own body, much like you cannot forgeit human rights.
You can outlaw abortion, but not the women who seek it.

Secondly: There are not enough jobs which do not involve 'menial tasks'. And there will never be. If you cannot support your family by working in mc donalds, then that simply means that a lot of people won't be able to support their family with one job.
They have to take two or even three, and then we wonder why we have so many parents who cannot work and raise their children well at the same time.

Thirdly: Other crimes don't tend to stay the same when outlawed. If you would not punish theft, more people would steal. We know that by statistics. We also know that abortion rates don't go down when we outlaw it. There are simply much more dangerous methods used which lead to the death of many women.

 

[xi0]

Women can't control their bodies if they have already forfeited their rights by carrying the life of another body in them, that deserves to be protected.

According to who/what? The law? Or your god?

The only time someone forfeits their rights is when they're convicted of a crime. Being pregnant isn't a crime, and neither is choosing to end said pregnancy. Disagreeing with this doesn't make it illegal or wrong. The law is it what it is so that individuals maintain the freedom of choice, it doesn't force anyone to do anything.

 

[SharkBait]

Secondly: There are not enough jobs which do not involve 'menial tasks'. And there will never be. If you cannot support your family by working in mc donalds, then that simply means that a lot of people won't be able to support their family with one job.
They have to take two or even three, and then we wonder why we have so many parents who cannot work and raise their children well at the same time.

There are, if there werent why are there tons of high brain powered jobs seeking new applicants. The government is always highering high brain powered job seekers as well as numerous public sector jobs and civil servant jobs. I believe the industry would move in a direction where if there were less people in low brain powered positions then automatons could replace them, see your local grocery store with self checkout lanes and the rising status of online retailers replacing brick and mortar sales with decreases in same store sales year over year. Automatons can pack products at retailer warehouses, people dont need to pack boxes, for example. We can get more engineers out there developing automatons and maintaining them and higher more computer programmers to ensure these automatons are going. Theres plenty of opportunity out there for people to pursue higher education in these high brain powered fields. Implying that we need menial task jobs is simply delusional and against the direction that the world is moving. Construction and people working in mines are the only "menial tasks" but those have high pay as they are high risk and most people are simply not brave or creative enough to pursue these honor worthy jobs.

The law is it what it is so individuals maintain the freedom of choice, it doesn't force anyone to do anything.

I dont understand.

Having an abortion should be a crime as its murder. Why do people who want to allow abortions suddenly go ghastly eyed at the state paying for Capitol murder, a baby and a criminal are both humans, so people should be for the protection of all life.

 

[shionoro]

There are, if there werent why are there tons of high brain powered jobs seeking new applicants. The government is always highering high brain powered job seekers as well as numerous public sector jobs and civil servant jobs. I believe the industry would move in a direction where if there were less people in low brain powered positions then automatons could replace them, see your local grocery store with self checkout lanes and the rising status of online retailers replacing brick and mortar sales with decreases in same store sales year over year. Automatons can pack products at retailer warehouses, people dont need to pack boxes, for example. We can get more engineers out there developing automatons and maintaining them and higher more computer programmers to ensure these automatons are going. Theres plenty of opportunity out there for people to pursue higher education in these high brain powered fields. Implying that we need menial task jobs is simply delusional and against the direction that the world is moving. Construction and people working in mines are the only "menial tasks" but those have high pay as they are high risk and most people are simply not brave or creative enough to pursue these honor worthy jobs.

You got this wrong: Just because people search for workers with a very special set of skills does not mean everyone can be one.
Firstly even if they search, they don't take everybody. They let people do unpaid internships and don't want to pay too high, even when it comes to people who hold several degrees.
Secondly, just because corporations search some thousand workers for very special jobs, that does not mean all 8 million unemployed people in the US can take one of those jobs.
There simply are not enough of those jobs, even if all of those unemployed people would have a degree right now.

On the long run, we have to depart from the idea that everyone can or should have a job, exactly due to the automatization.

 

[SharkBait]

You got this wrong: Just because people search for workers with a very special set of skills does not mean everyone can be one.
Firstly even if they search, they don't take everybody. They let people do unpaid internships and don't want to pay too high, even when it comes to people who hold several degrees.
Secondly, just because corporations search some thousand workers for very special jobs, that does not mean all 8 million unemployed people in the US can take one of those jobs.
There simply are not enough of those jobs, even if all of those unemployed people would have a degree right now.

On the long run, we have to depart from the idea that everyone can or should have a job, exactly due to the automatization.

They would have jobs if we had Republican leaders running the country, people who want to provide businesses the opportunity to grow and expand and develop new markets. Theres tons of potential project ideas out there that could employ lots of people, however with our anti business anti growth anti treatment of business leaders the country is squashing opportunities for success and business growth. Just look at the weekly or so news articles where business leaders and businesses in America are being punished, the latest being Wells Fargo.

Automization is necessary for our country to remain as one of the leaders in the world economy. If we dont lead the technological revolution in automatons then our national security and economical stability and indpendence can be in jeopardy. Only one against American independence and dominance would be against the idea of increasing reliance on automatons.

Lastly it should be required that people get higher degrees, a more education workforce is a better and happier workforce.

 

[shionoro]

They would have jobs if we had Republican leaders running the country, people who want to provide businesses the opportunity to grow and expand and develop new markets. Theres tons of potential project ideas out there that could employ lots of people, however with our anti business anti growth anti treatment of business leaders the country is squashing opportunities for success and business growth. Just look at the weekly or so news articles where business leaders and businesses in America are being punished, the latest being Wells Fargo.

Automization is necessary for our country to remain as one of the leaders in the world economy. If we dont lead the technological revolution in automatons then our national security and economical stability and indpendence can be in jeopardy. Only one against American independence and dominance would be against the idea of increasing reliance on automatons.

Lastly it should be required that people get higher degrees, a more education workforce is a better and happier workforce.

how so? Unemployment rose in the Bush era and devlined harshly in the clinton and obama era.
There not tons of ideas.
The idea is to let corps force people to work for too few money to sustain themselves so they have to work 3 'meila' jobs instead of one.
That is not an improvement, that is making things worse.

Fact is that automatization leads to fewer and fewer workers necessariy, INCLUDING jobs which now seem high tech.
There will never be enough jobs in areas for which you need a degree in a natural science. It is never going to happen.
And it is also not what reps want.

Reps don't want to enable more people to go to university. Clinton wants to do that.

 

[SharkBait]

Reps don't want to enable more people to go to university.

I would think Republicans do want more people to go to higher education why else do we have an education platform, however I dont think we should use our precious tax money to fund lazy people to get free passes to college. People should pay for it as its an investment .