Candidates for 2020 elections.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 04:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  That is why he was demanding an investigation.  The reason the Trayvon Martin case became a national issue was the refusal of the police to investigate what had happened.

Obama never said a white man was guilty.  All he was doing was saying that it should be investigated.  Don't know why any white people would be offended by that except the ones who get offended whenever the echo chamber tells them to.

I still remember all the right wing sheep posting stories of white people being shot by black people where there was a police investigation and arrest and trying to act like that was the same as what happened to Treyvon with just the races reversed.  They did not even understand the issue, but they were being told to play their "white man victim cards" so they pulled them out.

So POTUS should chime in on every criminal case....thanks. 

FWIW Zimmerman is not white.

[BmorePat87]

(03-22-2019, 03:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to those that cannot figure out how Obama's comments were divisive: He was suggesting that Martin was attacked simply because he was black; he was not trying to explain to America what his male offspring would look like other than skin color. He had no more facts than anyone else in the case when he made the assertion.

How's about sending staff to Michael Brown's funeral? How's about when he won his 2nd term and the GOP took over congress and his welcome was "Nanny, Nanny Boo, Boo, I won"/ Do I really need to continue or can we concede a DEM POTUS did divisive shit as well?

The bar is just set by the individual and his/her view of the subject. There are easily those that felt divided over Obama's comments/actions and those of trump's. Now trump's are usually more crass, but that was not the discussion point.

There's a difference between "being divisive" and setting the bar for divisiveness "quite high". If you're backpedaling, that's fine, but everyone was addressing your claims that Obama empathizing with black parents didn't set the divisiveness bar "quite high".  

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 07:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's a difference between "being divisive" and setting the bar for divisiveness "quite high". If you're backpedaling, that's fine, but everyone was addressing your claims that Obama empathizing with black parents didn't set the divisiveness bar "quite high".  

And there's a difference between an actual conversation and one based on semantics. To suggest Trump "set the bar" for divisiveness is absurd. POTUS have been divisive for decades. It's just the most folks don't like the side Trump comes down on say they'll say things. Trump has done nothing more to divide the population than any other president before him. Now folk's reactions to his words might add to the divisiveness.

So would it be fair to say: The liberal's reaction to Trump's words and action have set the bar for divisiveness. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-22-2019, 08:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And there's a difference between an actual conversation and one based on semantics. To suggest Trump "set the bar" for divisiveness is absurd. POTUS have been divisive for decades. It's just the most folks don't like the side Trump comes down on say they'll say things. Trump has done nothing more to divide the population than any other president before him. Now folk's reactions to his words might add to the divisiveness.

So would it be fair to say: The liberal's reaction to Trump's words and action have set the bar for divisiveness. 

I'm going to disagree. Whether it's leading the charge that Obama wasn't born in the US, defending neo nazis, attacking dead war heroes, calling the porn star he cheated on his wife with "horseface", attacking the media as "fake news" while constantly distorting the truth himself, calling Mexicans "rapists", or publicly rebuking the intelligence community and taking the word of murderous dictators, the actions of Donald Trump since announcing his candidacy have completely destroyed any sense of decency and unity that the office of the President ever had. Anyone else who said or did a single thing on that list would have seen their political career end, no matter the party.

This goes well beyond the country's first black president speaking empathetically to black parents or being stern with a party that publicly stated they wanted him to fail. 

To even suggest that outcry against this very abnormal and unacceptable behavior is in reality what has "set the bar for divisiveness" is absurd and intellectually lazy. 

[BmorePat87]

Bernie Sanders recently announced that David Sirota would be joining his campaign as a speech writer. David Sirota's first gig in politics ended in 1999 when it was discovered that he helped a Philly mayoral candidate he was working for in the Democratic primary create a fake website designed to look like an opponents, containing an out of context quote that implied that the opposing candidate wanted to unite black and latino voters to "take over". The hope was that it would turn white voters off from their opponent.

Immediately after leaving that campaign in light of the website, Sirota was hired as Sanders to be his communications director from 1999-2001.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/22/sanders-speechwriter-racially-inflammatory-website-1232953?fbclid=IwAR2YLfcotEJAyAeakb_bh1BEALl6FPkscYQ9K06mOWOu0L2OBrpgkLrHP0o

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 08:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm going to disagree. Whether it's leading the charge that Obama wasn't born in the US, defending neo nazis, attacking dead war heroes, calling the porn star he cheated on his wife with "horseface", attacking the media as "fake news" while constantly distorting the truth himself, calling Mexicans "rapists", or publicly rebuking the intelligence community and taking the word of murderous dictators, the actions of Donald Trump since announcing his candidacy have completely destroyed any sense of decency and unity that the office of the President ever had. Anyone else who said or did a single thing on that list would have seen their political career end, no matter the party.

This goes well beyond the country's first black president speaking empathetically to black parents or being stern with a party that publicly stated they wanted him to fail. 

To even suggest that outcry against this very abnormal and unacceptable behavior is in reality what has "set the bar for divisiveness" is absurd and intellectually lazy. 

Fair enough, we'll just disagree on the point; as it detracts from the purpose of the OP. I should not have taken the bait thrown out there in post 137 and expounded upon in posts 138 and 141.

After that it devolved into a Trump thread

[*bfine32*]

Figured this is a good place to share:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/here-are-the-most-socialisticand-most-capitalistic-democrats-running-for-president-190000240.html

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2019, 08:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Figured this is a good place to share:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/here-are-the-most-socialisticand-most-capitalistic-democrats-running-for-president-190000240.html

I see they are continuing with the very fast and loose definition of socialism. Considering they're using a regulated market position for all but one of the categories for their all-the-way socialism, this is fairly farcical.

[BmorePat87]

(03-25-2019, 09:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see they are continuing with the very fast and loose definition of socialism. Considering they're using a regulated market position for all but one of the categories for their all-the-way socialism, this is fairly farcical.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-we-ranked-democratic-candidates-on-a-socialismcapitalism-scale-200000720.html

Quote:We consider socialistic policies to be those that rely heavily on government intervention or programs controlled by the government. We consider capitalistic policies to be those that rely primarily on private-sector solutions and incentives. An in-between stance is typically one that includes a little of both.

We realize the terms “socialism” and “capitalism” are open to interpretation. In an American context, we’re applying limits to these terms, consistent with the range of policies politically plausible in the United States. We’re not suggesting any of these candidates are promoting Venezuelan-style authoritarian socialism, at one extreme, or unbridled Ayn Randian capitalism at the other extreme. The range of choices is more narrow and depends largely on the role of government.

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2019, 09:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-we-ranked-democratic-candidates-on-a-socialismcapitalism-scale-200000720.html

I saw it. But you had to click on the link within the article to get to their methodology for that. Meanwhile, the infographic and accompanying article don't get into that. Are most people looking at that graphic going to read their methodology article? You and I did, but would anyone else have? This is bad journalism and leads to misinformation.

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 08:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I saw it. But you had to click on the link within the article to get to their methodology for that. Meanwhile, the infographic and accompanying article don't get into that. Are most people looking at that graphic going to read their methodology article? You and I did, but would anyone else have? This is bad journalism and leads to misinformation.

I'd say the majority would read it; as it directs the reader to do so right before displaying the graph. 

FWIW I've found Yahoo to be one of the more unbiased news outlets.

[Belsnickel]

(03-26-2019, 09:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd say the majority would read it; as it directs the reader to do so right before displaying the graph. 

You give more credit to the average reader than is due. I would wager that if you looked at the site's statistics, less than half of those that clicked on the article with the graph clicked on the link within to read the methodology.

(03-26-2019, 09:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: FWIW I've found Yahoo to be one of the more unbiased news outlets.

Unbiased doesn't always mean the article is well thought out or that they present graphic information well. Bias is only one facet of this sort of thing. But I would also say that by using that definition of "socialistic" they are showing bias. None of those politicians advocate for anything more than a mixed economy, but they portray it as socialism. That's bias.

[BmorePat87]

(03-26-2019, 08:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I saw it. But you had to click on the link within the article to get to their methodology for that. Meanwhile, the infographic and accompanying article don't get into that. Are most people looking at that graphic going to read their methodology article? You and I did, but would anyone else have? This is bad journalism and leads to misinformation.

I get what you're saying, it's perpetuating a belief that liberal must mean socialism, but when you have candidates declaring themselves "democratic socialists", I think it's fair to begin to the use the word in very specific context as Yahoo! did, though I think "populist" would have been a better label, especially since they describe Trump's protectionism as one of the examples. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 10:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You give more credit to the average reader than is due. I would wager that if you looked at the site's statistics, less than half of those that clicked on the article with the graph clicked on the link within to read the methodology.


Unbiased doesn't always mean the article is well thought out or that they present graphic information well. Bias is only one facet of this sort of thing. But I would also say that by using that definition of "socialistic" they are showing bias. None of those politicians advocate for anything more than a mixed economy, but they portray it as socialism. That's bias.

And you're giving the article less credit than what is due. They clearly instruct the reader to see their methodology and but it in the perfect spot to do so. They don't hide the link in some random location. Don't confuse the laziness of the reader with the laziness of the source. 

[Belsnickel]

(03-26-2019, 10:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And you're giving the article less credit than what is due. They clearly instruct the reader to see their methodology and but it in the perfect spot to do so. They don't hide the link in some random location. Don't confuse the laziness of the reader with the laziness of the source. 

So why not put it in the main article itself rather than behind another link? Not only would that have been easier for the source, because they had to publish a second article to do so, but it would have made the information even easier to find.

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 11:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So why not put it in the main article itself rather than behind another link? Not only would that have been easier for the source, because they had to publish a second article to do so, but it would have made the information even easier to find.

Because they chose to provide a link to their methodology instead, perhaps they didn't want the methodology to get lost in a wall of text; they wanted the reader's sole focus on the methodology when he/she read it. 

There are any number of reasons and not all a nefarious as you suggest simply because they used one word you'd prefer they didn't use.

WTS: I feel you. Often I have taken issue with a misleading title and/or photo and have been often told to simply shut up and read the entire text of the article and realize there's no way it could be classified as misleading aka "fake news". But the debate is simply a tangent that does nothing to facilitate the purpose of this thread. 

[Belsnickel]

(03-26-2019, 10:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I get what you're saying, it's perpetuating a belief that liberal must mean socialism, but when you have candidates declaring themselves "democratic socialists", I think it's fair to begin to the use the word in very specific context as Yahoo! did, though I think "populist" would have been a better label, especially since they describe Trump's protectionism as one of the examples. 

What would be great would be for people to actually have an understanding of what democratic socialism is, and for people that claim to be one to stop calling themselves that because most aren't. But anyway...

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2019, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So POTUS should chime in on every criminal case....thanks. 

No. That is the opposite of what I said. He should only chime in on cases where an unarmed person is killed and the police do not investigate.

(03-22-2019, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: FWIW Zimmerman is not white.

That did not stop the white people from trying to play their victim cards.  You were in those threads.  Why are you acting like you don't know what I am talking about?

[fredtoast]

(03-26-2019, 11:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What would be great would be for people to actually have an understanding of what democratic socialism is,

Exactly.  The echo chamber minions are all squawking about how Venezuela proves why we should not vote for Bernie Sanders.  

We need to educate people so that will stop. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 06:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. That is the opposite of what I said. He should only chime in on cases where an unarmed person is killed and the police do not investigate.


That did not stop the white people from trying to play their victim cards.  You were in those threads.  Why are you acting like you don't know what I am talking about?

As I said earlier in this thread:

I apologize for any part I played in turning this thread from it's intended purpose. I was weak and took the bait.