At 1/30/17 06:46 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: What qualifies as a good news source to you?

As close to an Objective, "just the facts" perspective as possible. No record of leaning towards one side or the other.

would that happen to be a left leaning news source?

Thought we were done with trying to make things personal?

:Seems like you are the one who does not want to see outside your narrative and your point I contested was moot. You do have people running for the DNC chair who bash whites, and Sally is already in a high position within idaho.

I never claimed people running didn't. My claim was we should get upset if they get it, or if they are in decision making positions. Clearly I missed that part and it's a bad thing that needs correcting. However I stand by the idea that the idea that white bashing should be scarier then a President who is discriminating against anybody who isn't white seemingly, or that white discrimination carries the same negative outcome as bashing of others is a red herring and a misnomer. It's bad, but it doesn't lead to exactly the type of bad that others deal with. Even when whites are a minority, they tend to disproportainitely wield the power.

At 1/30/17 07:17 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: The source I provided was an Idaho local source which just provided facts and no opinions.

But I did not question the source you provided. You were asking a general question and I gave a general answer which you are now applying to something it was not meant to apply to. If you read what I said I admitted error, explained why I made it, and agreed with you that this was a problem.

You argue with any youtube video as a source, and quite a few others.

Yes. Because youtube videos can be edited in any way the uploader wishes, making them a problem for credible sourcing. Fox News has an obvious Right Wing bias, as sources like the Huffington Post tend to be of no use because a left wing bias. A blind squirrel may find a nut every once in awhile, but I'd rather not sift through the garbage to find it when there are readily available sources with a better track record. Sorry that I absorbed the concepts of research when I had to do research papers in high school and college.

It seems like you would only read left leaning news sources.

Then you clearly haven't paid attention to me or the links I've provided elsewhere to back up my thoughts and statements. You know the things they say about assumption right?

Well sally might not be in the national committee yet but she already has a high position in Idaho and could very likely get a chair position. People voted for your president because of people like Sally, and jehmu. Your not only losing votes because of them people are switching over as well.

I don't consider myself a Democrat, let's get that right. I consider myself a left leaning independent. Because the Republican Party has turned so far towards the right and authoritarianism in most cases they provide me with little option (though I have voted Republican in the last couple of state elections, much to my regret on the gubernatorial side) but to vote for the flawed Democratic Party which tends to only represent some of my views. I consider myself pragmatic in doing so and hopeful that eventually this choice will be less about pragmatism and eventually the country will get to a place where I can feel like I have more options. I also think as you guys continue to claim some kind of ideological victory here with this last election you may be sorely disappointed at what happens in the next couple of cycles. But that's clearly a topic for a different thread. I agree completely though that if Dems continue to play identity politics and be the party of "white men shut up and fuck off" they are going to continue to leave themselves open to situations like what happened in this last election. The goal must be to try and woo those working class voters back with a program that bespeaks to them and their needs.

At 1/30/17 03:31 AM, mothballs wrote:

At 1/30/17 02:53 AM, EdyKel wrote: Oh? Is that what you really believe, that minorities are treated better than whites

Dude, did you read what I wrote correctly? Clearly not, I said that I notice a TREND and things are shifting in that direction, not they already are. Currently whites are more privileged and anyone who believes white privilege doesn't exist is an idiot, but my point is that the far left is TRYING to make us into minorities. I don't believe that fighting racism with more racism is the way to go, and that's how things like affirmative action work (hiring someone on the basis of the color of their skin), and that's how a lot of DNC candidates are speaking now. By the way, affirmative action is very much enforced at least here in NY. I'll walk into a workplace and the demographics will be very mixed.

Yes, I know what you said. I just don't agree with any of it. If there was such a trend then the problems facing minorities would be in a better state than they currently are. I think your confusing white resentment, where people have their panties in a bunch, because they feel they are no longer at the center of things, and are blamed for everything, is the only trend I see - and that is based on observations of my old man. It was that TREND that led to Trumps victory, who represents all the anger, racism, sexism, and intolerance, that plagues the white race in this country. Now, it's going to be front and center, with apologists making excuses for all that. And a recent Reuter's poll shows that.

If you think that minorities are given more rights than whites then you are definitely not looking at the whole picture. Democrats have to pander to various interests. Their party reflects the racial makeup of the country, while the Republican party doesn't. So, Democrat have to appeal to a wide range of issues that concerns their base, including the minority problems I mentioned in my previous post. It's not so much they are creating special privileges for minorities over whites, it because they are trying to find solutions to fix an impossible problem to human nature. It's a never ending battle, with Republicans trying to undermine it or make it worse, while scaring their own base over it.

The Democrats, in the last decade, have been forced into this position, due to Republican gerrymandering to tightly pack Democrat voters into small districts, mostly urban areas, where there is more interest in minority, LGBT, and gun issues. It's gotten worse after the Supreme court allowed Southern states, controlled by Republicans, to draw up their own districts, who often draw them up by racial demographics.
Here's an interesting article on the problem, and an exert that summarizes it:

"In a conversation with The Washington Post, Peterson said that Donald Trump owes his victory to rural voters who feel they've been abandoned by a Democratic Party that has become increasingly urban and liberal. That abandonment has happened in part because of Republican efforts to gerrymander Democratic voters into tightly packed urban districts, he said. Few Democratic lawmakers now represent rural districts such as Peterson's, where voters care more about agricultural policy and trade than they do about gun control, LGBT issues or questions about minority representation."

As for affirmative actions... I have never experienced it or felt it's effects, and I live in the red part of California, and have worked in State, Federal, and for private companies. Affirmative Actions is something people like to talk about , but it pretty much dead. There is so many ways to get around it, because it's not really enforced. It has been made toothless by years neglect and of legal cases, and supreme court decisions, against it. The only time it comes up is when some minorities sue a company they claim discriminated against them by not hiring them,or it fired them unfairly. Other than that, it may still have a place in college admissions, but these days, as long as you can get a loan, you can get into most any college.

Oh, and since you live in NY, then you should be aware of the special treatment that blacks get by police, called "Stop and Frisk". Maybe you think that Blacks love the extra attention they get by being racial profiled by police. It's gotten so bad that this one news site did a story on asking one group made of whites, and another group made of blacks, and asked them about, then asked who experienced, and all the blacks raised their hands. I believe that about half a millions blacks in NY, including visitors, experienced it first hand, and the law has been under seiged by civil lawsuits. I'm sure the law supporters will say it reduced crime, but if you racial stereotyped an entire race, of course it would reduce crime, even if it was aimed at whites.

You're blowing this out of proportion. You don't see this type of rhetoric against blacks. Maybe against Mexicans and Muslim immigrants, but not blacks. You can talk about their unwillingness to stop living off government programs like welfare and Obamacare, but that doesn't come down to race, because that could be anyone, and conservative mainstream media doesn't cover it like that. At least on Fox News.

No, Conservative media often promotes these racial stereotypes through the stories they cover, how they portray those stories, and the numbers of times they bring it up, to reinforce those negative views. For example, conservative media outlets, like Fox News, are more likely to be hostile towards the Black Lives Matter movement, dismissing it, and arguing that the people shot weren't saints, and reporting it from a white perspective, not really caring why blacks are angry over the issue - hint, it has a lot to do with being racial profiled, having a higher chance at being falsely arrested, or twice as likely to go to jail than a white person for committing the same type of crime. What they report on minorities is almost always negative. And independent polls show this.

It's why 30%-60% of Republican believe, to various degrees, believe that Obama was a foreign born Muslim. The questions of where a president was born, or his religion was questioned, was never such a huge issue before, but it happened when the first African American president ran for office, and this is what the conservative media ran on. They kept questing it for years. They also often brought up stories about rumors that he was some sort of Manchurian terrorist for the Muslim brotherhood. It was the conservative media who made people believe this was true, because they kept bringing it up, and reinforcing it in people's minds. A 2010 Pew research poll showed the correlation the correlation between what people believed and what the media reported on, and and it showed that conservative Republicans were more inclined to believe it.

By the way, white people having control over most of the nation doesn't justify anti-white rhetoric.

Son, That one of the most stupidest things I have heard today. It's like saying" you should be grateful for what we allowed you to have, now stfu and know your place. It's like when the Republican Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, told Rep. John Lewis to be thankful to white people freeing blacks from Jim crow laws and slavery, while a few months before that said " ‘The enemy right now’ is ‘people of color or people of Hispanic origin’.

At 1/30/17 10:27 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Regarding videos if you have an eye for it edits, and cuts they are pretty easy to spot. You choose just to disregard them completely.

Based on users around here having a poor track record of being able to spot credible news vs. just qouting info wars, or "some guy who said something" and has no credibility. Probably should do that more case by case, guess you've got me there.

But yep Fox news is heavily republican even obnoxiously so.

And it's usually pundits pretending to be news people. MSNBC has the same problem and that's why I tend to equally disregard both as a source and would rather see a story from somebody I consider more down the middle.

I'm very curious still as to what you consider non bias objective reporting and would like to see any of those sources at all.

I link to them all the time when I feel a need to dude.

In my case I don't believe in objective media actually existing because even when a source does just provide facts they usually leave other facts out.

That can happen, yes. I've read Hunter S. Thompson make those arguments as well. But there are outlets out there that report a story without slant, and I do tend to crosscheck across the majors to see if there's anything else I can glean and to make sure the basics are lining up.

I find it much easier just to read the same story from a left leaning side, and then from a right leaning side, and even go as far to read the comment section sometimes. That way I can decide who told the truth more and see where peoples minds are at. what the left thinks, and what the right thinks, and then the average joe if I can.

I can't stand comment sections for the most part personally because they usually devolve into total shit shows after a few minutes. A bigger outlet is usually better with that....but still, the risk. It's not a bad policy you've got though I think so long as you've got a good filter.

Even facts can be interpreted in any way. facts don't always win or stop arguments.

Ah, now we diverge. Because this kind of gets into the land of "alternate facts" and other such things. Some facts may be open to interpretation sure. But then there are other facts that are not in dispute. If someone breaks the law, and let's say when the police show up they just spontaneously confess to the crime, it is now an established fact they committed the crime. No interpretation required. Other facts may show up like motive that people may interpret in certain ways according to their morals and such....but the initial fact I brought up doesn't change or require interpretation.

Well the arguments you make and the points you usually bring up don't give that impression at all.

As I think I said in this thread to mothballs....I'm a left leaning independent. My views tend to fall pretty much in line with politicians like Bernie Sanders, that's pretty clearly my bias. You're views tend to be that of the Alt Right and other more right leaning Conservatives, that's pretty clearly your bias. Because of this it seems to me probably won't agree on much policy wise, but I think as we disagree, we may find some pretty fundamental things we CAN agree on, and from that, forms the basis of good debate and to me how our government should be working.

You are so vocal and adamant in defending your positions that you come across as an elitist, and I know I saw some other users say the same. You argue very liberally. You make a lot of points to discuss at once and do not like most criticisms right wingers make about left wingers. I never once thought of you as an independent and you don't come across at all like one. While you do provide links most of the time you just bring up talking points.

I like to get a conversation going. I don't know how I can be an "elitest" honestly with my background, my current employment, and etc. I just don't believe in pretty much anything that Conservatives say or do these days. I mentioned that in the next bit. I don't recall other users flat out calling me an elitest. To be honest, I find that to be a cheap shut down tactic to simply dismiss somebody that people don't feel like arguing with or debating. It's kind of like how I'm guilty of shouting "neocon" as a dismissive really. We've all got our bad habits there I guess. In the end, I'm just here because I enjoy the free exchange of ideas, because every once in awhile I learn something.

Well i will agree that Trump is authoritarian I believe the right has chosen such a leader because the left has become increasingly intolerant of conservatives.

I don't think it's that ideologically charged honestly. I think Trump is a confluence of Schadenfreud on the part of Republicans (had the more establishment candidates like Kasich, Bush, Rubio, and Cruz put ego aside, realized Trump voters would not be dissauded as had happened in previous primaries and agreed to stand behind say Cruz and throw their support their....Trump would have lost. That's just the true math), the poor campaigning of Hillary Clinton and the arrogance of her organization and the DNC (they thought they had the thing in the bag from the beginning because Trump looked like an angry, xenophobic clown man no one could take seriously), the impact of the leaks, the FBI, the fake news stories and election interference coming at just the right time....and the power of Trump's simplistic message to the blue collar sector that he'd bring their jobs back. It was a perfect storm, but I don't think it'll be there again because I don't think this "movement" or "revolution" is based on something rock solid and sustainable. But I think next year will be very telling on that and if the Left doesn't show up in the mid-terms, I think you and a lot of folks like you will be rightly able to come back in here and have a good laugh on me.

It also does not help that protesters for the left has been more violent.

Isolated incidents. Just like violence at Trump rallies tended to be isolated incidents. By far these demonstrations have been peaceful, legal, and within the law. I deplore that ANY violence on ANY side has occurred. But I think this is being blown out of proportion as a way to try to drown out and down play the very real unrest and anger there is towards the policies of the current administration.

But I agree this would make sense to bring up in his thread. Should I quote this part of the post there and discuss the protest in more detail?

I'm not sure it is appropriate honestly to be talking about protests here since we seem to be wandering away potentially from what the start of the thread is and it seems like a whole new can of worms that could support a thread by itself.

ehy man is bout time dem whites be payin man dey whites is always racist man dey just dont no it dey hide it or like dey blind an shit.