America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,034 comments
  • 1,699,846 views
That took a lot longer than I anticipated.
That said. I was just wondering. I mean, these are just Mussolini's feathers anyway right? I certainly didnt call Trump a dictator besides. I think whether it was fair or square is still being investigated though, right? I mean, I'm not sore about that anyway, I didnt support Clinton either.
I do disagree about the press thing. Calling for the expansion of libel laws is a little more than just "calling out fake news." Thankfully we do have those separation of powers. Though, let's be honest, the constitution only matter to most (including Trump) politicians when its convenient for them.
Oh man, one more curiosity. Why isnt Fox included in on that list of biased media? Just kidding, I know why. I wonder how fox news is going to fair under Disney's thumb.
Edit: just double checked that fox news Disney bit. That's probably not true. I thought I heard something about the new fox thing not happening and Disney taking it all on NPR today, but I was driving and not paying full attention to the radio and probably misheard.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
Don't forget calling them "the Enemy of the People" and "dangerous & sick". Those sure seem like attacks to me.
Click to expand...
Woodrow Wilson wanted authority to exercise censorship over the Press to the extent that that censorship was necessary to the public safety. FDR tried to hand a war correspondent a Nazi Cross because he didn't like his reporting. JFK tried to get a reporter pulled out of Viet Nam because he didn't like his reporting. Spiro Agnew referred to the press in a speech as the "nattering nabobs of negativism". Obama made numerous bitter and sarcastic references to Fox News and it's viewers like the one below. I can come up with lots of other examples. Presidents being critical of the press is nothing new.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; in as much as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. .” - Thomas Jefferson, an ardent public supporter of a free press, in a letter to John Norvell

 
PocketZeven
They did benefit. If they didn’t benefit who did? The north certainly did not. They gained more representation. How is it net loss? From 0 to 3/5th is a gain isn’t it? Like @huskeR32 already stated the before situation was not 1. How are you spinning it to a concession on the South side? It was a concession on the north side. The situation was 0. The slaves had no voting rights, received no wage, paid taxes, no property or freedom for that matter. These 3/5th weren’t even truly represented in government at all, let alone if they counted as 1. How is that a concession for the south? You are talking nonsensical here. Even then it was a compromise for both parties it was beneficial (except the slaves) so it was win/win.

But the point being is that in essence that a candidate can win the election without coming near the popular vote within this awkward system. As stated in the video I posted a person can essentially win an election with only 22% of the popular vote. How is this not a broken system? This is a farcry from a democratic republic.
Click to expand...
ryzno
There is nothing awkward about it.
I already told you it's so 4 or 5 states don't represent the other 45 or 46 states...
While it is a "popular vote" those 4 or 5 states hold a huge number of people compared to the other 45-46 combined.
Is it fair that the people in 4 or 5 states get to dictate what the other 45-46 states want?
You gotta remember each state is almost like its own little country.
Georgia doesn't want or need the same things California or New York want.
Get it now?
You don't want Russia or China dictating your countries laws and government do you?
Click to expand...

That is an inaccurate comparison. Like most countries we have provinces, which are comparable to states. And some provinces are rural and have less citizens. The usa is a country right? Then a democratic elected leader should have a majority vote. The states are already represented by their congresman, senator. You should do more research how governement works on a local level. The president should be represented by the whole country. It is problematic to say that a minority should have an equal say as the majority. That is the opposite of a democracy. That would be the same that black people should have their own electors, hispanic should have their own electors, Jews, Asian-americans etc...EVERY democratic country in the world the winner is by popular vote.

Dont you think it is unfair when in your state when your vote ends up at the 49 % of the votes and the opponent will get 100% of those votes. Even though you did not vote for him he ends up getting your vote anyway?

I repost this video to explain what I was saying. It has no liberal or concervative agenda, but just points out the problems with the system in an objective way:


Imagine you are voting for a leader that is going to ban guns in a country of 100. But because 40 people live in an area that is less populous but have 75% of the land they get 51 electoral votes. It is justified by the thought that the the more populous 75 people should not dictate what the less populous want. But in the less populous part 13 people are liberal anti gun activists. And within the electoral college system it means if 21 of the 40 people vote for one candidate, all 51 electoral votes will go to the candidate that has 21 votes. Is it fair that 21 people can decide who is going to become the leader for a country of 100?
 
No, US states are not like other countries provinces, think Belgium with Wollonia and Flanders but with every US state, then you get an idea of how America is.

Not every Country is the same, not every country has the same history, not every country has the same culture even within itself.
 
Johnnypenso
Woodrow Wilson wanted authority to exercise censorship over the Press to the extent that that censorship was necessary to the public safety. FDR tried to hand a war correspondent a Nazi Cross because he didn't like his reporting. JFK tried to get a reporter pulled out of Viet Nam because he didn't like his reporting. Spiro Agnew referred to the press in a speech as the "nattering nabobs of negativism". Obama made numerous bitter and sarcastic references to Fox News and it's viewers like the one below. I can come up with lots of other examples. Presidents being critical of the press is nothing new.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; in as much as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. .” - Thomas Jefferson, an ardent public supporter of a free press, in a letter to John Norvell

Click to expand...

"What about..."

:lol:
 
Johnnypenso
“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; in as much as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. .” - Thomas Jefferson, an ardent public supporter of a free press, in a letter to John Norvell

Click to expand...


President Obama criticised Fox is nothing like accusing saying to the country that the press is the "enemy of the people".

And the quote within context:
To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.


Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy."

But he followed it by a quote on a latter unspecified date to lafayette:

"but the only security of all is in a free press. the force of public opinion cannot be resisted, when permitted freely to be expressed. the agitation it produces must be submitted to. it is necessary to keep the waters pure."

mustafur
No, US states are not like other countries provinces, think Belgium with Wollonia and Flanders but with every US state, then you get an idea of how America is.

Not every Country is the same, not every country has the same history, not every country has the same culture even within itself.
Click to expand...
That is an inaccurate comparison. the main difference between Wallonia and Flanders is language like in french and english canada. Which is the largest reason for cultural division. North and south Italy have different cultures, Basque, Catalonia in Spain as well. Yet in all countries the leader is elected democratically. The less populous one does not get more voting power then the other. A democracy or democratic republic is literally the rule of the majority. How difficult is that to understand? If a minority wants to be helped they should convince the majority of their cause. That is what happened with equal rights, black rights etc. in the USA.
 
PocketZeven
President Obama criticised Fox is nothing like accusing saying to the country that the press is the "enemy of the people".

And the quote within context:
To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.


Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy."

But he followed it by a quote on a latter unspecified date to lafayette:

"but the only security of all is in a free press. the force of public opinion cannot be resisted, when permitted freely to be expressed. the agitation it produces must be submitted to. it is necessary to keep the waters pure."


That is an inaccurate comparison. the main difference between Wallonia and Flanders is language like in french and english canada. Yet in both countries the leader is elected democratically. The less populous one does not get more voting power then the other. A democracy or democratic republic is literally the rule of the majority. How difficult is that to understand?
Click to expand...
Yet in both the Belgium example and the Canadian example they both vote completely different, suggesting culture differences as well.

And America isn't a democratic republic, how hard is that to understand.
 
mustafur
Yet in both the Belgium example and the Canadian example they both vote completely different, suggesting culture differences as well.

And America isn't a democratic republic, how hard is that to understand.
Click to expand...

They vote differently because there are more political parties, that isnt because of supposed cultural differences, but in essence the majority winner is the winner by popular vote. I didnt claim it was a demoratic republic, someone else did in this thread.
Sanji Himura
One, as I have established earlier, we are a republic, and for a very good reason.
Click to expand...
I was responding to his defense of the electoral college.
 
Last edited:
PocketZeven
President Obama criticised Fox is nothing like accusing saying to the country that the press is the "enemy of the people".

And the quote within context:
To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.


Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy."

But he followed it by a quote on a latter unspecified date to lafayette:

"but the only security of all is in a free press. the force of public opinion cannot be resisted, when permitted freely to be expressed. the agitation it produces must be submitted to. it is necessary to keep the waters pure."


That is an inaccurate comparison. the main difference between Wallonia and Flanders is language like in french and english canada. Which is the largest reason for cultural division. North and south Italy have different cultures, Basque, Catalonia in Spain as well. Yet in all countries the leader is elected democratically. The less populous one does not get more voting power then the other. A democracy or democratic republic is literally the rule of the majority. How difficult is that to understand? If a minority wants to be helped they should convince the majority of their cause. That is what happened with equal rights, black rights etc. in the USA.
Click to expand...
I believe you missed the larger point. I wasn't making a like-for-like comparison I was trying to establish that a President being at odds with the press is nothing new. You could argue that Trump has taken it to a new level and to that I would agree.
 
Johnnypenso
I believe you missed the larger point. I wasn't making a like-for-like comparison I was trying to establish that a President being at odds with the press is nothing new. You could argue that Trump has taken it to a new level and to that I would agree.
Click to expand...

I though you posted it in defence of Trump. But to be fair, I wasnt bothered by all the fake news claims of Trump. It became a problem when he claimed them the enemy of the people. That is the fist step to a totalitarian regime. The best way to control the public is to control the media.

I agree that both Obama and Trump have had their problems with the Press. But in contrast CNN, CBS, washington post, NY Times etc. were not praising and sucking up to Obama, like Fox news and other rightwing media are doing now with Trump. If you compare it objectively it is very apprarent. Trump very rarely ever gets any critique from the rightwing media. That did not happen with Obama.
 
Ok, so, the score currently is
Trump:1
Kennedy:1*
Wilson:1
I asterisk JFK though because trying to remove a reporter isnt the same as wanting to enact laws against the press but it is still a form of silencing. Didnt score points to the rest because even presidents are allowed opinions.
Ok, what's the next category, disrespect for our laws and democratic process.
Nixon surely gets a point here. I am tempted to give Clinton a point as well. He barely lawyered his way out of impeachment with word play.
I am guessing many others will likely be up to debate and opinion as well. I'd give Reagan and both the Bush's a point as well. Anyone else got some nominations?
 
PocketZeven
I though you posted it in defence of Trump. But to be fair, I wasnt bothered by all the fake news claims of Trump. It became a problem when he claimed them the enemy of the people. That is the fist step to a totalitarian regime. The best way to control the public is to control the media.

I agree that both Obama and Trump have had their problems with the Press. But in contrast CNN, CBS, washington post, NY Times etc. were not praising and sucking up to Obama, like Fox news and other rightwing media are doing now with Trump. If you compare it objectively it is very apprarent. Trump very rarely ever gets any critique from the rightwing media. That did not happen with Obama.
Click to expand...
Like many other things American, your analysis of the mainstream media is completely wrong. It sounds like you're not getting your information first-hand but rather just listening to people who tell you what you should believe. Fox News is pro Trump as a whole but there are many examples of Fox News hosts being critical of the President as well. The same is true of the rest of the media just on the opposite side of the aisle. They are demonstrable pro Democrat but will still throw up some token Democrat critique once in awhile. The media is biased. They aren't reporting the news they are reporting the stories that appeal to their target audience and they tailor their content to that audience. News is a business first and foremost.
 
Johnnypenso
Like many other things American, your analysis of the mainstream media is completely wrong. It sounds like you're not getting your information first-hand but rather just listening to people who tell you what you should believe. Fox News is pro Trump as a whole but there are many examples of Fox News hosts being critical of the President as well. The same is true of the rest of the media just on the opposite side of the aisle. They are demonstrable pro Democrat but will still throw up some token Democrat critique once in awhile. The media is biased. They aren't reporting the news they are reporting the stories that appeal to their target audience and they tailor their content to that audience. News is a business first and foremost.
Click to expand...

The only critical anchors I know at Fox are Chris Wallace and shepard smith. But the overall tone is they are in love with Trump. And I watch quite a lot.
 
PocketZeven
The only critical anchors I know at Fox are Chris Wallace and shepard smith. But the overall tone is they are in love with Trump. And I watch quite a lot.
Click to expand...
That is 2 of their top anchors. That alone puts them ahead of every other mainstream network in terms of balance even though as a whole they are unbalanced. Can you name two top anchors that were critical of Obama at CNN? MSNBC?
 
Johnnypenso
That is 2 of their top anchors. That alone puts them ahead of every other mainstream network in terms of balance even though as a whole they are unbalanced. Can you name two top anchors that were critical of Obama at CNN? MSNBC?
Click to expand...

That wasnt the point. Every President had its critics in the media. The relationship between fox&friends and sean hannity with Trump is borderline propaganda. The problem is a lot of Fox news watchers look at these shows thinking it is news.
 
Wait. Fox has two "unbiased" anchors and that makes them balanced? Even Andy Levy would have a good laugh at that. As a former fox news anchor, I think he might know the climate at fox better than any single one of us, and has no issue calling it Trump News Network.

As for Obama coverage. https://fair.org/extra/the-myth-of-pro-obama-media-bias/
As for critics. I know Beck, Kurtz and Tapper have all been critical of Obama at some point or another.
 
Last edited:
Rallywagon
https://fair.org/extra/the-myth-of-pro-obama-media-bias/
Click to expand...
Good read. I particularly enjoyed this bit:

Before Obama won the Democratic nomination, CNN anchor T.J. Holmes asked (5/16/08):

Doesn’t Obama have a bit of a problem as well? Because we know if he does become the eventual nominee . . . a lot of the general election campaign is going to be about his foreign policy credentials. And to bring this up now, kind of puts in the back of people’s minds, hey wait a minute, he doesn’t have that much experience when it comes to foreign policy. Do we really want to put this country and this war on terror in the hands of this inexperienced guy?
Click to expand...
 
DK
Meanwhile, in swamp (assuming "drain the swamp" is more than a euphemism for a purge of anyone to the left of Jeff Sessions) news, Exxon will escape punishment for lying about their oil reserves.
Click to expand...
Wait, you mean shady businessman turned president is still a shady businessman hooking up his business buddies at the cost of the working class? :scared: I wish someone would have said something sooner! [/sarcasm]
 
Gasp.

Edit: Perhaps more appropriately...

lackofsurprise-jpg.745068
 
I have been critical of every president since Nixon, whom I particularly loathed because of the Vietnam War, Laos, Cambodia and the draft. He famously said, "I am not a crook" shortly before resigning the presidency due to a "lack of political support". I actively and publicly protested for civil rights and against the war. Back in the 60's and 70's, times were good for young working men. At the local mill or factory you could earn enough almost right away to afford a house, a muscle car, a stay-at-home wife, and look forward to a boat and a fishing cabin. I was initially incensed at the very thought of the actor Reagan becoming president. But again times were good and the Soviet Union layed down and died. I was never so furious as when GW Bush invaded Iraq and then so grossly failed. Naturally I protested til I went hoarse, though it did little good. Since then I have gradually mellowed with age, and my views on the presidents have gone into greater perspective. My voting has gone to strictly libertarian since the promising campaigns of Perot, though again it does no good other than personal satisfaction. Trump is a good example of the general rot and decay in our modern society. But as long as there is relative peace and relative prosperity (times will never again be as good as the 60's), then I don't see the need to get too bent out of shape. I have far more interesting things to do.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
440 441 442
Replies
13K
Views
586K
HenrySwanson
HenrySwanson
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
Replies
4
Views
414
Blitz24
Blitz24
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
438 439 440
Replies
13K
Views
697K
skydragon49
skydragon49
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
675
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back