The Next President is...

[Royal]

11 hours ago, kaputt said:

The whole thing about the ID requirement is massively blown out of proportion. If someone doesn’t have an ID, they can can use last 4 of social, a utility bill, or several other items in order to validate themselves as a legal Georgia voter.
 

Pretty hilarious that Delta Airlines took such a hardline stance on it. Especially considering you've got to have an ID to get through security to get on one of their planes; you also have to have a ticket and an ID (in the form of a credit card) to get into their lounges. That's racist.

[Lord Ratner]

20 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

If by bullshit you mean your post, then we’re in agreement.  Right wing talk radio, OAN, Newsmax, Blaze, Wash Times, Daily Standard, podcasts galore, and the younger-demographic fast-growing online media such as Quilette, etc. plenty of conservative outlets exist.  Whether they’re successful and gain viewership is up to them.  In fact , most have been successful, particularly in developing well-regarded pundits (Hannity, yes, but also Shapiro, Glenn Beck to name two) I don’t think you’re stupid, but clearly you are firmly stuck in a echo chamber with regard to rhetoric. The rub, of course, is the presumption that “your side” is always truthful and unbiased while the “other side”is not. You can debate point-by-point ad infinitum. However, a mature perspective is that currently both sides are highly biased.  Stop with the poor little conservative press shtick; it’s no longer valid.  The very-right-wing conservative pundits need to stop acting like oppressed little bitches. They have a platform, they’re using it, and have a strong voice to the public at large (some of which I wholeheartedly agree with). The “coastal elites” (whatever that now means) no longer solely control the narrative.  It’s not 1994 with Rush vs Everyone Else.  
In concept, I’m glad that the media has multiple voices.  The problem is that the moderates have been drowned out. Probably because that narrative is boring and doesn’t get folks fired up (exhibit A: this thread).  It’s either: the other side is communist, atheist transgenders OR the other side is uneducated, bible-thumping racists.  Really, that’s the best we can do?  You have to go 3000+ mi East to get a what may be the only relatively balanced perspective (BBC).  That’s pathetic. 

While I appreciate the bold idea that OAN and Newsmax are somehow equivalent to WaPo and CNN, I know you don't believe that. 

 

What's next, you going to tell us Hollywood is politically balanced because Kelsey Grammar and Melissa Joan Hart are Republicans?

 

There's definitely a change coming, and the conservative outlets are making progress, but to imply "media" is balanced in 2021 is silly. Ironically, the outlets you cite are doing well specifically because of the wild imbalance in political leaning in the news media.

[FLEA]

54 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

While I appreciate the bold idea that OAN and Newsmax are somehow equivalent to WaPo and CNN, I know you don't believe that. 

 

What's next, you going to tell us Hollywood is politically balanced because Kelsey Grammar and Melissa Joan Hart are Republicans?

 

There's definitely a change coming, and the conservative outlets are making progress, but to imply "media" is balanced in 2021 is silly. Ironically, the outlets you cite are doing well specifically because of the wild imbalance in political leaning in the news media.

The real litmus test is how many of these off brand conservative networks have permanent seats in the James S. Brady room? Quite a few, like OAN have shared seats, or pick up seats on lucky occasions. But the preponderance of seats lie with CNN, NBC, FOX, ABC, CBS or one of their affiliates though. 

 

Quote

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

NBC News Wall Street Journal Agence France-Presse MSNBC Bloomberg BNA Washington Examiner Univision

Fox News CBS News Radio AP Radio Foreign Pool Time Yahoo! News Dallas Morning News

CBS News Bloomberg News McClatchy Washington Times Sirius XM Salem Radio Globe/Roll Call

AP NPR AURN The Hill Regionals Newsmax CBN

ABC News Washington Post Politico Fox News Radio CSM/NY Post Daily Mail BBC

Reuters NY Times Chicago Tribune VOA RealClearPolitics HuffPost/NY Daily News BuzzFeed/Daily Beast

CNN USA Today ABC News Radio National Journal Al Jazeera/PBS Westwood One Financial Times/Guardian

 

Edited April 7, 2021 by FLEA

[Swamp Yankee]

27 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

While I appreciate the bold idea that OAN and Newsmax are somehow equivalent to WaPo and CNN, I know you don't believe that. 

 

What's next, you going to tell us Hollywood is politically balanced because Kelsey Grammar and Melissa Joan Hart are Republicans?

 

There's definitely a change coming, and the conservative outlets are making progress, but to imply "media" is balanced in 2021 is silly. Ironically, the outlets you cite are doing well specifically because of the wild imbalance in political leaning in the news media.

"What's next, you going to tell us Hollywood is politically balanced because Kelsey Grammar and Melissa Joan Hart are Republicans?"

- Absolutely not.  Moreover, people who make political decisions based on the blatantly very liberal/"woke" Hollywood/entertainment industry are probably beyond help (see Ricky Gervais monologue).  That said, it gets weird at the margins.  E.g is Tucker Carlson news opinion or entertainment?  He presents like the former but claims the latter when legal issues are raised.  Even more true with Jon Stewart; he wanted to be a political pundit for all intents and purposes yet hid behind the "I'm just a comedian" shield when strongly challenged. Maybe such blurry lines always existed, but seems more prominent now.  

It's much more than OAN and Newsmax type TV channels, so I shouldn't have led with those examples.  As probably everyone knows, media formats are changing rapidly and traditional TV viewership is becoming less relevant. Podcasts and blogs are growing significantly. Talk radio is still a thing although the pandemic's effect on commuting resulted in a decline.  In summary, many liberal and many conservative news outlets of all types exist.  https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart  Each has the opportunity to market itself and thus is responsible for their own success.  On my TV, all the news channels, liberal and conservative, are listed from 600 to 6XX.  They're all available online as well.  I go on Apple and Spotify and see Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Rogan, Sam Harris, The Daily, NPR, etc. Youtube has clips of all the above.  Of course, it is problematic that social media algorithms will push similar content to you causing the echo chamber effect, but that's a separate topic. 

Are conservative and liberal news perfectly balanced? No.  But both are well represented. 74 million people were convinced Trump was the better candidate.  The media undoubtedly influenced that outcome and it wasn't a fringe, upstart media. 

 

[Prozac]

Perhaps one candidate was simply demonstrably better than the other and that’s why coverage across the board tended to favor him?  Not suggesting that there isn’t bias but Trump was a pretty easy guy to dislike. He didn’t help himself in the press either by declaring war against everyone but Fox and OAN. 

[brickhistory]

34 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Perhaps one candidate was simply demonstrably better than the other and that’s why coverage across the board tended to favor him?  

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Yeah, yeah, yuck it up. The majority of the country doesn’t agree. Even most of the Trump voters I know admit that at the very least he is a deeply flawed human being. “Electability” (aka likeability/having the appearance of decent human) has been a huge consideration in presidential politics for a long, long time. FWIW, I think a candidate Romney, a candidate Jeb Bush, or even a candidate Rubio beats candidate Biden in 2020. A moderate Republican would likely fare well against what’s left of Biden (pun intended) in 2024. Republicans aren’t playing the long game when they let the Trump/populist wing continue to co-opt the party. 

[brickhistory]

No argument regarding Trump's character flaws, but what specific actions/attempted actions or policies that he ran while in office did you not like or agree with?

 The RINOs you think would make a better candidate is not something I can ever agree with or even consider.  I'd vote Hillary over one of them.  At least then, I know the opposition is on the outside of the wire and not inside.

But to theorize that Biden was a "better candidate" is ludicrous.  

But Biden is the President*, so there's that.

 

 

* for now

Edited April 7, 2021 by brickhistory

[Prozac]

33 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

No argument regarding Trump's character flaws, but what specific actions/attempted actions or policies that he ran while in office did you not like or agree with?

 The RINOs you think would make a better candidate is not something I can ever agree with or even consider.  I'd vote Hillary over one of them.  At least then, I know the opposition is on the outside of the wire and not inside.

But to theorize that Biden was a "better candidate" is ludicrous.  

But Biden is the President*, so there's that.

 

 

* for now

There were a bunch of policy things I really didn’t like. There were also some things I did. But I do believe that character matters and his was utterly disgusting to me (YMMV and that’s ok). I wouldn’t have voted for him even if I agreed with all of his policy goals. I am curious though as to how candidates who would have defined the party 15 or even 5 years ago have somehow become RINOs? If anyone’s a RINO, in my mind it’s Trump. He spent most of his life taking positions on many issues that would’ve made (and did make) many traditional Republicans very uncomfortable. He is the epitome of a flip flopper. He very obviously changed many of his previous views for blatant political gain (reference his newfound reverence for Christianity). And yet somehow the guy who literally shits on gold toilets becomes the symbol of the middle class American working man? Sorry, but Trump’s Republican Party is nowhere near the much vaunted “party of Reagan”. I wonder what Ronald Reagan would have to say about Donald Trump the politician if he were alive today? 

[M2]

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

Yeah, yeah, yuck it up. The majority of the country doesn’t agree. Even most of the Trump voters I know admit that at the very least he is a deeply flawed human being. “Electability” (aka likeability/having the appearance of decent human) has been a huge consideration in presidential politics for a long, long time. FWIW, I think a candidate Romney, a candidate Jeb Bush, or even a candidate Rubio beats candidate Biden in 2020. A moderate Republican would likely fare well against what’s left of Biden (pun intended) in 2024. Republicans aren’t playing the long game when they let the Trump/populist wing continue to co-opt the party. 

It'll be Ron DeSantis.  Romney, Bush and Rubio have zero chance.  Feel free to quote me on that in 2024! 

And also feel free to explain Biden's "Electability."  I just don't see it.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, M2 said:

It'll be Ron DeSantis.  Romney, Bush and Rubio have zero chance.  Feel free to quote me on that in 2024! 

And also feel free to explain Biden's "Electability."  I just don't see it.

I do think there is a certain “regular guy” charm to Biden. That said, I’ll concede that it was probably more about Trumps lack of electability just as it was Hillary’s major deficiency in 2016. 

[FLEA]

On 4/7/2021 at 5:05 AM, kaputt said:

The worst part is that our own President got up there and called it worse than Jim Crow and wasn’t even remotely checked on that absolutely ludicrous statement. 

Ironic coming from a guy who got his startup in politics by running on a platform of maintaining Jim Crow/racial segregation. 

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

I do think there is a certain “regular guy” charm to Biden. That said, I’ll concede that it was probably more about Trumps lack of electability just as it was Hillary’s major deficiency in 2016. 

Joe represented a return to a pre-Trump world. Politically moderate and not addicting to twitter bombs.

 

What people didn't foresee, including myself, is that Joe would become *more* rather than less progressive after the primary. Usually it's the other way around.

 

Personally, I believe that's due to a combination of two things: heavily relying on ex-Obama staffers, and his own cognitive decline reducing his ability to steer the agenda. 

[M2]

10 hours ago, Prozac said:

I do think there is a certain “regular guy” charm to Biden. That said, I’ll concede that it was probably more about Trumps lack of electability just as it was Hillary’s major deficiency in 2016. 

Biden a "regular guy?!?"  Who are you hanging around with?

And Trump's "lack of electability" was solely personality-based (mainly based on those "mean Tweets!").  Most on both sides will agree he's a pompous ass, but his actual record as president was quite worthy of re-election!

[lloyd christmas]

On 4/7/2021 at 7:30 PM, Prozac said:

I wouldn’t have voted for him even if I agreed with ALL of his policy goals. 

Thank you for being honest.  #orangemanbad 
 

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, lloyd christmas said:

Thank you for being honest.  #orangemanbad 
 

I see nothing wrong with being so disgusted by another human being that you want nothing to do with them regardless of whether you may agree with them on a few issues here and there. I find it far more problematic to be disgusted by someone, but to throw one’s support behind them if it may further one’s own agenda in some small way. 

[Lord Ratner]

44 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I see nothing wrong with being so disgusted by another human being that you want nothing to do with them regardless of whether you may agree with them on a few issues here and there. I find it far more problematic to be disgusted by someone, but to throw one’s support behind them if it may further one’s own agenda in some small way. 

You imply that there were options that weren't disgusting.

[lloyd christmas]

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

You imply that there were options that weren't disgusting.

That’s exactly right.  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are as pure as the driven snow. 

[VMFA187]

On 4/7/2021 at 5:30 PM, Prozac said:

I wouldn’t have voted for him even if I agreed with all of his policy goals.

Did you think the last election was for Prom King? WTF dude.

To be fair, most Americans do make decisions based upon emotion as opposed to logic, so I shouldn't be surprised. 

On 4/7/2021 at 8:40 PM, Prozac said:

I do think there is a certain “regular guy” charm to Biden.  

Regular guy? The dude who has been in politics since 1972? That'll be 50 years, next year. That seems "regular" to you?

[Prozac]

Look, Biden certainly isn’t perfect. Far from it. There are any number of Democrats I would’ve rather seen run against Trump. But the “Biden’s character is just as bad/worse than Trumps” argument blows my mind. So he’s a career politician. So was Lincoln. So was Jefferson. So was Reagan. So what? It’s easy to hate politics as usual. It’s messy and inefficient. It’s also largely worked out for us for ~240 years. I’m inclined to go with the establishment option vs the “burn it all down” one. Burn it down usually sounds good until you follow through with it and only after the fact realize you are left with nothing but ashes. 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Prozac
Clarity

[kaputt]

Biden/Harris is one of the worst, if not the worst, presidential pairings we’ve had in a long time. And it has nothing to do with politics but the fact that it’s frankly a weak pairing of two incompetent people.  
 

Biden, a man losing his mental faculties (this is honestly sad for me to watch from a human perspective) who was also a mediocre senator that accomplished nearly nothing of note in his 50 years of service.    
 

Harris is actually even worse. She was not even remotely competitive in the Democrat primaries because she was such a terrible candidate; she couldn’t even produce a single coherent position on key issues in the primaries. Slept her way up the ranks in San Francisco to then get a chance to run for a senate seat (funny how this was barely mentioned, guess only Orange man can take part in affairs).  But thanks to Obama connections she now has a non-zero chance of becoming President.
 

The border crisis is case in point of complete ineffectual leadership. Biden appointed Harris to manage it. She hasn’t been to the border once, laughs at questions about the border, and hasn’t given any press conferences or updates on a plan of action. It doesn’t even matter if you think flooding the country with refugees is good for political reasons; there are still kids getting chucked over fences left to fend for themselves in the desert and then sitting in cages at risk of sexual assault, and our top two leaders can’t even lift their finger to do anything or even remotely provide a plan of action. 
 

Now Trump is no shining example of leadership, far from it in fact. Personally I considered voting 3rd party several times this past election. But when it came down to analyzing every candidate available, including the 3rd party ones, Trump was by far the most qualified to actually run the country, and it wasn’t even close. 
 

[hockeydork]

Far from a “follow the left, the world is all rainbows & unicorns”. To add some stance on some hot topics:  I had zero ethical problems with building a border wall, just doubt it will work (they’ll just cut holes in it or tunnel under it). I don’t think anybody has the right to restrict a law abiding citizen from owning an AR-15. Tragic mass shooting deaths, are currently insignificant compared to the number of people getting taken out by drugs, alcohol, car accidents/texting & suicide. Are we gunna ban cellphones too? Yet it’s all CNN wants to talk about. And FOX news, with its “windmills kill birds, green energy is bad lets burn coal until we’re back in the stone ages”…please, GTFO of here. Whether its Fox or CNN I can smell horse sh*t 3 miles out.

I am interested in understanding the divide more than anything else, especially on a forum where at least everybody is genuinely concerned about the country’s future.

Does the disagreement really come down to just deciding between…do you take someone who is morally deficient but going to do good things policy wise (at least in w.e your respective opinion is) vs. someone who is a good dude at heart but may stumble policy wise?

My logic: there is the system and there are policies the system makes. The policies change with the current political tide and can be undone just as easily as they can be done, depending on what the people want. But damage to the system itself is not easily undone. And as history shows, people who enjoy power…they usually want to grab more and more of it. Putin seems to be in love with it, as does Kim Jong-un. I don’t see Americans running to live in either of those places.

Disregarding any policy, IMO when you objectively look at Trump…he exhibits the same attributes as somebody who would be at risk for abusing power. The glitz, the glamour, the ego, the compensating personality & bully persona. Hypothetically, you could have a King/dictator who is great at making policy. But as history shows, long term….rarely do those situations end well for the people in those places. If Trump isn’t that guy…he did a hell of a job making it look like he might be. Rile up the working class who are scraping by on groceries from Walmart while you gallivant around in a gold plated 757 = does not compute. So I stand to reason that Trump lost the election for himself. He either chose not to be professional, genuine, & presentable, or he is actually a D-bag and a threat to the system. And judging by how he reacted to his loss, it’s the latter. While any good competitor would be disappointed at a loss, successful & confident people don’t let losses slow them down in life and start whining.  Those disappointed at his loss, should blame Trump himself for giving the election to a pretty weak democratic candidate (Biden, whose cheese may be sliding off his cracker).

I for one think we should just starting throwing darts at a board of random people who graduate from idk the military academies, med schools,engineering schools or something, somewhere where people have proven they are intelligent, committed to helping others and are problem solvers. “Hey Tommy, real sorry man. The dart hit your name on the board. dean wants you in his office, your president for the next 4 years. Pack your shit”.

“Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it”-Plato

 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Look, Biden certainly isn’t perfect. Far from it. There are any number of Democrats I would’ve rather seen run against Trump. But the “Biden’s character is just as bad/worse than Trumps” argument blows my mind. So he’s a career politician. So was Lincoln. So was Jefferson. So was Reagan. So what? It’s easy to hate politics as usual. It’s messy and inefficient. It’s also largely worked out for us for ~240 years. I’m inclined to go with the establishment option vs the “burn it all down” one. Burn it down usually sounds good until you follow through with it and only after the fact realize you are left with nothing but ashes. 

Uhhhh.... Bidens history with racism, sex assault allegations with Tara Reade, the potential cover ups for his son (not just Ukraine but dozens of shady business dealings), his scetchy history on accepting graft from lobbyist, draft dodging (if trump draft dodged than so definitely did Biden), I mean, you can make a pretty good case he is a despicable human being. 

 

Edit: almost forgot plagiarizing through law school. 

Edited April 9, 2021 by FLEA

[Sua Sponte]

32 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Uhhhh.... Bidens history with racism, sex assault allegations with Tara Reade, the potential cover ups for his son (not just Ukraine but dozens of shady business dealings), his scetchy history on accepting graft from lobbyist, draft dodging (if trump draft dodged than so definitely did Biden), I mean, you can make a pretty good case he is a despicable human being. 

 

Edit: almost forgot plagiarizing through law school. 

Allegations or charges? I can allege anyone to commit a crime, but if any level of prosecutor doesn't indict or a judge/jury doesn't find them guilty, they're just nothing more than allegations.

[VMFA187]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Look, Biden certainly isn’t perfect. Far from it. There are any number of Democrats I would’ve rather seen run against Trump. But the “Biden’s character is just as bad/worse than Trumps” argument blows my mind. So he’s a career politician. So was Lincoln. So was Jefferson. So was Reagan. So what? It’s easy to hate politics as usual. It’s messy and inefficient. It’s also largely worked out for us for ~240 years. I’m inclined to go with the establishment option vs the “burn it all down” one. Burn it down usually sounds good until you follow through with it and only after the fact realize you are left with nothing but ashes. 

I'd QA which side is into "burning it all down." Not just literally, but figuratively.