Politics Podcasts

[StLucieBengal]

(02-07-2018, 09:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get the balance from the first three I listed. They have folks from both different sides talking about issues in a reasoned discussion. Listening to one side rant on and then listening to the other side separately is not as effective at hashing out the issues as we like to think. It's better to have a dialogue to listen to, a back and forth discussion, because you will get answers to questions that would not be answered by listening to people from different sides separately.

The definition of balance is the issue. Like the media chart you posted. It was obviously slanted to call leftist outlets nuetral. If this is how you define balance then we have a issue with vocabulary.

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2018, 12:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The definition of balance is the issue. Like the media chart you posted. It was obviously slanted to call leftist outlets nuetral. If this is how you define balance then we have a issue with vocabulary.

Both sides having a discussion isn't balance? I think there m8ght be an issue with your vocabulary on this one.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-07-2018, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Both sides having a discussion isn't balance? I think there m8ght be an issue with your vocabulary on this one.

Both sides aren’t the leftist side vs the gop progressive side.

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2018, 02:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Both sides aren’t the leftist side vs the gop progressive side.

I forget sometimes that the understanding of liberal and conservatives positions is something we have had trouble agreeing upon in the past. I utilize definitions found in the writings of political scientists and other experts on the field and you dismiss them out of hand.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-07-2018, 02:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I forget sometimes that the understanding of liberal and conservatives positions is something we have had trouble agreeing upon in the past. I utilize definitions found in the writings of political scientists and other experts on the field and you dismiss them out of hand.

It does sort of depend on who you are talking to.  In the US we define liberal and conservative differently than what these writers do. We get it.  Our liberals are actually lunatic fascists. But if you are talking to a group of people who are defining something one way, then you have to decide if you want to be right, or you want to be understood.  

[StLucieBengal]

(02-07-2018, 02:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It does sort of depend on who you are talking to.  In the US we define liberal and conservative differently than what these writers do. We get it.  Our liberals are actually lunatic fascists. But if you are talking to a group of people who are defining something one way, then you have to decide if you want to be right, or you want to be understood.  

Exactly my point.

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2018, 02:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It does sort of depend on who you are talking to.  In the US we define liberal and conservative differently than what these writers do. We get it.  Our liberals are actually lunatic fascists. But if you are talking to a group of people who are defining something one way, then you have to decide if you want to be right, or you want to be understood.  

I understand what you are saying and, to an extent, I agree with you. However, words have meanings and they should be used appropriately. I feel like when we are discussing political ideologies, that is something we ought to work to be right about. I'm not going to sit here and point out how bias is used incorrectly often around here because it doesn't much change the conversation, but things like ideologies, or the difference between universal healthcare and single-payer are things that when we don't use commonly accepted definitions/descriptions then the conversation is pointless because no one will be talking about the same thing.

[StLucieBengal]

I break it down as such.

Leftist - Pocahantas/Bernie Sanders/Kamala Harris types

Establishment Dem & Establishment GOP - Clinton/Durbin/Pelosi/Schumer/Bush/McCain/Graham/Ryan/McConnel/Flake types

Conservative - Cruz/Lee/Paul/Freedom Caucas types

Populists - Trump

Libertarians are scattered between leftists and conservatives depending on where they sway. Conservatives would be wise to accept more libertarian social issues to get more of them. I think it’s goig that way.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-07-2018, 03:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I understand what you are saying and, to an extent, I agree with you. However, words have meanings and they should be used appropriately. I feel like when we are discussing political ideologies, that is something we ought to work to be right about. I'm not going to sit here and point out how bias is used incorrectly often around here because it doesn't much change the conversation, but things like ideologies, or the difference between universal healthcare and single-payer are things that when we don't use commonly accepted definitions/descriptions then the conversation is pointless because no one will be talking about the same thing.

I am with you on this. Some of the far out stuff I am not but you are absolutely correct on your example above. Single payer/University HC.