2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

and thus I am calling you out on your disrespectful swipe and attempt to devalue my opinion simply because it does not accord with yours.


As for FOX news and MSNBC I have little respect or time for either channel who are very much part of the MSM media in the US and very much part of the problem as they have little interest in being legit sources of news and information rather then being at their worst outright exteme propaganda outlets and certainly being more interested in pushing agends that do not serve the best interests of the majority of Americans.

That may seem to be the case except where you see a situation like in Germany where the press tried to censor it. Wouldn't likely happen in America. Whoever heard it first would report it first and they'd be all over it. They may sensationalise but I think the majority of people can take it with a pinch of salt.

ancapailldorcha

Can people take the gun control debate to the gun control thread please?

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

That may seem to be the case except where you see a situation like in Germany where the press tried to censor it. Wouldn't likely happen in America. Whoever heard it first would report it first and they'd be all over it. They may sensationalise but I think the majority of people can take it with a pinch of salt.

Well it looks like we have another thing we disagree on then. In my opinion the MSM in the United States are part of the problem. Be it Fox News or MSNBC they are not interested in being legit news outlets and sources of information to the public. They are in fact when at their worst outright propaganda outlets but maybe in a more sinister and dangerous way they are very much more concerned with what gets ratings and pushing agendas that do not serve the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.


For instance if we are to talk about the upcoming presidential election which this thread is about neither have Fox News nor MSNBC have showed any consistent interest in talking about and or debating consistently about the totally dysfunctional political system that is the current US political system which is so corrupted it could be argued it is an oligarchy. Certainly neither the congress nor the president behave in a manner that is in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. Thus the United States has voter rates even in presidential election years which get higher turnouts that are flat out embarrassing. Never mind the non presidential election year turnouts which are even worse. Turnout in 2014 was a pitiful 34%. Voter turnout rates in presidential election years are low to at best mid 50's. They have not seen even 60% turnout in almost 50 years.

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can people take the gun control debate to the gun control thread please?

Moved about 15 posts over, posters can continue the debate there.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Well it looks like we have another thing we disagree on then. In my opinion the MSM in the United States are part of the problem. Be it Fox News or MSNBC they are not interested in being legit news outlets and sources of information to the public. They are in fact when at their worst outright propaganda outlets but maybe in a more sinister and dangerous way they are very much more concerned with what gets ratings and pushing agendas that do not serve the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.


For instance if we are to talk about the upcoming presidential election which this thread is about neither have Fox News nor MSNBC have showed any consistent interest in talking about and or debating consistently about the totally dysfunctional political system that is the current US political system which is so corrupted it could be argued it is an oligarchy. Certainly neither the congress nor the president behave in a manner that is in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. Thus the United States has voter rates even in presidential election years which get higher turnouts that are flat out embarrassing. Never mind the non presidential election year turnouts which are even worse. Turnout in 2014 was a pitiful 34%. Voter turnout rates in presidential election years are low to at best mid 50's. They have not seen even 60% turnout in almost 50 years.

Don't get where you're coming from with that. I've seen MSNBC at least talking about disillusionment with the political process particular with regards to Trump and Sanders' candidacy.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Don't get where you're coming from with that. I've seen MSNBC at least talking about disillusionment with the political process particular with regards to Trump and Sanders' candidacy.

I have seen mention briefly and in little bits yes. That is why I said neither Fox News nor MSNBC nor any part of the MSM have consistently brought up and or debated what is a massive issue in the United States right now. Which is an example of why the MSM including both Fox News and MSNBC are part of the problem.
I have rarely ever seen them discuss and or debate how the Republican and Democratic party act at both the federal and state level to make sure that no viable other alternatives politcally are allowed to emerge onto a national level. They in effect behave as a cartel with a monoply on power in DC. This is a massive problem and it is in my opinion part of the reason for the embarrassing turnout in US presidential elections. That would be another example of the MSM being part of the problem be it of the Fox News persuation or of the MSNBC persuation.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

I have seen mention briefly and in little bits yes. That is why I said neither Fox News nor MSNBC nor any part of the MSM have consistently brought up and or debated what is a massive issue in the United States right now. Which is an example of why the MSM including both Fox News and MSNBC are part of the problem.
I have rarely ever seen them discuss and or debate how the Republican and Democratic party act at both the federal and state level to make sure that no viable other alternatives politcally are allowed to emerge onto a national level. They in effect behave as a cartel with a monoply on power in DC. This is a massive problem and it is in my opinion part of the reason for the embarrassing turnout in US presidential elections. That would be another example of the MSM being part of the problem be it of the Fox News persuation or of the MSNBC persuation.

It's sort of a vicious cycle. They could talk about it all day long but nothing would get done about it. The only thing that's going to break the two party system is if a 3rd party emerges with a viable platform. The media can't make that happen until it does.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's sort of a vicious cycle. They could talk about it all day long but nothing would get done about it. The only thing that's going to break the two party system is if a 3rd party emerges with a viable platform. The media can't make that happen until it does.

Nothing gets done about the dysfunctional and corrupt US political system and the MSM are part of the problem in this issue not being addressed because they do not discuss and or debate it in any significant way and or consistently at all. The medias job is not to create other political parties but it is their job to point out the manner in which the Republicans and Democrats in DC and at the state level are running a 2 party cartel with a monopoly on power and they fail to talk about the various ways in which they manipulate rules to prevent any real alternatives emerging onto a national level.
Take the so called Presidential Commission on Debates. The MSM media portray this as if it was an independant body when in fact it is a private firm owned and run by the Republican and Democratic party and used as one of their tools to make sure no other viable national alternatives are allowed to emerge.

InTheTrees

eire4 wrote: »

That is why I said neither Fox News nor MSNBC nor any part of the MSM have consistently brought up and or debated what is a massive issue in the United States right now.

The US media is pretty ineffective. They have a symbiotic relationship with the politicians which verges on the incestuous.

The reporters on the White House Press Corps depend for their jobs on access to politicians. Which results in politicians being treated with reverence by the "journalists". If any reporters step out of line they'll lose access.

A political interview on US TV is basically a Politician making a statement facilitated by a journalist. there's no follow up questions, there's no drawing attention to lies.

The dismal state of the fourth estate is probably a major reason for the lack of trust in US politics.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

The US media is pretty ineffective. They have a symbiotic relationship with the politicians which verges on the incestuous.

The reporters on the White House Press Corps depend for their jobs on access to politicians. Which results in politicians being treated with reverence by the "journalists". If any reporters step out of line they'll lose access.

A political interview on US TV is basically a Politician making a statement facilitated by a journalist. there's no follow up questions, there's no drawing attention to lies.

The dismal state of the fourth estate is probably a major reason for the lack of trust in US politics.

I think the opposite is sometimes worse, where you have hostile interviewers attacking mainly non-establishment politicians and giving the establishment politicians an easy ride. Particularly prevalent in the BBC. You'll never see the likes of Andrew Neil go for a Labour politician the way they'll go for the likes of Nigel Farage. At least where the job of the press is to facilitate politicians getting their message out rather than trying to lead the interview viewers get to digest what is said and think for themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp10kI-NQI8

KingBrian2

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's sort of a vicious cycle. They could talk about it all day long but nothing would get done about it. The only thing that's going to break the two party system is if a 3rd party emerges with a viable platform. The media can't make that happen until it does.

Enter Trump and his phenomenal success with voters. Dose not care which types of voters they are liberal, conservative, anti Obama zealots, Xenophobes, Patriots & corporatists. His motley crew of admirers are backing what we all consider is a third party movement in the US.

eire4

InTheTrees wrote: »

The US media is pretty ineffective. They have a symbiotic relationship with the politicians which verges on the incestuous.

The reporters on the White House Press Corps depend for their jobs on access to politicians. Which results in politicians being treated with reverence by the "journalists". If any reporters step out of line they'll lose access.

A political interview on US TV is basically a Politician making a statement facilitated by a journalist. there's no follow up questions, there's no drawing attention to lies.

The dismal state of the fourth estate is probably a major reason for the lack of trust in US politics.

Very good point about the relationship between MS press and US politicians. No question in my mind the as you say dismal state of the US MSM is a major problem and is part of the problem that is the US government and the fact that it does not work for or represent the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.

my friend

InTheTrees wrote: »

The US media is pretty ineffective. They have a symbiotic relationship with the politicians which verges on the incestuous.

The reporters on the White House Press Corps depend for their jobs on access to politicians. Which results in politicians being treated with reverence by the "journalists". If any reporters step out of line they'll lose access.

A political interview on US TV is basically a Politician making a statement facilitated by a journalist. there's no follow up questions, there's no drawing attention to lies.

The dismal state of the fourth estate is probably a major reason for the lack of trust in US politics.

Not quite true, I suspect you're a fan of the Vincent Browne / Carol 'I'm an idiot ' Coleman style of aggressive one hit no results school of failed grilling

InTheTrees

eire4 wrote: »

Very good point about the relationship between MS press and US politicians. No question in my mind the as you say dismal state of the US MSM is a major problem and is part of the problem that is the US government and the fact that it does not work for or represent the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.

Yes. The Fourth Estate is supposed to represent us, the citizens. The press are supposed to act as the voice of the people.

The Sunday Morning political talk shows are a great example. A political "interview" consists of a reporter asking a politician a soft ball leading question which the politician doesn't even have to answer, but they can then go off on their rehearsed statement. When they're done, there's no follow up question jst a thank you and its on to the next question.

Watching the process is pretty Orwellian.

The "White House Press Corps" is particularly bad too.

They regard themselves as the Elites. Their entire career worth depends on which seat they're allocated on Air Force One when the President goes on a trip so they risk not just their jobs but their careers if they ask any awkward questions or upset anyone.

InTheTrees

my friend wrote: »

Not quite true

Can you expand a little and explain which part you felt was untrue?

walshyn93

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/01/10/exclusive-kathleen-willey-urges-clinton-sex-victims-to-break-silence-nobody-can-touch-you-now/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

What people fail to take into account is that Trump owns a country club of which many many powerful people - including the Clintons - are members. He knows things. Like he probably has some idea about what Bill got up to on his private flights to 'Orgy Island' with known paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He knows all of the Clinton's secrets and how much he chooses to share with us depends on how much he wants to win. The president is a good friend and a bad enemy. The more Trump looks like he might become the president or the more Hillary looks like she might not, the more people may choose to come forward.

Colonialboy

Regarding main stream media bias in the US, they may be facing the same issue the BBC is facing.
I think Jeremy Paxman put it well when he remarked how when he started at the BBC he was getting the average industrial wage and was interviewing people in a 'class' and a 'wealth bracket;' far beyond him, so course he went after them like a dog for a bone.
But now Paxman admits he is on half a million a year +, and has some titles and so is part of the same elites that he is suppossedly questioning.
He still does a good job but realises his own dichotomy.

At least Jon Snow did the honourable thing and has turned down New Years honurs from the Quenn as he felt it compromised his stance and ability todo investigative journalism.

Yes its a UK media based point, but probably equalable applicable to the US.
Actuall point could be applied to all main strame meadi reporting for all maor social,economic and political events being discussed in print, visual and digital world.

edit : christ my typing is atrocious

walshyn93

Colonialboy wrote: »

Regarding main stream media bias in the US, they may be facing the same issue the BBC is facing.
I think Jeremy Paxman put it well when he remarked how when he started at the BBC he was getting the average industrial wage and was interviewing people in a 'class' and a 'wealth bracket;' far beyond him, so course he went after them like a dog for a bone.
But now Paxman admits he is on half a million a year +, and has some titles and so is part of the same elites that he is suppossedly questioning.
He still does a good job but realises his own dichotomy.

At least Jon Snow did the honourable thing and has turned down New Years honurs from the Quenn as he felt it compromised his stance and ability todo investigative journalism.

Yes its a UK media based point, but probably equalable applicable to the US.
Actuall point could be applied to all main strame meadi reporting for all maor social,economic and political events being discussed in print, visual and digital world.

edit : christ my typing is atrocious

It's absolutely relevant to the US campaign. The Clintons are members of Trump's golf courses. Most of the national media is based in New York I would bet many media elites live in Trump Tower and play on his courses. Just like Britain they're all part of the same clique. Attend the same weddings, same art exhibitions.

walshyn93

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265421-trump-leads-cruz-by-two-points-in-new-iowa-poll

Trump up by 2 points in Iowa in new Quinnepiac poll.

Colonialboy

walshyn93 wrote: »

Just like Britain they're all part of the same clique. Attend the same weddings, same art exhibitions.

and not just Britain, Ireland too obviously...
oh if only I had the time to tell you of the drinking sessions Ive had with Irelands finest and famous and powerful .
People who some would think are so far removed in ideology they couldnt be left alone together, but are falling over eachother (literally) to get the next round in (mostly on tax payers coin)

Most would sell their ideology to the lowest bidder just to get up a rung on whatever ladder they are on.
The are united in greed, ego and megalomania.

Manach

From an information-security policy view point, rather disappointing that Mr. Rubio supports this type of big-statism:
"
Marco Rubio: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs

The debate over surveillance hit the 2016 race for the White House again on Sunday when Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he wants to add to American surveillance programs, many of which were created after 9/11. He invoked a recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a man who allegedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. "This the kind of threat we now face in this country," Rubio said. "We need additional tools for intelligence." Rubio also addressed the NSA leaks that led to this debate: "Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."

" - http://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/01/11/1541256/marco-rubio-we-need-to-add-to-us-surveillance-programs/informative-comments#comments

walshyn93

Manach wrote: »

From an information-security policy view point, rather disappointing that Mr. Rubio supports this type of big-statism:
"
Marco Rubio: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs

The debate over surveillance hit the 2016 race for the White House again on Sunday when Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he wants to add to American surveillance programs, many of which were created after 9/11. He invoked a recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a man who allegedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. "This the kind of threat we now face in this country," Rubio said. "We need additional tools for intelligence." Rubio also addressed the NSA leaks that led to this debate: "Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."

" - http://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/01/11/1541256/marco-rubio-we-need-to-add-to-us-surveillance-programs/informative-comments#comments

Rubio has always been huge on data mining. He's never heard of a spying programme he didn't like.

InTheTrees

Colonialboy wrote: »

and Im pretty sure it was more than just Republicans who were obsessed, the media, various senate oversight committees, various senate investigations, federal judiciaty, state judiciary, national security agency, FBI, CIA,

The Republican controlled congressional investigations into the Clinton's have resulted in how many prosecutions? Remember the failed impeachment?

The Republican controlled benghazi committee has burned through over $10m so far and have produced nothing.

As for the others on your list, you might have to clarify those? Do you mean the Whitewater investigations?

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Republican controlled congressional investigations into the Clinton's have resulted in how many prosecutions? Remember the failed impeachment?

The Republican controlled benghazi committee has burned through over $10m so far and have produced nothing.

As for the others on your list, you might have to clarify those? Do you mean the Whitewater investigations?

There's no smoke without fire. Innocent people don't chronically avoid providing subpoenaed documents. People with nothing to hide don't release subpoenaed documents on Christmas Eve, Thanksgiving and New Years Eve to avoid the public's attention. People with nothing to hide don't lie about there being no classified documents in the emails only to find out there were more than 1,300.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

There's no smoke without fire. Innocent people don't chronically avoid providing subpoenaed documents. People with nothing to hide don't release subpoenaed documents on Christmas Eve, Thanksgiving and New Years Eve to avoid the public's attention. People with nothing to hide don't lie about there being no classified documents in the emails only to find out there were more than 1,300.

Most politicians are trained lawyers. They're law makers, thats why we elect them. The Clinton's are both highly trained lawyers.

Defending oneself against legal attack by using the law in the most efficient way possible is what you would expect them to do. They've been under attack by republicans since the early 1990's and unless something startlingly new comes to light this is all been gone over and over.

Maybe it'll be from the Benghazi Committee? Maybe they'll come up with an indictment?

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Most politicians are trained lawyers. They're law makers, thats why we elect them. The Clinton's are both highly trained lawyers.

Defending oneself against legal attack by using the law in the most efficient way possible is what you would expect them to do. They've been under attack by republicans since the early 1990's and unless something startlingly new comes to light this is all been gone over and over.

Maybe it'll be from the Benghazi Committee? Maybe they'll come up with an indictment?

I don't think the goal of the Benghazi Committee was to get an indictment. It was to find out what happened and why. When an ambassador gets killed on the Secretary of State's watch and there is evidence that his appeals for extra security were ignored, basic accountability procedure is to ask questions of the SoS. It's also worth asking why she blamed it on a video even though in emails to her daughter she told her within 24 hours that it was Al Qaeda. Why would she lie to everyone like this? Why such a pathetic cover-up? It's not like she did anything grossly wrong. But as always she gets herself into trouble by lying for no reason. Not a good person. Not president material.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265421-trump-leads-cruz-by-two-points-in-new-iowa-poll

Trump up by 2 points in Iowa in new Quinnepiac poll.

2 points falls within the margin of error and may, or may not be significant; e.g., may be due to random variation, etc.

Colonialboy

InTheTrees wrote: »

Most politicians are trained lawyers. They're law makers, thats why we elect them. The Clinton's are both highly trained lawyers.

if Hilary is such a erstwhile, honourable and treasured law maker ... then why isnt she upholding the law and supporting her president .

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton joined her rivals Monday in opposing the Obama administration's deportation raids targeting Central American immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally and ignored deportation orders.

to paraphrase that popular quote.. Hilary Clinton, I have laws, but if you dont like them and you can vote, well I have some other laws.

that reminds time to order some new flip-flops for around the house.

my friend

Hilary is cooked, FBI investigation is exposing her real flaws, Iowa polls show Bernie neck and neck!!

Neck and neck with Bernie! Wow

That's embarrassing

First Up

my friend wrote: »

Hilary is cooked, FBI investigation is exposing her real flaws, Iowa polls show Bernie neck and neck!!

Neck and neck with Bernie! Wow

That's embarrassing

I can understand why supporters of the un-electable Trump are desperately hoping that the Dems reciprocate by nominating the equally un-electable Sanders.

It ain't going to happen, but enjoy the dream while it lasts.