Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[st barbara]

My impression is that a "Rupert effect" has kicked in. If Rupert Murdoch and his counterparts think you're a loser, it tends to trickle down through their employees.

 

The Murdoch media in Australia is supremely conservative - but really despises Trump. I'm getting the same vibe from its US counterparts.

If the Murdoch Media despises Trump, and the Liberal media despises Trump, who is left supporting him in the media ?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Rightly, or wrongly, it doesn't matter.   I think the media is focused squarely on Trump's women.  I've got no pity for Trump, but the WikiLeaks underreporting is disappointing.  Especially considering in the past when WikiLeaks released something they were on it like starving dogs.  It does give the impression, the media is run blocking for Hillary to get the TD.  Not saying it is true, and Trump needs to get everything he deserves, it just seems odd that the media picks now to ignore WikiLeaks.

Wikileaks has lost a lot of its credibility recently, and much of what has been coming out of it lately has been tied to Russia, which seems to be supplying quite a bit of its talent. The assumption of many is that Mr. Assange (no stranger to sex assault allegations himself) is firmly in Vladimir Putin's pocket -- which may be why no damaging revelations about Putin have come out from Wikileaks.

[assault]

If the Murdoch Media despises Trump, and the Liberal media despises Trump, who is left supporting him in the media ?

 

Vladimir Putin's propagandists and the "alt-Right".

 

Yes, he's probably going to lose.

[Badger]

Or maybe those starving dogs chewed on the Wikileaks for a while and found it tasteless and lacking in nourishment. Like the law enforcement wallahs have.

 

Or maybe those Wikileaks revelations are just "old news" (one for/from the "Oxymorons" thread ) and they're just in the usual feeding frenzy about the most recent scandal.

 

I get the impression that Clinton's "malfeasances" are "no worse than your run-of-the-mill politician". If you vote for pretty much any politician ever, you're going to be voting for one that has flaws and foibles and has done questionable or possibly incautious things, and things you don't agree with. 

 

Trump is simply a whole new level of crazy that most politicians would never have the imagination to approach and if they had some sort of fever dream to come up with the concept, they'd have the "nous" to take some febrifuge, some antacids and a nap, and come back to sanity.

 

No doubt, to some extent.  Though it might be giving the media too much credit for their ability/desire to discern information.

[Badger]

Wikileaks has lost a lot of its credibility recently, and much of what has been coming out of it lately has been tied to Russia, which seems to be supplying quite a bit of its talent. The assumption of many is that Mr. Assange (no stranger to sex assault allegations himself) is firmly in Vladimir Putin's pocket -- which may be why no damaging revelations about Putin have come out from Wikileaks.

 

Interesting.  I seem to remember back in the Bradley Manning leaks, there was some mention of him having something on the Russians,  but obviously nothing came of that.

 

Regardless, we have seen in the past, when you release something on Putin, you are telling the world you are tired of living.  Which, likely plays a factor on what WikiLeaks may or may not do.

[Badger]

Soooo... I'm rather PO'd by something that happened today.  (I wasn't there to witness it, but my wife told me afterward.)

 

In our church's fellowship hall during coffee hour after Sunday morning services, a man walked up to my wife and another woman and asked, "Are you both joining the group that would rather be groped by Trump than vote for Hillary?"  Seriously. 

 

My wife was stunned into silence.  The other woman standing by her told the guy what he said was completely inappropriate and not at all funny.  Probably a good thing I wasn't there to hear him say that, because anything I said or did would have been considerably less Christian than her reaction.

 

I remember my dad talking about his Sunday School class having a no-politics rule.  (cause well you know how old guys can get when it comes to politics.  They are sure to sometimes forget to turn on the filter.  )

[Badger]

So there should be no expectation of fair press coverage and candidates should have a strategy to get networks on board.

 

Our printed media is overwhelmingly right-leaning and, because our printed media is national, this probably has more weight than US printed media, which tends to have more state based coverage (to my memory).  Is the broadcast media usually democrat biased?

 

Hmm, not sure your question can be answered without an argument starting but I will try to answer from my (conservatish) perspective.

 

 

NBC and its related stations are pretty much in the tank for the liberals.  FOX  likewise for the conservatives.  And the others make varying pretenses to fairness.  Past that, if not already, this will get controversial.

[Iuz the Evil]

Hmm, not sure your question can be answered without an argument starting but I will try to answer from my (conservatish) perspective.

 

 

NBC and its related stations are pretty much in the tank for the liberals. FOX likewise for the conservatives. And the others make varying pretenses to fairness. Past that, if not already, this will get controversial.

I'm left of the Democratic party and I think that pretty well sums it up. Fox = GOP, MSNBC = DNC, others vary. I'd say CNN is a "front runner" as they tend to promote whoever appears to be most likely to win (GWB, Obama, Hillary), but others may disagree.

 

It's mostly not journalism these days, but political party positions with media support. Hard to find objective coverage any more.

[Old Man]

NBC and its related stations are pretty much in the tank for the liberals.

I suspect that until very recently NBC was on Trump's side. He got a lot of kid glove treatment from the network that aired him for twelve years.

[Old Man]

Last debate is this Wednesday. Gods help us all.

[Lord Liaden]

It's like George Carlin said: "When you're born in this world you get a ticket to the Freak Show, and when you're born in America you have a front row seat."

 

Or like John Oliver said recently on Last Week Tonight: "Look up. Higher. You see that 'way up there? Above the clouds? That's rock bottom."

[Badger]

I suspect that until very recently NBC was on Trump's side. He got a lot of kid glove treatment from the network that aired him for twelve years.

 

Hard to say, I'm sure a lot of liberal talking heads were secretly pulling for him to get nominated, knowing he'd keep saying things to help the Dems.

[Iuz the Evil]

The SNL sketch of the second debate was pretty funny. At least the part where Hillary is confronted by Bill's accusers.

 

https://youtu.be/qVMW_1aZXRk

[Nolgroth]

Comedy gold that. 

[wcw43921]

This is just completely out of line

 

 

While my disbelief in the better part of human nature comes naturally, this election cycle has really confirmed it beyond any doubt. People are ****tards. 

 

 

Now the good news--

[Twilight]

 

 

 

 

Now the good news--

Good for them.

[Nolgroth]

Now the good news--

 

THAT is exactly the kind of spirit we need to foster. It is absolutely essential that we disagree from time to time. Not only is it acceptable, it should be expected. But there are times that ideology needs to be put on the back burner and common decency brought to the fore. The people involved in this GoFundMe campaign are the exemplars of this attitude. Kudos to them.

 

Thank you for posting that.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Trump is now saying the election is rigged against him and that he may not concede. At all. Ever.

 

It will be annoying at best if he sticks to that.

 

And John McCain says that as long as a Democrat is President, all vacancies on the Supreme Court (the current one and any future ones that arise) will never be filled until there is a Republican. (This of course assumes a Republican Senate.)

[Iuz the Evil]

Again, see Brennan 1956. Recess appointment is possible. Plus, that's just a ridiculous statement. "We won't fill supreme court vacancies until we are in power again"

 

...wow. Really?

[Badger]

I am against recess appointments, as it is an end around.  However, if the President at least throws 2-3 candidates to be voted on first, and they still are unwilling to play, then so be it go with a recess appointment.  But, it does have to be a last resort, and the Dems have to prove it in action that it is a last resort (would go for a vice versa too, of course).  I cant go along with "they said they wouldn't let a candidates get through, so will go recess appointment without even trying.  (as I feel at that point its time to throw away the Constitution and not even pretend anymore)

[megaplayboy]

The filibuster is not specifically guaranteed in the constitution. What is guaranteed is the ability of the Senate to write their own procedural rules. So any time a majority decides to change the rules, they technically can do so. They can lower the cloture threshold for SCOTUS appointments and legislation to 51 votes if they want. If the Dems retake the Senate and McConnell continues the obstructionist attitude he held through the previous 8 years, they absolutely should imo. The purpose of government is governance, not throwing a hissy fit until you finally get your way.

[Pattern Ghost]

Again, see Brennan 1956. Recess appointment is possible. Plus, that's just a ridiculous statement. "We won't fill supreme court vacancies until we are in power again"

 

...wow. Really?

 

Brennan had confirmation hearings in 1957, with only McCarthy voting against him. So, it wasn't a case of a recess appointment getting around a refusal to have a confirmation hearing. It doesn't seem relevant to the current situation.

 

The rule for recess appointments according to that bastion of scholarly knowledge known as Wikipedia is that the appointee needs to be confirmed in the next session or the position becomes vacant again:

 

 

To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again; in current practice this means that a recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year.

 

The position is ridiculous, though. Hopefully, it will lose them enough seats to motivate them to do their jobs.

[Badger]

The filibuster is not specifically guaranteed in the constitution. What is guaranteed is the ability of the Senate to write their own procedural rules. So any time a majority decides to change the rules, they technically can do so. They can lower the cloture threshold for SCOTUS appointments and legislation to 51 votes if they want. If the Dems retake the Senate and McConnell continues the obstructionist attitude he held through the previous 8 years, they absolutely should imo. The purpose of government is governance, not throwing a hissy fit until you finally get your way.

 

Yeah, I am aware of most of that.  I still stand by, if they try the usual route first and the House want play then I approve recess.  If they go recess first, then I don't.

[Old Man]

The position is ridiculous, though. Hopefully, it will lose them enough seats to motivate them to do their jobs.

It won't. Obstruction has cost them almost no seats so far -- arguably is keeping their base fired up and keeping them in power.

[Pattern Ghost]

It won't. Obstruction has cost them almost no seats so far -- arguably is keeping their base fired up and keeping them in power.

 

That may be true. McCain's going a big step further, to attempt to block SCOTUS appointments for four to eight years, though. Their nonsense has to reach a tipping point sooner or later.