US Politics

Carolina Red said:
The Constitution...?
Click to expand...

Do you feel horrified by this guy being waterboarded for potentially vital information?

Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed_after_capture.jpg

I would struggle to muster any sympathy to be honest.

And the constitution is why you fly them to dark spots and use third party interrogators. This was why I initially asked if this happened in the US.
 
SwansonsTache said:
And the constitution is why you fly them to dark spots and use third party interrogators. This was why I initially asked if this happened in the US.
Click to expand...
Gitmo is part of the US.

If it happened outside the US and an American did it, it’s still illegal under 18 USC 2340 - “The Torture Act”.

Finally, the law doesn’t care about my personal opinion.
 
SwansonsTache said:
Do you feel horrified by this guy being waterboarded for potentially vital information?


Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed_after_capture.jpg

I would struggle to muster any sympathy to be honest.

And the constitution is why you fly them to dark spots and use third party interrogators. This was why I initially asked if this happened in the US.
Click to expand...


This is a good watch on Jose Rodridguez who ran the program for the CIA, who goes into detail on his rationale for it and how it went down. He goes into a lot of details on both Abu Zubeidah and KSM.

(You may have to go to YouTube to watch them)



 
Yeah, that is definitely not the kind of torture I meant. Whole world of difference between those episodes there and waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

She should in no way hold office.
 
A torturer becoming CIA director is really the perfect fit for the strong man presidency, but it's worth remembering that Obama didn't do much to right the wrongs either. Torture just seems a whole lot more acceptable in the US than in Europe.
 
Grinner said:
Haspel seems eminently qualified to be CIA Director.
Click to expand...
Without the torture and destruction of evidence most definately. But this the CIA and I would be shocked if anyone that high up hasn't done or heard of some sick stuff. This is like Garland being palatable to the GOP in the Senate until a black man decided to nominate him.
What we need in this country is a new found acceptance of a centrist policy and then move forward with that. We can't be absolutionist on every issue and nomination. The Dems do a good job of playing both sides of their coin. They agree mostly on things like universal healthcare and minimum wage but are realistic about how to get it done or play the long game. Some people don't find this acceptable but this is the reality when dealing with an empire like what this country has become.
The GOP is off the fecking reservation though. They have embraced with open arms the nut jobs who refuse to learn anything or form opinions based on facts or data. Basic science is viewed as elitist and economic points of view are based on who can make or take the most money with a healthy dollop of fraud. To change this bastardisation of conservatism I would start with Fox News. If Rupert would just roll over and we can see if the sons can take that cesspool in a more sane and sensible direction. If they can inform their viewers without the AM radio bullshit some may stop treating it like our side versus them and realize that we are all getting shafted in different ways we may see things finally getting done the right way.
Of course social media, religion and racism are the biggest issues to tackle but if we started off by taking care of the easy shit first then I wouldn't have to explain to someone why Hillary Clinton and John Podesta don't sell children from the basement of a DC pizza place that doesn't have a basement and why cnuts like Betsy DeVos or Scott Pruitt shouldn't be near positions of national importance.
 
GiddyUp said:
...What we need in this country is a new found acceptance of a centrist policy and then move forward with that.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. We are increasingly factionalized into tribes on the left and right, each of which view progress as a zero sum game.
 
It's the CIA, not the Ethics Office. I'm fairly certain they've done more fecked up things than what is being reported. Haspel's track record isn't necessarily disqualifying for this particular area.
 
Eboue said:
centrist neoliberalsm hasnt worked. the republicans control every level of government in this country.
Click to expand...

It's probably because there hasn't been a mainstream left wing movement in the US since probably the 20's.

Anything that isn't conservative, has been scare attacked as communist or socialist, which too many conservatives in the US equate equally. So you have tens of millions of Americans, be they Democrat or Republican, who recoil in horror at the idea of any sort of socialist anything, even if it isn't socialist. Both political parties are, at their core, conservative, with the GOP just being more conservative. The politicizing of the evangelical right by Reagan is largely responsible for pushing the republicans further right, and the democrats thought they could cleverly pivot further right to take up that real estate. All the GOP had to do was keep calling the Democrats liberals and communists, and the GOP voter base just goes along with it.

It would be hilarious to me, if it wasn't so sad. Consider that in many ways, Hillary Clinton is more conservative than Ronald Reagan was.
 
Nucks said:
It's probably because there hasn't been a mainstream left wing movement in the US since probably the 20's.

Anything that isn't conservative, has been scare attacked as communist or socialist, which too many conservatives in the US equate equally. So you have tens of millions of Americans, be they Democrat or Republican, who recoil in horror at the idea of any sort of socialist anything, even if it isn't socialist. Both political parties are, at their core, conservative, with the GOP just being more conservative. The politicizing of the evangelical right by Reagan is largely responsible for pushing the republicans further right, and the democrats thought they could cleverly pivot further right to take up that real estate. All the GOP had to do was keep calling the Democrats liberals and communists, and the GOP voter base just goes along with it.

It would be hilarious to me, if it wasn't so sad. Consider that in many ways, Hillary Clinton is more conservative than Ronald Reagan was.
Click to expand...

This is all mostly true but it's not that way anymore. Single payer polls well across the country, teachers are striking successfully in deep red states. People will come out and vote for someone who truly represents them. They wont come out for a Republican who is slightly less mean to minorities who calls themselves a Democrat.
 
Nucks said:
It's probably because there hasn't been a mainstream left wing movement in the US since probably the 20's.

Anything that isn't conservative, has been scare attacked as communist or socialist, which too many conservatives in the US equate equally. So you have tens of millions of Americans, be they Democrat or Republican, who recoil in horror at the idea of any sort of socialist anything, even if it isn't socialist. Both political parties are, at their core, conservative, with the GOP just being more conservative. The politicizing of the evangelical right by Reagan is largely responsible for pushing the republicans further right, and the democrats thought they could cleverly pivot further right to take up that real estate. All the GOP had to do was keep calling the Democrats liberals and communists, and the GOP voter base just goes along with it.

It would be hilarious to me, if it wasn't so sad. Consider that in many ways, Hillary Clinton is more conservative than Ronald Reagan was.
Click to expand...


Well that's a bunch of cack. The social welfare programs enacted by FDR and Johnson are the equal of anything done by Labour in the UK.
 
Raoul said:
Nothing. There was buzz about her being interested in running about 6 months ago. She claims she isn't interested.
Click to expand...
Ah alright, thanks! Let's hope her claims are sincere, I'd hate for "entertainer presidents" to become the new norm.
 
Abizzz said:
Ah alright, thanks! Let's hope her claims are sincere, I'd hate for "entertainer presidents" to become the new norm.
Click to expand...

It seems like the 2020 is shaping up, at least early on, as a Biden v Bernie race. Both seem interested in running and would have to be considered the front runners. There will also be a few fresh faces - people like Eric Garcetti and one or two others who will mount a challenge from the younger end.
 
Raoul said:
It seems like the 2020 is shaping up, at least early on, as a Biden v Bernie race. Both seem interested in running and would have to be considered the front runners. There will also be a few fresh faces - people like Eric Garcetti and one or two others who will mount a challenge from the younger end.
Click to expand...
Either of Biden or Bernie would be fine for me I guess. I'm still hoping for some young eloquent democrat capable of capturing the imagination and creating a positive campaign, perception of the country and it's future though. Might already be too late for 2020 though and I still think Bernie would stand a good chance to defeat Donald.
 
Abizzz said:
Either of Biden or Bernie would be fine for me I guess. I'm still hoping for some young eloquent democrat capable of capturing the imagination and creating a positive campaign, perception of the country and it's future though. Might already be too late for 2020 though and I still think Bernie would stand a good chance to defeat Donald.
Click to expand...

That will probably wind up being Garcetti. He's been to Iowa already so its very likely he is running.

 
I’ve lived and worked in every Gulf of Mexico-bordering state and religion is so insidiously entrenched in the Southeast’s culture, it is utterly baffling and stifling. It’s unfortunately impossible to divorce the Southeast from religion and it won’t change for generations.
 
Nucks said:
It's probably because there hasn't been a mainstream left wing movement in the US since probably the 20's.

Anything that isn't conservative, has been scare attacked as communist or socialist, which too many conservatives in the US equate equally. So you have tens of millions of Americans, be they Democrat or Republican, who recoil in horror at the idea of any sort of socialist anything, even if it isn't socialist. Both political parties are, at their core, conservative, with the GOP just being more conservative. The politicizing of the evangelical right by Reagan is largely responsible for pushing the republicans further right, and the democrats thought they could cleverly pivot further right to take up that real estate. All the GOP had to do was keep calling the Democrats liberals and communists, and the GOP voter base just goes along with it.

It would be hilarious to me, if it wasn't so sad. Consider that in many ways, Hillary Clinton is more conservative than Ronald Reagan was.
Click to expand...

What do you make of the idea that Americans are on the whole "naturally" conservative, but they're pulled slightly to the left by the generally-agreed-to-be "liberal" media and the like?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11744515-left-turn

On a vaguely related note, I think the liberal media have been desperately jumping to conclusions on a lot of Trump-related things but this one is hard to see as anything other than a blatant act of political corruption. In the grand scheme of things it's much smaller than the many other likely criminal and ethical violations, but the fact it's taken place so publicly is kind of incredible. The fact it generates so little buzz is even more puzzling.



The company controlled by the family of the White House adviser Jared Kushner is close to receiving a bailout of its troubled flagship building by a company with financial ties to the government of Qatar, according to executives briefed on the deal.

Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority.

Charles Kushner and his son Jared, President Trump’s son-in-law and one of his key advisers, bought the office tower, which is between 52nd and 53rd Streets, 11 years ago for a record-setting $1.8 billion. But the building today only generates about half its annual mortgage payment, and 30 percent of the 41-story tower is vacant.

The Kushner family had been searching the globe for a partner for the building, including meeting as recently as last year with a billionaire from Qatar, Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani, the country’s former prime minister.

The Kushner Companies declined to comment. Both Brookfield and the Qatar Investment Authority, the sovereign fund of the oil-rich Middle Eastern emirate, said the Investment Authority had no knowledge of the deal. A spokesman for the Investment Authority said the fund “has no involvement whatsoever in this deal.”

But the Qatar Investment Authority is the second-biggest investor in Brookfield Property Partners, Brookfield’s real estate arm.
Click to expand...
 
Brwned said:
What do you make of the idea that Americans are on the whole "naturally" conservative, but they're pulled slightly to the left by the generally-agreed-to-be "liberal" media and the like?
Click to expand...

Can you just break this one down for me a bit? I’m struggling to attribute any logic to it.

You’re either suggesting that:
1. You can be “born” with opinions.
2. It’s only the “liberal” media that influences. The likes of FOX and Sinclair are just telling the American people what they want to hear.
 
Brwned said:
What do you make of the idea that Americans are on the whole "naturally" conservative, but they're pulled slightly to the left by the generally-agreed-to-be "liberal" media and the like?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11744515-left-turn

On a vaguely related note, I think the liberal media have been desperately jumping to conclusions on a lot of Trump-related things but this one is hard to see as anything other than a blatant act of political corruption. In the grand scheme of things it's much smaller than the many other likely criminal and ethical violations, but the fact it's taken place so publicly is kind of incredible. The fact it generates so little buzz is even more puzzling.

Click to expand...


I agree, it is generating far too little buzz. But, as the investigations begin to start focusing and playing out more vividly in the media, I think this, along with the $500 million from China to the Southeast Asian Trump golf course property, will start to crystallize the public’s view to the overt corruption this presidency has created.
 
No to Biden. Just what is needed, another establishment politician with a habit of losing, apart from his hometown
 
Last edited:
Pexbo said:
Can you just break this one down for me a bit? I’m struggling to attribute any logic to it.

You’re either suggesting that:
1. You can be “born” with opinions.
2. It’s only the “liberal” media that influences. The likes of FOX and Sinclair are just telling the American people what they want to hear.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting it, I'm re-circulating an idea put forward by an academic. I've invested almost no time exploring the theory but it doesn't sound that outlandish, although it does jar against my own beliefs and (very limited!) understanding of the world.

The premise is basically:
  1. You can quantitatively determine the political leaning of a person or organisation by the use of "political quotient", a measurement founded on voting records on specific issues and the explicit political affiliations of the voters
  2. The media has the ability to significantly influence beliefs, attitudes etc.
  3. Through (fairly rudimentary) semiotic analysis of reporting, the evidence suggests that most mainstream news organisations in America are on the liberal side
  4. Therefore the significant influence of the media, and the slant of the media overall, pulls the general population slightly to the left
I believe his conclusion actually was that Fox is less conservative than the average voter, if you were able to remove that particular effect. Which sounds absurd but then again I find the fact that Fox has such a large viewership to be utterly baffling as it is, so it's pretty clear my understanding of the political and social views of a large portion of America is again very limited...

I think the general consensus at this point is that the liberal media is a description of a real phenomenon, rather than purely a political attack method, and that the media does possess serious influence. So the basic idea sounds plausible. Whether the measurement is reliable or the size of the effect is as large as suggested is very much debatable, so I just threw it out there to get more informed views on it...I certainly wasn't suggesting anything radical, or objectionable. And I think the response it generated is very much a symptom of a pretty big issue in political discussion.
 
Brwned said:
I'm not suggesting it, I'm re-circulating an idea put forward by an academic. I've invested almost no time exploring the theory but it doesn't sound that outlandish, although it does jar against my own beliefs and (very limited!) understanding of the world.

The premise is basically:
  1. You can quantitatively determine the political leaning of a person or organisation by the use of "political quotient", a measurement founded on voting records on specific issues and the explicit political affiliations of the voters
  2. The media has the ability to significantly influence beliefs, attitudes etc.
  3. Through (fairly rudimentary) semiotic analysis of reporting, the evidence suggests that most mainstream news organisations in America are on the liberal side
  4. Therefore the significant influence of the media, and the slant of the media overall, pulls the general population slightly to the left
I believe his conclusion actually was that Fox is less conservative than the average voter, if you were able to remove that particular effect. Which sounds absurd but then again I find the fact that Fox has such a large viewership to be utterly baffling as it is, so it's pretty clear my understanding of the political and social views of a large portion of America is again very limited...

I think the general consensus at this point is that the liberal media is a description of a real phenomenon, rather than purely a political attack method, and that the media does possess serious influence. So the basic idea sounds plausible. Whether the measurement is reliable or the size of the effect is as large as suggested is very much debatable, so I just threw it out there to get more informed views on it...I certainly wasn't suggesting anything radical, or objectionable. And I think the response it generated is very much a symptom of a pretty big issue in political discussion.
Click to expand...

Did this academic produce a paper on this? I’d be interested to see the sources on a lot of the claims there.
 
Brwned said:
I'm not suggesting it, I'm re-circulating an idea put forward by an academic. I've invested almost no time exploring the theory but it doesn't sound that outlandish, although it does jar against my own beliefs and (very limited!) understanding of the world.

The premise is basically:
  1. You can quantitatively determine the political leaning of a person or organisation by the use of "political quotient", a measurement founded on voting records on specific issues and the explicit political affiliations of the voters
  2. The media has the ability to significantly influence beliefs, attitudes etc.
  3. Through (fairly rudimentary) semiotic analysis of reporting, the evidence suggests that most mainstream news organisations in America are on the liberal side
  4. Therefore the significant influence of the media, and the slant of the media overall, pulls the general population slightly to the left
I believe his conclusion actually was that Fox is less conservative than the average voter, if you were able to remove that particular effect. Which sounds absurd but then again I find the fact that Fox has such a large viewership to be utterly baffling as it is, so it's pretty clear my understanding of the political and social views of a large portion of America is again very limited...

I think the general consensus at this point is that the liberal media is a description of a real phenomenon, rather than purely a political attack method, and that the media does possess serious influence. So the basic idea sounds plausible. Whether the measurement is reliable or the size of the effect is as large as suggested is very much debatable, so I just threw it out there to get more informed views on it...I certainly wasn't suggesting anything radical, or objectionable. And I think the response it generated is very much a symptom of a pretty big issue in political discussion.
Click to expand...


I think it's wrong to accept his premise that there is a liberal media. Where is the labor section of any major newpaper? In the New York Times, is there a single columnist who supports Bernie Sanders (the most popular politician in the country)? Where is the left wing represented on the major cable networks? The closest we get is Chris Hayes, watered down leftism at most. For that matter, does the New York Times have a single Trump supporting columnist?

The reality is that the media in this country is controlled by so few groups. This is becoming worse by the day as Comcast merges with NBC and the Sinclair Group buys up local tv stations and the newspaper industry collapses. With only a few corporations controlling almost all of the media most people consume, it makes sense that there is a very narrow viewpoint allowed to be discussed in these mediums (medii?) and that viewpoint is general pro-business, pro-imperialist foreign policy, anti-worker, pro-capitalism, anti-environmentalism, etc. I would not concede that this is a particularly liberal viewpoint.
 
Pexbo said:
Did this academic produce a paper on this? I’d be interested to see the sources on a lot of the claims there.
Click to expand...

In the first post you quoted I linked his book to it, which included a summary of those results. Here's a bit more info on it:

http://timgroseclose.com/about-left-turn/

Beyond that I guess you can find whatever you're looking for on Google

Eboue said:
I think it's wrong to accept his premise that there is a liberal media. Where is the labor section of any major newpaper? In the New York Times, is there a single columnist who supports Bernie Sanders (the most popular politician in the country)? Where is the left wing represented on the major cable networks? The closest we get is Chris Hayes, watered down leftism at most. For that matter, does the New York Times have a single Trump supporting columnist?

The reality is that the media in this country is controlled by so few groups. This is becoming worse by the day as Comcast merges with NBC and the Sinclair Group buys up local tv stations and the newspaper industry collapses. With only a few corporations controlling almost all of the media most people consume, it makes sense that there is a very narrow viewpoint allowed to be discussed in these mediums (medii?) and that viewpoint is general pro-business, pro-imperialist foreign policy, anti-worker, pro-capitalism, anti-environmentalism, etc. I would not concede that this is a particularly liberal viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Part of this research actually confirms what you're saying - the media isn't as liberal as portrayed by the people most frequently using the term, i.e. conservative opinion leaders. And that the extremes aren't well covered on either side. Here's a comment of his about the NYT:

Tim Groseclose said:
The New York Times got about a seventy-four. Of the twenty, eighteen of the twenty leaned left. Now, just about none of them were to the left of the average Democratic speech. So, you know, some people — some of my conservative friends, you know The New York Times sounds about like a Joe Lieberman speech. Conservative friends say that’s it? That’s not very liberal. (laughing)
Click to expand...

To give you an idea of the scoring system, here's some reference points he mentioned:

Tim Groseclose said:
Right, so, yeah, like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank would be about a hundred. Barack Obama is not the most liberal on the scale. Barack Obama is about an eighty-eight. Hilary Clinton was something like an eighty-seven point nine. They were almost exactly tied on the scale. Joe Biden would be something like an eighty-five, eighty-four. Harry Reid, eighty. Joe Lieberman was a seventy-four. Now, I computed two PQ’s for Joe Lieberman, one when he was a Democrat one when he was an Independent. They’re almost exactly the same. I think when he was a Democrat it was like seventy-four point seven, as an Independent a seventy-four. So he moved just a teeniest, teeniest bit right after he switched from Democrat to Independent.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth looking into. The fact it uses how people vote on particular issues does have its issues, but it removes a lot of the opinion and removes the bias of our own analysis seen through the prism or our own particular political leanings.
 
Last edited:
Haven't most political compasses produced in the past X election cycles reflected most candidates lay to the right of the compass?

It has been mentioned quite often that most Dems are right-centered with a few on the left-center, and most Reps are middle-right with a growing fringe pulling far-right. So far-right that Dems are being pulled along. Not sure if studies have been produced to summarize/object to my statement.
 
Brwned said:
In the first post you quoted I linked his book to it, which included a summary of those results. Here's a bit more info on it:

http://timgroseclose.com/about-left-turn/

Beyond that I guess you can find whatever you're looking for on Google



Part of this research actually confirms what you're saying - the media isn't as liberal as portrayed by the people most frequently using the term, i.e. conservative opinion leaders. And that the extremes aren't well covered on either side. Here's a comment of his about the NYT:



To give you an idea of the scoring system, here's some reference points he mentioned:



I think it's worth looking into. The fact it uses how people vote on particular issues does have its issues, but it removes a lot of the opinion and removes the bias of our own analysis seen through the prism or our own particular political leanings.
Click to expand...

The 2005 paper that 2cents posted seems to conclude there is a considerable liberal bias.

https://5harad.com/mse231/papers/groseclose_milyo_mediabias.pdf

Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets.
Click to expand...

The paper also mentions previous studies....

I. SOME PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MEDIA BIAS - Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Povich [1996] reports that only 7 percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H. W. Bush in 1992, compared with 37 percent of the American public.2 Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter [1986] and Weaver and Wilhoit [1996] report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only 8 percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.3 This compares with 51 percent of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, another 93 contributed to Kerry’s campaign.4 These statistics suggest that Washington correspondents, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.