Media Bias and BS -- a critical evaluation
- Thread starter Crockett
- Start date
I think one could argue parallels between any two administrations. Which parallels so you think exist between Trump and Nixon?
Those are loaded and non-specific words. Do you have anything specific? For example, "Nixon and Trump both did x."
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I'm not here for that level of analysis.
The efforts to utilize racial calls to divide the electorate are similar. The southern strategy is well documented. Trump and his "MS-13", build the wall, etc. is part and parcel to that mind set. 70,000 votes in 3 states. Ironically, the US helped create the morass that birthed MS-13 with our meddling in El Salvador.
The instincts of the Nixon administration were to break the laws. I will let history compare those two as far as indictments go a decade from now. That said, this administration is quick out of the gates. Nixon had a protective Republican/Democratic majority thanks to the southern Democrats but a dogged Democratic prosecutor. Trump has a Republican prosecutor and a protective Congress. Time will tell.
And a thorough rejection of the mainstream body politic. IMO that was a driving force, at least for me I am sick of everything in the proverbial swamp and ready to vote as such. This is also how I explain the animus among party elitists even when he (Trump) does something worthwhile. The professional politicians are still pissed (and terrified).
I'm not here for that level of analysis.
LOL. I can tell. And that's my point. What you're pointing out are political characterizations that have been made by people who are hostile to both Trump and Nixon. They aren't specific acts.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Nixon did some good things. I'm sure every administration will do some good things.
Do you disagree regarding the efforts of each to divide the electorate in similar manners? Is the Southern Strategy actually debatable?
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Because the electorate was very much undivided before Trump came along? Are you really going to say that the Democrats haven't been dividing the electorate in a much more effective and impactful manner for decades?
Some of you guys still don't understand why we have Donald Trump in the first place.
O-*******-bama was the most divisive president in history. He left Nixon in the dust. Everything he did was done through the lens of divisive identity politics.
Yes, I disagree.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
The significant portion of the electorate divided itself on 1/20/2009 for no rational reason. See James Dobson's letter to 2012 for reference as to why.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
With no help from anyone. Just happened. For no apparent reason!
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Yeah, this is the media bias argument all over again. No rational reason to think the Obama administration was ostracizing, marginalizing and targeting conservatives, because any reason someone might point out is automatically classified as "irrational." "I'm a rational guy, and I think they're wrong, therefore, they're irrational."
You get that this line of reasoning is why we can't have "rational" discussions on policy anymore, right?
I35
5,000+ Posts
I'm a broken record explaining that media is plural for medium. What mediums do you like?
http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/
We're not telling you it's raining, we tell you we're pissing on your back because of all the stupid **** you say.
This is worthy of pissing on your back. Your party is MSM. Your party leaders watch the MSM daily to see what their marching orders are for that day.
I'm still trying to think of one good thing Obama did good? I just though of one. The day he left the White House is the one good thing he did.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
There is apparently SO MUCH "MSM" out there. So many marching orders; so little time. It's like MS-13 at the mall!
We're not telling you it's raining, we tell you we're pissing on your back because of all the stupid **** you say.
This is worthy of pissing on your back. Your party is MSM. Your party leaders watch the MSM daily to see what their marching orders are for that day.
I'm still trying to think of one good thing Obama did good? I just though of one. The day he left the White House is the one good thing he did.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
BTW Barry, are you going to explain how Reagan would be a Democrat with something resembling an actual fact? Oh I forgot, you're not on this board for that level of discourse. Fair enough... can you describe the feeling your gut gets that instinctively tells you to ignore all factual evidence to the contrary and claim that Reagan - who is reviled almost universally by the left - would be welcomed in as a democrat today?
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Reagan is thought of highly on the left. We do think it ironic that you guys worship him.
Gun Control. He was sensible about it.
Grew the debt. He was the first great debtor President. He raised taxes 11 times.
Amnesty for 3 million
Vetoed anti-apartheid act on South Africa
Worked with Iran (you know Iran Contra)
Didn't go down on Israel....they didn't like him much
Cut and run when we were bombed in Lebanon
He was not the enemy of abortion in California
Actually, he would not be a Democrat. However, in a field of 19 GOP presidential hopefuls he would have been on the kiddie table debate as a moderate.
Gun Control. He was sensible about it.
Grew the debt. He was the first great debtor President. He raised taxes 11 times.
Amnesty for 3 million
Vetoed anti-apartheid act on South Africa
Worked with Iran (you know Iran Contra)
Didn't go down on Israel....they didn't like him much
Cut and run when we were bombed in Lebanon
He was not the enemy of abortion in California
Actually, he would not be a Democrat. However, in a field of 19 GOP presidential hopefuls he would have been on the kiddie table debate as a moderate.
He's only praised by the Left as a strategy to bash other Republicans. In the '80s, the Left bashed him as hard as they bash Republicans today.
Not really a moderate but a more willing compromiser. There's a difference. However, one but thing should be noted. There was a significant number of conservative and moderate Democrats in the '80s, so it was much easier for him to make concessions and get something in return. That's not true today and really hasn't been true for quite some time.
Probably the biggest ideological difference with the modern GOP is that, like William F. Buckley, Reagan was a patriot but not a nationalist. The current GOP has a real nationalist wing.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I disagree with your first assertion. My mom is a lifelong Democrat. She still talks about Reagan almost as if he were JFK. She said that he motivated the "compassionate conservative" movement.
Agree on everything else you typed. We weren't as polarized at that point. I listened to an interview of a Democratic Congressman. He said in the old days people hung together regardless of party. Heck, even Obama and Coburn were good friends as recently as the mid 2000's. He said he gets side looks from people if he's having drinks with any friends from the other party now. Tribalism is not good. Ironic, coming from an Indian.
Bush Sr was the guy who came up with "compassionate conservative". It was his way of drawing a contrast between himself and RR during his first campaign.
The Nationalist movement in the R party is, in my opinion a direct pushback against the globalist, one world government types. The globalists barely existed in Reagan's time in office, so there was no need for a counterbalance.
The Nationalist movement in the R party is, in my opinion a direct pushback against the globalist, one world government types. The globalists barely existed in Reagan's time in office, so there was no need for a counterbalance.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
In what way? What policy has the GOP refused to address that he would have championed? I hear a lot of GOP members talking about different solutions regarding registration. I never heard Reagan talk about outlawing any specific types of gun, but I could certainly be wrong.
And he wouldn't have liked how that worked out. Like a lot of conservatives - maybe even most - he wasn't so much about punishing people who had put down roots and were productive as he was about not creating perverse incentives for people to sneak in and put down roots so that we would HAVE to consider amnesty.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672
"These days, Republicans are also calling for existing laws to be toughened up, which Reagan would have agreed with, Robinson says. In fact, Robinson says, he would have been so upset at the federal government's failure to make good on the 1986 reform that he would have demanded for that law to be fixed first before instituting a new overhaul.
"He, too, would have been right there in saying, 'Fix the borders first.' " Where he would have differed, Robinson says, is his welcoming attitude toward immigrants.
"He was a Californian," Robinson says. "You couldn't live in California ... without encountering over and over and over again good, hard-working, decent people — clearly recent arrivals from Mexico."
That the U.S. failed to regain control of the border — making the 1986 law's amnesty provision an incentive for others to come to America illegally — would have infuriated Reagan, Robinson says.
"But I think he would have felt taking those 3 million people and making them Americans was a success."
And yes, I know this next one is on Fox, but it's also written by the executive director of the Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. And I'd bet you could find plenty of GOP support for it - and NOT ONE DEM.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...reagan-and-reform-our-immigration-system.html
"As a student of the Reagan presidency who lived through the immigration debates on Capitol Hill during the Reagan years – and speaking for myself, not the Reagan Foundation – I’ve come to believe that a Reaganesque deal on immigration today could be structured around a provision that no amnesty or path to citizenship would be granted until such a blue-ribbon commission certifies that:
- The border wall President Trump wants to build between the U.S. and Mexico is at least 75 percent complete.
- The flow of illegal entries by immigrants into the U.S. has reached a specified minimum, reflecting a historic low.
- At least 75 percent of U.S. employers have adopted an E-Verify type approach to dissuade future illegal immigration.
And that's supposed to be a Dem positive? That's interesting...
Did he campaign on that? Did he actively look to quash operations that were stopping them from running guns and drugs in the US? Regardless, it was a different situation and different stakes - it certainly wasn't about helping Iran keep its nuclear program rolling.
They bombed Beirut and Iraq, and he told them to stop it. He approved them attacking the PLO and driving them back.
Is that the preferred Dem strategy?
In the same way that Obama was the enemy of gay marriage. You know, before he changed his position?
https://abortion.info/politics/presidents-and-abortion/ronald-reagan/
"In May 1967, then-Governor Reagan signed into law the “Therapeutic Abortion Bill,” which allowed abortions to protect the woman’s “physical or mental health.” He did so saying he agreed with “the moral principle of self-defense,” i.e., that if 100,000 California women were “desperate enough” to undergo illegal abortions every year, he could at least make it safer for some of them. Later, however, he was left with a sense of guilt “and he blamed the increase in abortions on the doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. “If there is
a question as to whether there is life or death, the doubt should be resolved in favor of life,” he later said. Dutch, by Edmund Morris, p.351-352.
Yes, the line does shift when you actually have to deal with reality.
I'm not talking about individual Democrats across the country. I'm a lifelong Republican, but other than the fact that he used the White House as this own personal brothel, I mostly have good things to say about JFK. I'm talking about Democratic leaders, policymakers, and national commentators. When they talk about how sensible Reagan was, it's to suggest that currently not sensible. Those same people hated Reagan's guts in the 1980s.
You are correct about this and correct that it's a bad thing. However, this is actually a separate issue. This is the Tip O'Neill phenomenon. He and Reagan could fight with each other all day long and then as soon as the clock reached 5:00 p.m., they could blow it all off, drink Irish whiskey, and laugh with other all night while pretending that they were still fighting and arguing into the night.
However, it was more than reduced tribalism. There was a lot more ideological crossover. Reagan could frequently look to large numbers of Democrats from the South, Rust Belt, and even West Coast to support various facets of his agenda. Oh the flip side, O'Neill could often (though probably to a lesser extent) turn to moderate and liberal Republicans from the Northeast to oppose parts of Reagan's agenda. Because of that dynamic, there was just a lot more to gain and a lot less to lose by playing ball.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Dude, just say "of course he's more moderate than any contender GOP'er these days, we're not as polarized as a culture and he came from a Democratic state".
A. Reagan came out in support of the Brady Bill against his former VP. He, along with Carter and Ford, supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. He's like the NRA was when they had their head straight before they were busy selling the trope that Obama and Clinton are coming for your guns, so you better buy them now! The irony is that, a Trump presidency was bad for gun stock prices.
B. I don't see Trump doing anything to slow down apartheid.
C. Iran Contra. LOL. His people negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages until after election day and they were "miraculously" released as soon as he was President. The payback was giving them access to weapons. We all have to take a bit of the poop sandwich that is Iran - going back to post WWII. I don't know if any administration has handled that region well and, I think, it hurts to have changing administrations with changing strategies on dealing with them. The Persians are one of the most "western" populations between Europe and Australia/Japan. The people will take over the mullocracy some day soon.
C. Googling Reagan on abortion and the National Review headline says "Reagan's Darkest Hour".
A. Reagan came out in support of the Brady Bill against his former VP. He, along with Carter and Ford, supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. He's like the NRA was when they had their head straight before they were busy selling the trope that Obama and Clinton are coming for your guns, so you better buy them now! The irony is that, a Trump presidency was bad for gun stock prices.
B. I don't see Trump doing anything to slow down apartheid.
C. Iran Contra. LOL. His people negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages until after election day and they were "miraculously" released as soon as he was President. The payback was giving them access to weapons. We all have to take a bit of the poop sandwich that is Iran - going back to post WWII. I don't know if any administration has handled that region well and, I think, it hurts to have changing administrations with changing strategies on dealing with them. The Persians are one of the most "western" populations between Europe and Australia/Japan. The people will take over the mullocracy some day soon.
C. Googling Reagan on abortion and the National Review headline says "Reagan's Darkest Hour".
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
And apparently Reagan agreed.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
If you had said that, I would have agreed with it. But you didn't. You said a bunch of stuff which in many cases was ridiculous and sounded like Media Matters talking points, and in many cases pointed out Reagan flaws or mistakes in a way that suggested that made him more of a Democrat - which again, I found a very odd argument.
The globalists have existed since the beginning. This is an old fight, not a new one. They were certainly a major force during the Reagan Administration. Furthermore, Reagan was generally favorable to globalism. He was mostly pro-immigration, pro-free trade, pro-global business, and favored a neocon foreign policy. During the '80s, it was Democrats who were mostly suspicious of globalism. They favored protectionist trade policies, mostly opposed immigration, favored national business interests over global ones, and favored a more isolationist foreign policy. That's why you can find old video clips of Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and others from the '80s and early '90s sounding more hostile to immigration than Trump.
I think the dynamic mostly changed because of changes within the Democratic Party more than anything else. It's rarely talked about, but the Democrats mostly gave up on the private sector labor movement and shifted its focus from promoting unionization to promoting globalization. That allowed them to diversify their fundraising dramatically. Instead of having to rely on unions and trial lawyers (both of which were losing their financial clout by the early '90s), they could start raking in much bigger money from global business interests. Furthermore, by promoting Third World immigration as part of the globalization agenda, they could play radical identity politics and social liberalism without alienating large parts of their base like they would have in previous years.
Obviously, there were going to be losers in this. We pretend that there aren't by pointing out all the general benefits of immigration (cheaper products and services brought about by cheaper labor, population growth and more tax revenue, etc.), but the bottom line is that Americans who competed with cheap labor both domestically (immigrants) and overseas (sweatshop and slave labor in other countries) lost in this equation. Those "losers" were never social or cultural liberals, so they were prime targets for the GOP, who reached out to them and pulled off a full-blown political realignment. Targeting them helped turn states like Tennessee and Kentucky from purple to red and flipped states like Louisiana, Arkansas, and West Virginia from blue to red. And of course, the realignment was complete when Trump carried Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa.
Well, I think that the voters targeted by the GOP over the last 20 years have now become prominent enough to influence the party. It can't win without them. In the same way, the globalist corporate types who were Republicans in the '80s and early '90s can now influence the Democrats. You can get a feel for that in how Chuck Schumer handled Trump's tariff initiative (which I oppose). Ten years ago, Schumer would have been all for the tariffs. (Hell, he opposed NAFTA.) Now he's critical of the tariffs. Why? Because the global industries that lose with tariffs are more influential with Democratic leaders than unions are. It's weird to see the shift in action.
But the study linked in the OP found Time to lean slightly right of center. LMAO!Seems to be a difference
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-ULM *
Sat, Sep 21 • 7:00 PM on ESPN+/SECN+
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
2024 Schedules
