patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,189,846 comments by 13,850 users - askmeaboutthesaltporkcure, Ceffer, KgK one, Patrick, RayAmerica online now
Let's have a civil, political discussion for once.
invite response
2014 Aug 4, 3:46am 39,507 views 57 comments
« First « Previous Comments 37 - 57 of 57 Search these comments
Dan8267
2014 Aug 4, 6:25am
The bipolarity has never been more extreme.
Except during the Civil War. That really was a more divided time than even today.
Dan8267
2014 Aug 4, 6:30am
I've always wondered why money can buy elections. The money is only spent on advertising, and I've never been persuaded by a campaign ad. Is the typical American voter so stupid that he/she is actually persuaded by transparent lies? I guess he has to be or otherwise elections wouldn't be so heavily influenced by money.
Perhaps the answer is to stop watching and listening to media that advertises. Download all your shows and listen to your own ripped music. Hell, I haven't seen a commercial in years except ones I seek out on YouTube like movie trailers.
Tenpoundbass
2014 Aug 4, 6:33am
Except during the Civil War. That really was a more divided time than even today.
At least the Civil war only had two sides. To the contrary of what those here might think. I have never seen a Glen Beck show. I saw Glen Beck's true regret on CNN a few days ago. It's not what he regretted saying that I'm noting, but something else he said while saying it. He really believes that this country will eventually split in two in a Civil war. He reminds me of another Conservative idiot I worked with last year. He would start in with that shit during happy hour drinks. Until I presented him with the possibility that the next Civil war wont be a cut and dry "Us against Them" affair.
Enemies and Allies will overlap. You can fight along the side of someone one day then he cut you down the next because now you're on a tare about his other homies.
Just look our registered voting demographic. I said it is up to 37% and I was wrong, actually it's now at 42% of the voters are registered Independent of all other parties other than Democrat and Liberal. Out of those 42% only 30% are registered as No party affiliation.
MisdemeanorRebel
2014 Aug 4, 6:34am
Your chart shows 80% correlation between "higher spending" and winning. Even a random selection would produce 50% correlation. So, campaign spending increases the chance around halfway from random to perfect. I suppose whether that counts as "almost perfect" depends on your definition of "almost," but I would not have defined "almost" as "around halfway to". [Update: I see you updated your comment to include more charts, so I updated this one to specify the first.]
It's appears to me to be above 80% to me for the House in the chart. I disagree with the random selection criteria because I don't believe it applies to something like voting, which is generally done with deliberate action.
MisdemeanorRebel
2014 Aug 4, 6:36am
BTW, curious2, I think I know where you are going, and I agree with you, if you mean there is a chance for voters to overturn the money game if/when they become a little more aware - and motivated.
curious2
2014 Aug 4, 7:11am
Oh well...
Can you please cite which comments you think were uncivil? You said you would have deleted one, and your choice of which one you would delete surprised me. I think we might have different definitions of civility.
Tenpoundbass
2014 Aug 4, 9:23am
Stop giving or taking credit to anyone or anything. The best marketing won.
The Voters gave Obama the Oscar.
zzyzzx
2014 Aug 5, 3:16am
Here is an example of a fine, civil, bipartisan discussion here:
/?p=1228016
MisdemeanorRebel
2014 Aug 5, 3:39am
One can simply 'choose' to be 'civil', regardless of the circumstance.
Sure, psychologists can be civil to schizophrenics. Whether they can have a civil discourse about the need to aluminum foil the walls is something else.
Tenpoundbass
2014 Aug 5, 3:52am
The punk business you demonstrate with deletions and baiting and ranting in pidgin English.
I also put you on Ignore, DO YOU WANT A FRESHONE!?
justme
2014 Aug 5, 9:54am
Demanding or applying a false balance when reporting on the views of sensible people and the views of crazy people is one of the main reasons there are so many crazy and uninformed voters in American politics today.
The media has basically been kowtowing to the right-wing lunatics for the last 50 years, and the result is the craziness we have now.
Also please note that ONLY right wing lunatics get a free pass with their lunacy, whereas any left-wing loony (yes, they do exist, in small numbers) is immediately called out and ALL lefties are tarred with being the same as them.
So yes, fake civility and false equivalence and false balance is one of the main reasons why we now have so much incivility in American politics.
I say, to hell with civility. Call the loonies for what they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
Paul Krugman has written on this topic a few times. I could could not find a link. If anyone has a link, please post it.
In short, demanding "civility" is a tool of the oppressors, and this tool has been used very successfully in the US for many years.
curious2
2014 Aug 5, 10:22am
Paul Krugman has written on this topic a few times. I could could not find a link. If anyone has a link, please post it.
Krugman has been writing about that since at least 2000, but he's guilty of the same thing. For example, advocating yet again for another wasteful spending program, he claimed that there was only one, century-old rail tunnel under the Hudson between New York and New Jersey. ("There just isn’t enough space for everyone to drive to work. But right now there’s just one century-old rail tunnel linking New Jersey and New York — and it’s running close to capacity. The need for another tunnel couldn’t be more obvious.") In reality, PATH alone has two pairs of tubes, Amtrak has its own, and then there are the vehicular tunnels large enough they accommodate bus traffic, and the GW Bridge, also big enough for buses. But, since it's Krugrman's opinion, he never corrected himself; no matter how many bridges and tunnels observers can actually count, Krugman proclaims there is only one. Even if you think that Krugman might have somehow miscounted initially, even though he lives in New Jersey and writes for the NY Times across the river in Manhattan, that would not explain why he never corrected his count; it was probably a lie from the start and certainly a lie as it continues to be published that way on NYTimes.com. Krugman wanted his deluded followers to believe it was "obvious" that everybody needed to spend billions of dollars building another rail tunnel, and NY Times wants his audience for the same reason Fox wants Bill O'Reilly's. If you are relying on Krugman for your view of reality, then you risk becoming as deluded as the Faux Noise viewers whom you denounce.
justme
2014 Aug 5, 10:27am
Ah yes,
Views Still Differ on Shape of Planet
January 8, 2011 6:41 am
More than 10 years have passed since I wrote this:
If a presidential candidate were to declare that the earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the headline â€Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.†After all, the earth isn’t perfectly spherical.
curious2
2014 Aug 5, 10:27am
Ah yes,
Um, yes, I already linked to that for you, in response to your earlier comment, and explained it in context. I hope you aren't one of those who only ever read Krugman, though it would explain your views on the mandatory medical insurance legislation he's been beating the drums for since it was called Hillary's Plan (and back then he was ridiculing Obama for opposing it).
justme
2014 Aug 5, 11:25am
Jeez, I just wanted people to see the famous "Views Still Differ on Shape of Planet" headline. What is the problem?
curious2
2014 Aug 5, 11:34am
I just wanted people to see the...headline. What is the problem?
You seem to be changing your tune:
I say, to hell with civility.
I gave you a link, you should have been happy, but instead you have a problem, apparently because I presented it in context showing it came from a source as unreliable as what you had been complaining about, and who got "a free pass" just like the ones you claimed (incorrectly) went only to the other side.
justme
2014 Aug 5, 11:45am
You seem to be changing your tune:
I say, to hell with civility.
Okay, I see. You wanted me to practice some incivility on you! Ok, I will, but no promises about the future.
I said nothing at all about the inanity of your complaint against Krugman. People can check the facts themselves.
There, is that incivil enough for you?
Paralithodes
2014 Aug 5, 8:58pm
Sure, psychologists can be civil to schizophrenics. Whether they can have a civil discourse about the need to aluminum foil the walls is something else.
Hey, just curious ... Did you ever figure out what the rule of 72 was about?
I'll be having no part of a civil discussion. Don't people realize this is Patnet? roflmao
« First « Previous Comments 37 - 57 of 57 Search these comments
This may or may not be possible. But let's try something new. As seen on this site on a daily basis, both liberals and conservatives ( I am certainly not innocent of this) go back and forth in a non-ending game of blaming one side or the other for their problems or what they perceive to be the inferior wing ( left or right).
This is totally useless and nonconstructive. All that happens is that one person makes an intentionally inflammatory post to "get back" at the liberals/conservatives and then out come the charts, the catty name-calling, the use of political cliche's and catch phrases with the post eventually simply burning itself out in a big shouting match. Nobody walks away feeling good about it either.
So I'm going to start a new thread and the way this thread will work is that people who wish to participate can in very general terms describe what they feel would be an ideal situation as they envision the government and its inner workings as well as some of their own opinions concerning their core beliefs. Please don't be insulting, demeaning or otherwise simply nasty. If you post a response respectfully then you will receive respect in return. If I see any grossly offensive responses or name calling I will delete those posts.
So I will go first.
No.1, I feel that the vast majority of Americans are good, reasonable, decent people with strong moral compasses. I know for fact that on a daily basis having lived in the South and now Cali that regardless of political leanings most people I know or have met shared the vast majority of my beliefs as well. In most cases the difference of opinion were actually much less severe. Both the Liberal and Conservative positions, as represented in the news and media tend to be the extreme liberal/conservative views since its those people who yell the loudest who get all of the attention.
No.2 to me it seems that both "sides" have good aspects to their ideology. Some of these are similar but different in their execution. As a Southern guy it was almost expected that anyone who you saw broken down on the freeway meant you should pull over the help them- no matter who they were. There is a certain respect for family and in particular family elders as well. Liberals have long held the belief that all people no matter their background deserve the same rights, which in some ways is very similar.
As far as my personal, direct political beliefs I would underline them as follows.
A: To me the biggest issue right now is the effects of outside money influencing politics. There is a huge lobby and political organization/fund raising element to today's politics. Its made running for any office prohibitively expensive meaning no "ordinary" American could hope to run for President let alone even a local government position. This in turn means that our elected officials are perhaps more keen on pleasing their corporate backers than their constituency. I strong oppose outside money influencing the system and it were up to me, all of it would be abolished.
B: I strongly feel that all people, regardless of their race, sex, sexual preferences, religion and background deserve access and treatment via universal civil rights as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
C: Today's news media is a joke. Since both now make money making news that is intentionally tilted towards either a right or left viewpoint means its no longer real journalism. Its more an unending editorial. The problem with that is viewers mistake this for news and use it as their "knowledge base" of politics. So the population becomes more ignorant and devoted to their one source of "news". This is irresponsible on part of those media companies who would rather make money selling garbage than a quality product.
D: People need to stop blaming each other for what's going on in Washington. The truth is that Congress and the Senate are in a gridlock and seldom is the news about them doing their jobs, which is to pass bills, debate, and otherwise perform the duties they were elected to do. In the meantime their constituency is so busy trying to blame each other ( those liberals! ) or- ( Those conservatives!) that the actual business in Washington is ignored. If there are those who are unhappy with the way things are in Washington, then go vote. Its really that simple.
E: I strongly feel that the financial woes of the country come from weak and ineffective financial strategies. I'm not a fan of taxes like the next guy but this seeming desire to never-ever raise them is in turn crippling the country in many ways from degraded schools and roads as well as non-stop budget shortfalls. I feel very much so that the taxation model we have now is grossly lopsided and benefits a very small minority whom if taxed fairly like the rest of us would drastically improve the overall financial health of the country. If there are some highly privileged citizens whom drive on our roads, use our bridges and send their kids to our schools as well as benefit from the protections of the world's largest military then they too should pay for the use of those at the same equally applied tax standards as the rest of us. To put this one step further, government should avoid attaching ideology to financial concerns. The economy moves at the speed of sound and by holding that process up with legislation that sometimes takes years to enact is impracticable and ineffective.
Anyway... that's all for now.