Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
Not a flinger but I'm pretty adept at ducking it here. I love rattling the monkey cages.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Here's another baby ruth to chew on, boys
View attachment 29864
Well, we can put the lie to that meme:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/why-fake-news-targeted-trump-supporters/515433/
"...And it’s worth noting that sensitivity to risk is not the only difference between liberals and conservatives that might explain the rise of right-oriented fake news. As Christopher Ingraham wrote for The Washington Post, other researchers have found that liberals tend to have a greater “need for cognition,” or an interest in thinking critically. Some studies have found correlations between support for Republican candidates and endorsement of nonsense statements like, "attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.”
Again, it’s not that liberals are smarter, as Ulm University’s Stefan Pfattheicher told the Post. "This seems to be more a matter of motivation to process information (or news) in a critical, reflective thinking style than the ability to do so.”
And other studies have found that conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe conspiracy theories that align with their beliefs, which might explain both the trust in some of the statements in Fessler’s study and the spread of Trumpland-baiting fake news. ..."

And:
https://nypost.com/2019/01/09/elderly-conservatives-more-likely-to-share-fake-news/
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Can't remember where the quote comes from, "You may be a cunning linguist, but I am a master debater."



Considering he is now publicly stating that he WOULD accept intelligence from a foreign entity on a political opponent - which is known as TREASON, I think there is little hope for this group of people to avoid getting rolled over by the wheels of progress.... as this thread has thoroughly demonstrated.

I don't know who said it first but, Oh, yeah? :)

If a candidate uses info from a foreign operative (or former operative) as opposition research, then convinces a FISA Court judge to issue a warrant to investigate one of their opponents, what is this called?

From the link, and it has been out there for quite a while-

"Meanwhile, the report also included other texts between Strzok and Page that are overtly critical of Trump.

In a Aug. 6, 2016, text, for example, the couple discussed how their work was "meant to protect the country from that menace," referring to Trump. Days later, on Aug. 15, they wrote that they "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency."

What do you call this? I'm not posting it in defense of Trump, I don't like the idea of ANYONE trying to make an election go in a different direction because they don't like a candidate, especially if they work for the government.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-texts-obama-wants-know-everything-we-re-doing-n845531

Read this and tell me there was nothing bad going on but don't say it doesn't matter, because it led to the Trump investigation-

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-met-james-comey-report-kass-0617-story.html
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I don't know who said it first but, Oh, yeah? :)

If a candidate uses info from a foreign operative (or former operative) as opposition research, then convinces a FISA Court judge to issue a warrant to investigate one of their opponents, what is this called?

From the link, and it has been out there for quite a while-

"Meanwhile, the report also included other texts between Strzok and Page that are overtly critical of Trump.

In a Aug. 6, 2016, text, for example, the couple discussed how their work was "meant to protect the country from that menace," referring to Trump. Days later, on Aug. 15, they wrote that they "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency."

What do you call this? I'm not posting it in defense of Trump, I don't like the idea of ANYONE trying to make an election go in a different direction because they don't like a candidate, especially if they work for the government.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-texts-obama-wants-know-everything-we-re-doing-n845531

Read this and tell me there was nothing bad going on but don't say it doesn't matter, because it led to the Trump investigation-

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-met-james-comey-report-kass-0617-story.html
The Russia probe did not start with the Steele dossier (assuming that is what you refers to) as shown in this fact checker from May 6, 2019: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/06/whats-evidence-spying-trumps-campaign-heres-your-guide/?utm_term=.a43c446c35c7

"Crossfire Hurricane was the name of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, which was opened in late July 2016 after the Australian government reported that Papadopoulos told Alexander Downer, the top Australian diplomat to the United Kingdom at the time, during a May meeting that the Russian government had “damaging” material on Clinton and was prepared to release it late in the election. That conversation allegedly took place 10 days after Papadopoulos learned of the emails from Mifsud on April 26.​
...​
The most controversial aspect of the application — much of which was redacted when released by the Justice Department under pressure from Congress — is that it relied in part on Steele’s reporting. The application noted he had been found “to be reliable” but added that the FBI speculated that he had been hired by someone “likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” Despite that potential bias, the application said “the FBI believes Source #1’s reporting herein to be credible.”​
But many elements of Steele’s reporting for the “dossier” have not been confirmed and have been called into question by the Mueller report."​

The Chicago Tribune article you linked to is a conspiracy rant from June 15, 2018. The NBC-News article from February 7, 2018 is about a report from a G.O.P. Senator concerning texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, but surely you must have something newer and up-to-date?
 
adk highlander

adk highlander

Sith Lord
I do,. Like said, I like banging on the cage to watch them jump up and down.
Na man. You just don't get it. We think of you just like those guys that want to sell us $1000 speaker cables. You are a snake oil salesman. Scary thing is those guys are crooks and know it. You really think this stuff which makes you scary and just plain sad.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Hey guys,

just as a point of order, if ya'll want like to argue in these select few politically oriented threads and call each other dummy-heads and poopoo-faces in here, that seems to be OK. BUT don't let it spill out from this thread or the couple others that have already turned into a dumpster fire. In the other subforums and discussions outside of this political bickering, we have a common enemy, and that is poor sound quality. Any disagreements or accusations of being nazis or communists need to be left in here. Make sure no ill-will leaves these few threads or touches other parts of the forum.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
So, you;re picking on my age now? Wow. Simply wow.
So, a link to a legitimate study conducted by Princeton University and NYU is out of bounds, while this is fine:
I do,. Like said, I like banging on the cage to watch them jump up and down.
Got it. By the way, I have no idea how old you are.

And, although I can't speak for anyone else, if you think I'm "jumping up and down", you will be sadly disappointed. As a centrist, I'm not blind to the flaws in arguments presented by the left and right. But, at this juncture, I'm finding more flaws in right-wing arguments.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Where do you stand on the actions of the Left?
Good question, if a bit broad. To start, and as previously posted, the left is less vulnerable to the "fake news" phenomena of recent times. And, I mean actual fake news, not the phrase that comes from POTUS every time he encounters news that isn't favourable to him. Of course, the left isn't immune, but it isn't as bad.

Could you define what you mean by "actions of the left"? The hard left, who aren't in power anywhere in Canada or the US? Do you mean those of Democrat state and municipal administrations? Don't forget, the political spectrum is skewed to the right in the US, when compared with the rest of the world, so what you might view as left, would be regarded as centrist elsewhere, while the right in the US is generally regarded as hard right elsewhere.

I understand that you aren't happy with the Democrat administration in your neck of the woods; you've made that clear many times. As a Canadian, I don't delve that deeply into state and local politics. But, we can't help but be flooded with American national issues, which often overflow into international matters, a reflection of the size and importance of America on the world stage. As neighbours, we get a close-up view.

One issue that I have with the left - in the US, at least - is that they don't seem to have a coherent policy on immigration. They know what they don't like - rightly - which are the draconian measures being taken by the current administration. But, if they can't formulate a coherent policy, they're going to leave it to a bunch with a much dimmer view. Here is a more nuanced take:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/

As for climate change, at least the left is taking it seriously. While some of the measures in the "Green New Deal" may seem impractical, we can at least look at it as aspirational and implement some practical measures. Trump's promise to bring back the coal mines is hilariously irresponsible - notwithstanding the fact that they probably won't be coming back to any significant degree.

Here in Canada, the federal Liberal government (centrist to us, left-wing to you...maybe) is implementing a carbon tax. If you take the need to reduce our carbon footprint seriously - and I do - this is the best way to do it. It will be revenue neutral, as the tax will be rebated to householders, while at the same time, encouraging reduced upfront expenditures on fossil fuels. It's straightforward and leaves it to emitters to determine how to reduce their carbon footprints in the most efficacious manner for them.

The Tory opposition (centre-right to us, centrist to you...maybe) keeps banging on about it being another tax, while ignoring the rebate aspect. Instead, they promise to come up with a climate change policy in due course. Which might be never. But, it will involve some form of "regulation". That will be the most inefficient manner to address the issue, as it handcuffs emitters to specific courses of action. So, from a free market point of view, I agree more with the government.

Some issues on which I largely agree with the left:
> Black Lives Matter/White Privilege
> MeToo
> Universal Health Care
I'm not in lockstep agreement with everything that comes out of left-wing mouths on the above topics, but many right-wingers look at the them in manners that I don't agree with at all.

I don't know if that helps, but the question is so broad, it's hard to know how to respond, as "the left" is half of the political spectrum with a limitless number/variety of opinions.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Hope Hicks testifies behind closed doors: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/hope-hicks-testimony-trump-oversight-1368164

Apparently, the interview did not go so well, but I believe that transcripts will be provided later:

"Several House Judiciary Committee members exiting the closed-door interview said a White House lawyer repeatedly claimed Hicks had blanket immunity from discussing her time in the White House. They said she wouldn’t answer questions as basic as where she sat in the West Wing or whether she told the truth to Mueller."​
...​
“She made clear she wouldn’t answer a single question about her time unless the White House counsel told her it was okay,” an exasperated Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) said in an interview. “She couldn’t even characterize her testimony to the special counsel.”​

Clearly private testimonies is a no-go and should be public so that we all can see this.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Good question, if a bit broad. To start, and as previously posted, the left is less vulnerable to the "fake news" phenomena of recent times. And, I mean actual fake news, not the phrase that comes from POTUS every time he encounters news that isn't favourable to him. Of course, the left isn't immune, but it isn't as bad.

Could you define what you mean by "actions of the left"? The hard left, who aren't in power anywhere in Canada or the US? Do you mean those of Democrat state and municipal administrations? Don't forget, the political spectrum is skewed to the right in the US, when compared with the rest of the world, so what you might view as left, would be regarded as centrist elsewhere, while the right in the US is generally regarded as hard right elsewhere.

I understand that you aren't happy with the Democrat administration in your neck of the woods; you've made that clear many times. As a Canadian, I don't delve that deeply into state and local politics. But, we can't help but be flooded with American national issues, which often overflow into international matters, a reflection of the size and importance of America on the world stage. As neighbours, we get a close-up view.

One issue that I have with the left - in the US, at least - is that they don't seem to have a coherent policy on immigration. They know what they don't like - rightly - which are the draconian measures being taken by the current administration. But, if they can't formulate a coherent policy, they're going to leave it to a bunch with a much dimmer view. Here is a more nuanced take:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/

As for climate change, at least the left is taking it seriously. While some of the measures in the "Green New Deal" may seem impractical, we can at least look at it as aspirational and implement some practical measures. Trump's promise to bring back the coal mines is hilariously irresponsible - notwithstanding the fact that they probably won't be coming back to any significant degree.

Here in Canada, the federal Liberal government (centrist to us, left-wing to you...maybe) is implementing a carbon tax. If you take the need to reduce our carbon footprint seriously - and I do - this is the best way to do it. It will be revenue neutral, as the tax will be rebated to householders, while at the same time, encouraging reduced upfront expenditures on fossil fuels. It's straightforward and leaves it to emitters to determine how to reduce their carbon footprints in the most efficacious manner for them.

The Tory opposition (centre-right to us, centrist to you...maybe) keeps banging on about it being another tax, while ignoring the rebate aspect. Instead, they promise to come up with a climate change policy in due course. Which might be never. But, it will involve some form of "regulation". That will be the most inefficient manner to address the issue, as it handcuffs emitters to specific courses of action. So, from a free market point of view, I agree more with the government.

Some issues on which I largely agree with the left:
> Black Lives Matter/White Privilege
> MeToo
> Universal Health Care
I'm not in lockstep agreement with everything that comes out of left-wing mouths on the above topics, but many right-wingers look at the them in manners that I don't agree with at all.

I don't know if that helps, but the question is so broad, it's hard to know how to respond, as "the left" is half of the political spectrum with a limitless number/variety of opinions.
The media tend to be liberal, so it's natural for them to be less vulnerable to anything that may be fake but the distortions are often incredible- the media tried very hard to prevent Trump's election and make no mistake- they got Obama elected. Don't tell me I'm racist for writing that, either- he had my ear at the beginning until he started talking about getting things done through redistribution of wealth. No POTUS or Congress has the power to do that, nor should they.

The hard left aren't in power? I beg to differ. We have several in Washington who aren't only Left, they're actually Leftist and that's dangerous. Personally, I would like the extremes from both sides to go and pound sand while the middle gets things done, but that's not going to happen.

What you call 'draconian measures' are, aside from the Mexican tariff threat and additional guards, very similar to what was happening during Obama. The difference is that this year, according to the link, more apprehensions have been made than any time since 2007.

The US has immigration policies- the Left don't want to enforce them.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-6-charts/

If you don't think the US is doing something about pollution, look into it- our air, water and land are far cleaner than it was before 1970 and we have more than doubled our population.

You can tax people to oblivion and it won't make all of them comply.

WRT BLM referring to Blacks killed by the Police- if they wouldn't fight, run or carry weapons illegally, far less would die in those situations. Yes, some cops go off the rails and it needs to stop, but if you look at the info about chases, cops killed by felons who are carrying guns and the number whose immediate reaction is to fight, you would be surprised. The first duty of the Police is to ensure safety by taking control of the situation and neutralizing the threat- an unarmed person can still be a threat. In the US, a small segment of 13% of the US population commit about 90% of the murders- how would you address that?

https://www.theroot.com/here-s-how-many-people-police-killed-in-2018-1831469528

WRT White Privilege- that's going to take a lot of work and time to solve.

#MeToo- that's not just an American phenomenon. I refuse to believe that it doesn't happen in other places.

Universal Health Care- the problem of the high cost of health care in the US is due to the insurance companies. THEY collect the premiums, deny coverage and save as much money as they can as a way to make their shareholders happy. Take them out of the equation and rates will be much more reasonable.

The Left and The Right have moved away from the center.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top