The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

You put your finger exactly on the most hypocrite political stance of the right. The folks supporting Trump keeps saying that the workers are getting screwed, yada yada. What they don't realize, is that Trump's policies (Fiscal) are for the sole benefit of the biggest corporations of the US, as Tood rightly pointed out.

Get your head out of your *ss people come on!

What SH!ts me is that if the knuckleheads lived in the south, they would have no protection. Annoyed would be benched for being too old, as would SGalisa, and MG would be put on the "special bus" and have no prospects besides being a grunt, somewhere, maybe.
I don't think that's fair to any of them, but that is seen as a weakness, compassion is a human failing apparently.

[Coco Pops]

So would you be OK with state run TV?

State run TV would only feed you one world view.

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...vision-network

[Annoyed]

So would you be OK with state run TV?

State run TV would only feed you one world view.

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...vision-network

First, we already have what is effectively a state run national network, it's called PBS/NPR. And that is a good example of why the govt. should not be running broadcast networks. PBS is very much biased to the left, in favor of big govt. and all that.

Trump just wants a way to counter the extreme left bias of most of the national networks. What he doesn't realize is that a govt. run network will naturally be biased to the left.. government isn't going to oppose itself, after all.

What would be a better solution is the networks we have just cover the news, without adding their own biases to it.

[Coco Pops]

First, we already have what is effectively a state run national network, it's called PBS/NPR. And that is a good example of why the govt. should not be running broadcast networks. PBS is very much biased to the left, in favor of big govt. and all that.

Trump just wants a way to counter the extreme left bias of most of the national networks. What he doesn't realize is that a govt. run network will naturally be biased to the left.. government isn't going to oppose itself, after all.

What would be a better solution is the networks we have just cover the news, without adding their own biases to it.

Op Eds are not bias and opinion is allowed it's called free speech.

[Chaka-Z0]

Depends what you mean by State run. If by State run means the govt is in charge of the administration and management of the network, it is an incredibly bad idea. That would be taking notes of Putin's playbook, which wouldn't be surprising coming from Trump. By the way it is so damn OBVIOUS that he knows he's about to get roasted by Mueller. Your God's downfall is near Annoyed. Lock. Him. Up.

State funded networks can work on another model, such as CBC in Canada. If you want a good example of neutrality, I was actually watching a political debate yesterday on Radio-Canada (French CBC) and at some point during the show they received the results of a survey in regards to religious signs for people in authority (Our current administration is going to ban any religious signs for people in position of authority (Teachers, police officers, legal workers, etc.)). And basically the three political commentators invited to the show literally roasted the CBC survey due to the way the questions were asked, you should've seen the CBC guy's face when he realized his hot topic of the day just became moot

[Gatefan1976]

First, we already have what is effectively a state run national network, it's called PBS/NPR. And that is a good example of why the govt. should not be running broadcast networks. PBS is very much biased to the left, in favor of big govt. and all that.

NPR is hardly left biased.
What it is, is a dial that is set to 5, yet when the left or the right dial to 1 or 10, it looks biased. because even 2 clicks away from your position seems extreme. NPR and TYT HAMMERED Obama, but you ignore that, cause that upsets your worldview.

Trump just wants a way to counter the extreme left bias of most of the national networks. What he doesn't realize is that a govt. run network will naturally be biased to the left.. government isn't going to oppose itself, after all.

Excuse me?
Trump is the E.O. of America, he is the government, and they report on him anyway. That's the very definition of the government reporting on itself. The FACT they did it to Obama, GW Bush, Clinton, etc seems to be lost on you.
You might as well say TRUTH is left biased, cause you don't believe in it.

What would be a better solution is the networks we have just cover the news, without adding their own biases to it.

So should courts, but you are salivating over stacking them, and they have more power.
All your "arguments" come down to you being a small minded petty little person who will stomp their feet like a child to get your chocolate bar.
You really should be called Veruca Salt.

[SoulReaver]

You might as well say TRUTH is left biased, cause you don't believe in it.

truth is not truth

[Gatefan1976]

truth is not truth

That's why it is in my sig.

[Annoyed]

Depends what you mean by State run. If by State run means the govt is in charge of the administration and management of the network, it is an incredibly bad idea.

Don't kid yourself. Whoever controls the purse strings controls the content. Government should have nothing to do with the news media whatsoever.

By the way it is so damn OBVIOUS that he knows he's about to get roasted by Mueller. Your God's downfall is near Annoyed. Lock. Him. Up.

On the contrary. With Mueller accusing Manafort of lying, and therefore violating his deal, he's damaging his own witnesses' credibility. If he's lying about some things, why should anyone believe him about anything else?

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...ck-for-mueller

The breaking down of Paul Manafort’s plea deal has dealt a blow to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

A witness to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer predicated on damaging information about then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Manafort was seen as a valuable potential witness in Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

The decision to call him out as a liar effectively takes his testimony off the table, removing a valuable asset for the government. It comes after a lengthy trial where prosecutors won guilty verdicts against Trump’s former campaign chairman.

But you keep right on hoping.

[Chaka-Z0]

Don't kid yourself. Whoever controls the purse strings controls the content. Government should have nothing to do with the news media whatsoever.

Your inability to see beyond the tip of your tinfoil hat is regrettable. And you speak on both side of your a$$ again, Trump is the only one trying to control the media by revoking licenses of those he doesn't like.

On the contrary. With Mueller accusing Manafort of lying, and therefore violating his deal, he's damaging his own witnesses' credibility. If he's lying about some things, why should anyone believe him about anything else?

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...ck-for-mueller


But you keep right on hoping.

If you believe Trump is innocent, why has he been constantly defending himself and attacking Mueller? We all know his style, Trump prefers offense to defense. Not to mention that he's still attacking Hillary as of yesterday, two years into his presidency, which clearly shows how desperate he is.

hillary-card-deflect-bad-news-away-from-trump-switch-to-29453681.jpg

[Annoyed]

Your inability to see beyond the tip of your tinfoil hat is regrettable. And you speak on both side of your a$$ again, Trump is the only one trying to control the media by revoking licenses of those he doesn't like.



If you believe Trump is innocent, why has he been constantly defending himself and attacking Mueller? We all know his style, Trump prefers offense to defense. Not to mention that he's still attacking Hillary as of yesterday, two years into his presidency, which clearly shows how desperate he is.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42783[/ATTACH]

Ok, let's use NPR as an example. Government funded, and have you noticed that NPR is reliably liberal, pro-big govt.? They're not going to go on the warpath against those who provide their meal tickets. When was the last NPR article that supported reducing the size, budget and influence of govt. ?

You and others think Trump should be prosecuted. That's fine, the evidence is not in yet.

But people on my side of the divide think Hillary should have been prosecuted. And in her case, there is more than enough evidence that she broke the law. They just decided not to prosecute.

[Chaka-Z0]

After a bit of research

NPR is a private-public funded network
Directors and GM are elected through votes from the member stations

and from the wiki I found this:

In 2002 and 2003, surveys and follow-up focus groups conducted by the Tarrance Group and Lake Snell Perry & Associates have indicated that, "The majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased. The plurality of Americans indicate that there is no apparent bias one way or the other, while approximately two-in-ten detect a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias."

So, nope.

[Annoyed]

After a bit of research

NPR is a private-public funded network
Directors and GM are elected through votes from the member stations

and from the wiki I found this:



So, nope.

Actually, so Yep.

, while approximately two-in-ten detect a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias."

Many people wouldn't see bias if it swam up and bit them in the arse.
Of those who do detect bias, twice as many see a liberal bias.

Good reference. =)

[SoulReaver]

Many people wouldn't see bias if it swam up and bit them in the arse.

how could they see anything with their head so far up this Government's arse

[Chaka-Z0]

Actually, so Yep.

Many people wouldn't see bias if it swam up and bit them in the arse.
Of those who do detect bias, twice as many see a liberal bias.

Good reference. =)

What you feel = facts. How can one consider your opinion valid if you do not give any other proof than your Trump feeling / 6th sense?

how could they see anything with their head so far up this Government's arse

That's assuming they actually listen to/watch anything else than Fox Blues