At the very least, it's a soft sell vs a hard sell.
Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
At the very least, it's a soft sell vs a hard sell.
Yeah, and as I'm all kinds of violently pinko it can be hard for me to see the bias at all.
It doesn't seem like a sell to me. I listened to NPR every day for 2-3 years. Does it appeal to liberals? Yes. But it's more that it appeals to the same demographic that overlaps heavily with liberals. It appeals to arts students, bookworms...and doesn't really appeal at all to the great 'middle'. To me, that just means you're in the same space as this other thing. A correlation - like the old internet joke about global warming and pirates. The news seems fairly straightforward, with equal time given to liberal and conservative pundits and politicians (lord knows I have been infuriated with an interviewer letting blatant lies about the Affordable Care Act pass unchallenged).
Is it infested with pinkos? Yeah, probs, it's a non-explicitly right wing news org (which...journalists fit into that art students/bookworms group...its not a conspiracy, it's a matter of demographics). But I don't think it really can be fairly compared with stuff like Rush, Fox News, or MSNBC (which is definitely hard left...though it all feels forced).
But I am a pinko, maybe they are all insidious and selling things.
Point one: ...and they are being vigorously recruited to register and vote, which is their absolute right. We live with the consequences.
Point two: Toxic narcissists. Sociopaths of the highest order.
If a future question came down to Clinton or Trump making a great personal sacrifice of power, influence, or money for the overall long-term welfare of the United States of America (see - statesmanship), do you have any doubt that either of these would do what is ultimately right for the Trump or Clinton Empire, as opposed to what is good for the country.
I can't see it, myself. It's all about ME.
Point one:
It's one of those basic annoyances of democracy - when is someone smart enough to vote? For most people it's never, but then we're not a democracy anymore. And how can we ask our vigorous young men and women to possibly volunteer to die in our military, but not even give them the illusion that their vote counts? But yes, college students are dumb, and they vote...but then again, old people are also dumb, and they vote. So six on one...
Point two: In full agreement.
Edit: In point 1, I include myself in the 'not smart enough' to vote section. Our government is crazy complicated, and I don't know the details anywhere near enough to consider myself 'informed'.
It's not terrible, it's my preferred news destination, but there is no doubt bias in the reporting insomuch as their programs routinely report certain issues and/or from certain perspectives. But some programs are also wonderfully balanced, which I'm not sure you can get anywhere else, save possibly politically-specific XM stations (and, of course, the Fair and Balanced media choice). As a centrist/moderate, I appreciate the generally-balanced news approach, as I can lean to either side of the political spectrum on certain issues. There is alway another side to the story, and good reporting will show the other side in a generous, empathetic way, even if (or specifically when) the other side is "wrong."
I am not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that the work of this project is a bad thing because people are making a living doing it?
In full agreement with everything you said here. Me too.
Is it sad that the only thing we can all seem to agree on is that this is all a terribly embarrassing mess and we've gotten ourselves in quite the pickle?
It seems regardless of your political affiliation everyone is in agreement that our government is a dumpster fire.
It seems regardless of your political affiliation everyone is in agreement that our government is a dumpster fire.
There was a little old lady in my neighborhood yesterday handing out a list of all of the candidates that were up for election here in Washington. Obviously the democrats all were highlighted (I live in Seattle...what else would you expect) and their boxes were check, but I found it fascinating that there were seven different candidates for president on the ballot.
Never even heard of three of them.
I damn near voted for one of the Commies, just because I know we're going to be Blue. But in the end, I'm not an actual Communist (I don't trust the masses anymore than I trust an oligarchy). I had to look them up though. And I think there was another super far right winger?
I just wish we could get more involvement on the local level with third parties and bring it to the state. I've said a few times that it seems silly to run a pres candidate w/o running anything down ballot. I get running the pres candidate for down ballot recognition, but other than President every single down ballot partisan office was Dem or Republican (prefers, as you apparently do in Washington).
The federal and state levels of government being so gross and toxic has probably turned most people off local politics too, which have always been especially skeezy.
Millenials are just a new generation. I didn't care about voting at 19 either ('04). I'm sure we're not the first generation like that. But Millenials are very much a product of the Boomers, helicopter parenting, participation awards, and being wrapped in foam. They (we), need a few extra years to become full adults because we lost a number of years of individual development that prior generations had.
AND THEN the boomers went and blew up the economy right when we were graduating with a house worth of debt because of the 'everybody HAS to go to college' routine.
I'm just saying that there is a far more apt generational target than Millenials out there.
AND THEN the boomers went and blew up the economy right when we were graduating with a house worth of debt because of the 'everybody HAS to go to college' routine.
I'm just saying that there is a far more apt generational target than Millenials out there.
Not at all. The Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Johnstown Flood, and the Homestead Strike were all products of capitalism.
I am amused by the proportion of the young folks I encounter who aspire to work for a non-profit simply because it is a non-profit, and therefore feel freed from the stench of contact with capitalism, unlike working for some evil corporation. Then they graduate and meet the real world, unless they actually get that non-profit job. They meet another kind of "real world" in that case, and each is different in its own way. That said, the modern world would be much poorer without the benefit of what your average 501(c)3 does.
Disclaimer: I have been chair of the board of a local non-profit corporation on three different occasions, and have filled two other positions as well.
It is amusing to see what many people think non-profit means. They are usually shocked to learn that all are corporations, and use the status of corporations within US law to their benefit, specifically in the matter of the benefits of the tax burden avoided and also the burden of the mandatory reporting required. Ours was one of the few I know of that did not require outside expense just to meet the reporting requirements. That drives the need for funding simply to climb the regulatory hurdles and meet reporting and audit requirements. That why I get so mad when I see others flagrantly cheating.
You'd be amazed what we could get away with if we didn't bring our own integrity to the table.
Well. This is a fair point. I didn't realize this was the point.
Yes, non-profits are often greedy and evil, because individuals have an incentive to be greedy and evil. This is the form that it takes in Capitalism. It looks different in Stalinism, but of course is still there (worse in many ways). Some corporations aren't evil! I've worked for a couple that I consider to be totally legit, acceptable businesses even though they were for-profit. They still believed in providing a service for a fair price and making their customers happy.
The argument is against unrestricted capitalism, to deincentivize the greedy and evil behavior of those without integrity. That's why the left wants regulation. The right largely opposes, ostensibly because they fear that deincentivizing that behavior would cause greater ill than simply allowing it. We disagree here.
I don't know if anyone has said non-profits cannot be staffed by selfish jerks.
There is much wisdom here, grasshopper. Look at the opportunities out there for skilled tradesmen in this economy. I have advanced degrees in the arts. That, in retrospect, was just stupid from an economic standpoint. On the other hand, I wouldn't be the person I am without that education. Is a puzzlement.
If people get married, get employed, don't develop bad habits, and stay married, things are pretty likely to still work out though. For me, that's been the key. There is no substitute for a good marriage to make you happy and productive.
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
