U.S. Politics

STS

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
32,798
You say ignore the "trolls" and then intentionally call them out with @ mentions... :unsure:

BTW - @ mentions also work in quoted posts.

2FA when? I am sure many of us would pay for the feature to be implemented, if it tis possible :p
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
25,196
Why did the share prices of construction companies, and a few other industries jump when we managed to win the right to host the Soccer world cup?
Share prices went up because people wanted to invest in construction companies and so demand for their shares went up and pushed the share price up... Please explain why a cancelled pipeline would have any effect on the price of energy?
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,841
HAHAHAHAHA :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:

 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,841
Share prices went up because people wanted to invest in construction companies and so demand for their shares went up and pushed the share price up... Please explain why a cancelled pipeline would have any effect on the price of energy?

I think he might actually be under the impression that share price = energy price...
 

daelm

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
1,348
Since...

The previous threads had by their own titles, run their course. This one is a little more open ended

...i'm going to be referencing some of the major claims thrown about in these kinds of discussions and contextualising and testing them.

to start with:

"the "left" is behind Biden" and "the left is a lockstep juggernaut tolerating only a party line".

this is usually used as an introductory statement, supporting a range of conspiracy claims. the idea is that, if you accept this, it follows that Biden is, therefore, a front for whatever the "left" is defined as by the poster. not only does this wholly misunderstand the nature of the "left", which a vastly divergent group of people, organizations, and policies, that largely disagrees, it also is factually untrue on its own merits. the recognised left has been actively against Biden for a long time, and still are. a sample range of the vastly greater literature is provided, below.


"...if Biden followed through on his campaign promise to introduce “card check” legislation to make it easier to organize unions, it wouldn’t become law. But if he used his inaugural address to talk about how powerless workers are when they don’t have unions, it would be a boon to organizing campaigns in “blue” states and cities — harkening back to the 1930s, when CIO organizers told workers “the president wants you to join a union.” It would also make life less comfortable for Republicans who pretend to want to bring back good jobs but don’t like to talk about the strong unions that made those jobs “good” in the first place. The reason that Biden won’t engage in this all-out attack on the power of the bosses isn’t that Republicans are somehow stopping him. It’s that he doesn’t want to do it."


"Joe Biden’s new COVID-19 relief plan does not adopt existing Democratic legislation to expand government-sponsored medical coverage nor does it propose a promised public health insurance option. Instead, it adopts proposals from health insurance lobbying groups’ recent letter to lawmakers demanding lucrative new subsidies for insurance companies, at a moment when those corporations have recorded record profits as millions lose coverage and many face claims denials."


"The left’s influence on Democratic elites has indeed been extremely limited. This is less a consequence of any particular feature of the Sanders era—over many years, many different progressive candidates with many different political styles and orientations toward the party establishment have similarly failed to move it—than of elite hostility to the left and its policies, which they consider substantively bad, politically risky, or both."




in terms of " the left", whatever that is, policing dissent and enforcing a party line, I will only be pointing to this:


"Nearly all of the House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump have either already been formally censured by local branches of the G.O.P., face upcoming censure votes or have been publicly scolded by local party leaders. Efforts across the country to punish these lawmakers offer vivid illustrations of the divisions cleaving a party that has been shut out of power."


edit: all of these claims of a conspiracy against the right-wing fall under the banner of tactical extremism. as this article, below, discusses, this is not a new and anomalous approach. the GOP recovered from its losses in the 60s and 70s precisely by utilising it, and the Reagan administration was granted the opportunity to entrench it as the official GOP platform. that has never gone away, and these kinds of claims should be understood as today's iteration of the same.

 
Last edited:

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,680
What prices? Construction prices? You're not making sense.

Ok.
So pipelines are the cheapest way of transporting oil.



When you can't build pipelines what happens?
 

DavidFreeman

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
1,197
But let's assume for discussion purposes there was a whole lot of cheating and skulduggery involved in getting him to president.
Now that he is president a burden is also placed on him to perform for the benefit of the population as a whole.
Is it not better to judge him as president on outcomes, rather than any schitfukkery created previously by the party to which he belongs?
He had 48 years to prove himself and create good outcomes, how much more time should he be given? I would have to be as ignorant as a CNN viewer to believe he will do any good, or anything that is for the good of the population.

He has shown that he is not only incompetent, but a corrupt warmongering criminal, who has no integrity and lies almost every time he speaks. He stands for nothing, and will say and do anything if it benefits himself and those who are in power. As Obama said himself: "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f#@k things up."

Obama probably chose him as VP because he knew that he would never get impeached, since everyone would be terrified of the prospect of Biden becoming president.

Biden's policies belong to his party, because he doesn't stand for anything. As I previously explained, their policies are extremely misguided, and are proven to do an incredible amount of harm. The left believes they are doing good because they base their decisions on feelings, and don't care that reality shows that their actions have the opposite outcome of what is intended. They never ask themselves if something actually does good, as long as it makes them feel good.

Those who are in power have their own agendas for enacting harmful policies, so they don't care that the real outcomes are worse than if they had done nothing at all. It's really no different from the corrupt ANC, who make promises which appeal to emotion, enact policies which end up doing more harm, all so that they can stay in power, get tenders and loot the tax payers dry.

The real reason for the divide we see in society today is a hard pill to swallow. It comes down to one side having principals, and the other having none. The left doesn't care that they are hypocrites, even though it completely invalidates their arguments, because if being a hypocrite helps the left, they will be hypocrites. If lying helps them, they will lie. If cheating allows them to win, then they will cheat. They simply have no morals or values, and don't even hold consistent positions. The only thing they have ever cared about is power and control, and they will stop at nothing to get power and retain control. In their mind, they are morally superior and everyone else is an evil nazi, so they believe the ends justify the means.
 

surface

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
13,041
You say ignore the "trolls" and then intentionally call them out with @ mentions... :unsure:

BTW - @ mentions also work in quoted posts.
It was intentional. I hope it is not against forum rules.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,841
Ok.
So pipelines are the cheapest way of transporting oil.



When you can't build pipelines what happens?

The pipeline was never built. It was never operational. So how does keeping it un-built and un-operational (in other words, keeping things exactly the way they are), cause energy prices to rise?
 

AlmightyBender

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
5,966
The pipeline was never built. It was never operational. So how does keeping it un-built and un-operational (in other words, keeping things exactly the way they are), cause energy prices to rise?
Possibly because of futures contracts. But I don't see anyone providing existence to demonstrate this so, oh well
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
20,335
Remember, your efforts are not wasted. (and many others here). You guys brought up many significant points talking to the crazies. It is something like Sam Harris or Dillahunty said - when you debate x, you are not really debating x, you are making sure others (who are reading/viewing) benefit from debate.

:ROFL: :ROFL: I suspect they have put me on ignore so it is safe to take their names. :p

@DreamKing , @DavidFreeman and @NarrowBandFtw
I've never put anyone on ignore and I never will fyi
 

daelm

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
1,348
Number 2, in an incidental series.
___________________________

"the 'media' is left-wing" and/or "the media persecutes the right-wing"

this claim is predominantly used to cast doubt on any information that undermines a conservative position. the notional "media" in this construct can expand and contract at will according to the needs of the poster. for example, if a Google search highlights evidence counter to a right-wing claim, the response will be that Google is part of the left-wing media. if another Google search foregrounds a position aligned to a right-wing poster's views, no mention will be made of Google's supposed left-wing bias. similar dynamics play out with links to Twitter.

the claim also serves to provide a sense of victimhood - vocal right-wing proponents have an emotional commitment to being perceived as victims of an unjust series of attacks, usually by a faceless juggernaut of some or other description. (this trope is common across the spectrum of right-wing politics and leads to the mildly funny sight of some of the richest and most powerful men who have ever existed in history publicly claiming to be oppressed.)

the emergence of this trope, in my experience, tracks closely to the wide-spread viewing of Star Wars and the creation of a whole number of spin-off movies wherein a plucky band of steelworkers etc have to start an army against an invading force of communists/robots/aliens/Nicaraguans/etc. right-wingers seem to love those movies, as can be seen in the exponential growth in sales of outdoor gear amongst white people living in suburbs.



"...the study focused on the impact of one conglomerate in particular: Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns 191 stations that reach almost 40% of the U.S. population. Since 1990, Sinclair has been on a buying binge that took it from being a bit player to the nation’s biggest owner of local stations. It also has attracted attention for its conservative political leaning. During the 2016 election campaign, for example, Sinclair stations aired 15 “exclusive” interviews with Donald Trump. In 2017, it hired a former Trump White House official as its chief political analyst and made his commentaries must-run on all stations. Last year, all of its anchors were ordered to read an identical script that echoed Trump’s rhetoric about “fake news”. "


"Sinclair’s size, rightwing politics and close connections to Donald Trump’s White House are starting to attract attention. Democrats are wading into the fray and demanding answers over Sinclair’s close ties to the Trump administration, which, they say, could mean the group is getting preferential treatment... Already the biggest broadcaster in the country, Sinclair is poised to make its biggest move yet. If the FCC approves Sinclair’s $3.9bn purchase of an additional 42 stations, it would reach into the homes of almost three-quarters of Americans.



" News Corp owns several high profile US newspapers including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the Community Newspaper Group; a range of financial papers including Barons and MarketWatch; and operates seven news information services. The company has extensive ownership in US television through the Fox network and the National Geographic channels. It owns 27 local Fox TV stations and Mr Murdoch has described the hugely influential Fox News as "simply unstoppable". "



_____________________________

The Clear Channel case

Clear Channel and IHeartMedia is a particularly instructive case since radio is an extremely active medium in the US. Clear Channel was conservative-first from its very inception, was intimately associated with the W. Bush administration, and pursued an aggressive acquisitions drive, driving independent stations out of business and buying them up. (Clear Channel spent upwards of $30 billion doing so, and owned 1200 radio stations at that point.)

in 2008, Bain Capital of Mitt Romney fame organised an LBO and took ownership, rebranding Clear Channel as IHeartMedia. from 2010 to 2019, the private equity ownership struggled to service the debt that had been taken out, and in 2019, they finally received a bankruptcy ruling that allowed them to write off 60% of their outstanding debt. oddly, during the decade when they battled "bankruptcy", IHM managed to continue their growth and acquisitions.

as it stands:

"With 855 stations, iHeartMedia is the largest radio station group owner in the United States,[61] both by number of stations and by revenue. The 855 stations reach more than 110 million listeners every week, and 245 million every month. According to BIA Financial Network, iHeartMedia recorded more than $3.5 billion in revenues as of 2005, $1 billion more than the number-two group owner, CBS Radio.[62]"

IHeartMedia was brought into the public eye a number of times, including for refusing to allow Democratic candidates to have air-time on their platform while providing free air time to their opponents. This is unsurprising as the central offering emerging from IHM's basket of news programmes consists of the triumvirate of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. IHM is largely responsible for their reach. it was also caught repeatedly using paid actors to call in to various radio shows.

the impact of both radio and television is critical, as the vast majority of Americans receive their information from those sources, and, unlike the internet, are exposed to them constantly in daily life. the rise of podcasting is beginning to make inroads though, and right-wing media is aware of that.


_____________________________

so, not only is the media not left-wing - it much more nuanced and concerning than that - but the reality is that the American electorate has decamped to its own preferred sources anyway, as the links below show. this makes the issue immaterial since constituencies are already filtering news according to their preferences.


1611490408758.png

this study in the Annual Review of Economics in 2015 (?) found similar results, with a twist, namely that the balkanization of media appeared to have little or no effect on either policy or electoral outcomes.



what it actually means when the right-wing claims to be victimised by "the left-wing media" come down to 3 things.

1. they are simply saying that they do not get their views represented on all media, in the same way that their views are represented on their own partisan outlets.

2. they are also saying that "the left's" failure to present them only in the ways they want to be represented is an assault on their freedom of speech. this is an authoritarian view, which sits poorly with their claims of authoritarianism on the part of anyone they designate an enemy. basically, they would like to force all media to cover their insane conspiracies at face value, with no investigation of them, which highlights their fundamental misunderstanding of "free speech".

3. they are ignoring that their preferred channels and outlets regularly present "the left" in terms that are both outright false and often defamatory. if challenged on this point, they revert to point 2, above.

like most right-wing tropes, it's an entirely self-sealing world view, especially since any evidence to the contrary of their claims can be classed as deriving from "the media" and is, therefore, proof of the supposed conspiracy against them. anyone engaging with these kinds of claims should take into consideration that they are seldom, if ever in good faith.


edit: the reflexive objection to all of this that is guaranteed to come is "Facebook! Twitter! the platforms!" looking into that will have to wait for the next edition. suffice it to say for now that none of the platforms create content - they have, however, allowed a rapid expansion of membership amongst communities of all persuasions who were otherwise isolated. the right-wing has capitalised on that to a very high degree and should be grateful.

btw, none of this should be read to mean that there isn't media demonisation and misrepresentation of the right-wing. there regularly is. my points are that this is consistent behaviour across the political spectrum and that the "right-wing" has an extraordinary media infrastructure of its own that suffers from very few scruples and rejects any similar attempt to hold it to account.
 
Last edited:

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,680
The pipeline was never built. It was never operational. So how does keeping it un-built and un-operational (in other words, keeping things exactly the way they are), cause energy prices to rise?

It's not only the one pipeline.
 

DavidFreeman

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
1,197
kHOgrvZA.jpeg
 

daelm

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
1,348

perfect timing. the claim in the cartoon is precisely the kind of accusation that is made, quickly followed by the insistence that others rebut it. there will, of course, be no evidence provided of the original claim.

later on, perhaps twenty pages in or on another thread, the act of posting of this image will be referred to as an "argument", in the form as follows: "as i have previously shown, the media is biased and fact-checking is a lie". (people like myself, on the other hand, will be categorised as "not providing evidence", and "not being prepared to present arguments".)
 
Last edited:

daelm

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
1,348
The pipeline was never built. It was never operational. So how does keeping it un-built and un-operational (in other words, keeping things exactly the way they are), cause energy prices to rise?

he's probably conflating the issues of proposed "energy-independence" with the price of energy. COVID hit the latter hard.


oddly enough, again (as with the dumb soy beans argument somewhere else), the price of energy increased under Trump, and collapsed in 2020 back to levels he inherited. all of this, as I've said before, has practically nothing to do with the US.
 
Top