|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Aug 27, 2016 16:21:53 GMT
Is it too early to say "Shoe's on the other foot!"? |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 27, 2016 16:48:31 GMT
Indeed I do. As much as I loathe Clinton I recognise her as a functional adult who is capable of holding high office where as Trump fails the most basic tests of being a credible candidate for the presidency. When the dreadful Hillary becomes President it will be the fault of those who nominated a walking freak show as the GOP candidate. That's what I thought you thought. So she's not you're preferred candidate out of all candidates but out of the two major party candidates she is your 'preferred candidate' That is a bit like saying that prostate cancer is my preferred medical condition simply because I would chose it over pancreatic cancer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 16:50:07 GMT
Isn't the document from Hillary's doctor actually a proper report though? Oh yes, her personal internist of many years. Presumably she's both completely impartial and totally invulnerable to any kind of pressure from one of the most powerful political families in the world so everything she says can be completely trusted (sarcasm). So Dr Bardack, who 1) has been Clinton's physician for 15 years, 2) is a senior doctor in a major medical facility, and 3) has published a complete medical report on the candidate, is not a trustworthy source, whereas Dr Bornstein, who 1) has been Trump's doctor for 35 years, 2) is a single-doctor practice, and is only qualified as a gastroenterologist, 3) published a note with no details and based on no tests or reports which was written in 5 minutes, is a trustworthy source? Well, I guess it fits in well with the Breitbart/Infowars pattern of making stuff up, and assigning all your own faults to your opponents. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 16:53:41 GMT
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 27, 2016 17:26:59 GMT
Oh yes, her personal internist of many years. Presumably she's both completely impartial and totally invulnerable to any kind of pressure from one of the most powerful political families in the world so everything she says can be completely trusted (sarcasm). So Dr Bardack, who 1) has been Clinton's physician for 15 years, 2) is a senior doctor in a major medical facility, and 3) has published a complete medical report on the candidate, is not a trustworthy source, whereas Dr Bornstein, who 1) has been Trump's doctor for 35 years, 2) is a single-doctor practice, and is only qualified as a gastroenterologist, 3) published a note with no details and based on no tests or reports which was written in 5 minutes, is a trustworthy source? Well, I guess it fits in well with the Breitbart/Infowars pattern of making stuff up, and assigning all your own faults to your opponents. It's not really relevant that he specialises in gastroenterology because he's licenced in general medicine in New York (I've just looked). Not that this makes your point less valid! |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 27, 2016 18:05:49 GMT
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,821 
|
Post by john07 on Aug 27, 2016 18:35:53 GMT
A cartoon isn't an argument. This stuff would make Lowe turn in his grave. Low. Unless you mean Arthur Lowe, you stupid boy.  Well it might work with me if I was dead! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 20:19:00 GMT
So Dr Bardack, who 1) has been Clinton's physician for 15 years, 2) is a senior doctor in a major medical facility, and 3) has published a complete medical report on the candidate, is not a trustworthy source, whereas Dr Bornstein, who 1) has been Trump's doctor for 35 years, 2) is a single-doctor practice, and is only qualified as a gastroenterologist, 3) published a note with no details and based on no tests or reports which was written in 5 minutes, is a trustworthy source? Well, I guess it fits in well with the Breitbart/Infowars pattern of making stuff up, and assigning all your own faults to your opponents. It's not really relevant that he specialises in gastroenterology because he's licenced in general medicine in New York (I've just looked). Not that this makes your point less valid! Ah, thanks for that - I should have checked, but glad you're on the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 20:21:42 GMT
You do know that's a parody account, not a Clinton campaign team account, don't you? |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 28, 2016 10:03:35 GMT
And as usual @pjones you are incapable of understanding a nuanced position that goes beyond simple slogans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 10:55:37 GMT
Conservative US radio personality Charlie Sykes is upset that people don't unquestioningly trust liberal media outlets like the New York Times uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8He spent years (correctly) saying that the liberal media were untrustworthy and when people believed him he wants to go running back to nurse. Charlie Sykes is actually making an important point - which you've both completely missed, and proved by your response. I've seen it being made in other places too recently, even (IIRC) on RedState. Once people narrow their access to information to a small group of sources, and if those sources base their appeal on saying other sources are untrustworthy, it becomes impossible to push back against manifest falsehoods with facts, because the sources are automatically labelled as 'bullshit'. Now, there are examples of this from both the left and right (and here, once again I'm trying to be fair and balanced about this, which is part of the wishy-washy lefty psyche), but by far the vast majority of this tunnel vision in the US happens on the right. It's pretty obvious to any impartial observer that Drudge, Breitbart and Infowars (to restrict ourselves to the main ones) are perfectly content to publish any old rubbish, either made up by themselves or recycled from other sites. There are right wing sites that do produce coherent stuff, but nowhere near as many or as influential. I think it's significant that on the other side, the sites which quite clearly show their left lean include the heavily data-based ones like 538 and PEC. I'm trying to remember where I read it recently, but there was a study showing that in the US, left-leaning voters got their information from a wider range of sources than right-leaning voters, and that the latter specifically focused heavily on websites like those I've mentioned plus talk radio. We all live in bubbles, but for some of us those bubbles are larger, and more permeable, than for others. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Aug 28, 2016 11:26:26 GMT
I'll repeat this I posted from last year
--
I'm reminded of a quote from Ian Hislop during the 1996 Channel 4 documentary "J'accuse Technonerds" relating to the Internet.
"People says there's information out there [on the Internet]. There's a huge amount of lies out there too, and there's an amazing selection of drivel; and in there there may well be things that are true, but how do you know. Since there's no test on them, no-one ever has to buy them, there isn't the test of the market and there isn't the test of the law cause it's impossible to get libel working on the Internet, which for some of us seems attractive, but actually on second thoughts it means nothing is believable because nothing is credible."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 11:53:38 GMT
Conservative US radio personality Charlie Sykes is upset that people don't unquestioningly trust liberal media outlets like the New York Times uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8He spent years (correctly) saying that the liberal media were untrustworthy and when people believed him he wants to go running back to nurse. Charlie Sykes is actually making an important point - which you've both completely missed, and proved by your response. I've seen it being made in other places too recently, even (IIRC) on RedState. Once people narrow their access to information to a small group of sources, and if those sources base their appeal on saying other sources are untrustworthy, it becomes impossible to push back against manifest falsehoods with facts, because the sources are automatically labelled as 'bullshit'. Now, there are examples of this from both the left and right (and here, once again I'm trying to be fair and balanced about this, which is part of the wishy-washy lefty psyche), but by far the vast majority of this tunnel vision in the US happens on the right. It's pretty obvious to any impartial observer that Drudge, Breitbart and Infowars (to restrict ourselves to the main ones) are perfectly content to publish any old rubbish, either made up by themselves or recycled from other sites. There are right wing sites that do produce coherent stuff, but nowhere near as many or as influential. I think it's significant that on the other side, the sites which quite clearly show their left lean include the heavily data-based ones like 538 and PEC. I'm trying to remember where I read it recently, but there was a study showing that in the US, left-leaning voters got their information from a wider range of sources than right-leaning voters, and that the latter specifically focused heavily on websites like those I've mentioned plus talk radio. We all live in bubbles, but for some of us those bubbles are larger, and more permeable, than for others. If we are going into that old chestnut... econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/01/intelligence_ma_1.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 12:27:11 GMT
Charlie Sykes is actually making an important point - which you've both completely missed, and proved by your response. I've seen it being made in other places too recently, even (IIRC) on RedState. Once people narrow their access to information to a small group of sources, and if those sources base their appeal on saying other sources are untrustworthy, it becomes impossible to push back against manifest falsehoods with facts, because the sources are automatically labelled as 'bullshit'. Now, there are examples of this from both the left and right (and here, once again I'm trying to be fair and balanced about this, which is part of the wishy-washy lefty psyche), but by far the vast majority of this tunnel vision in the US happens on the right. It's pretty obvious to any impartial observer that Drudge, Breitbart and Infowars (to restrict ourselves to the main ones) are perfectly content to publish any old rubbish, either made up by themselves or recycled from other sites. There are right wing sites that do produce coherent stuff, but nowhere near as many or as influential. I think it's significant that on the other side, the sites which quite clearly show their left lean include the heavily data-based ones like 538 and PEC. I'm trying to remember where I read it recently, but there was a study showing that in the US, left-leaning voters got their information from a wider range of sources than right-leaning voters, and that the latter specifically focused heavily on websites like those I've mentioned plus talk radio. We all live in bubbles, but for some of us those bubbles are larger, and more permeable, than for others. If we are going into that old chestnut... econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/01/intelligence_ma_1.htmlNo, that's completely NOT what I'm talking about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 13:03:18 GMT
No, that's completely NOT what I'm talking about. Your post appeared to me, even on re-reading as dog whistling. Apologies if I misread your tone. Further, although there is obviously a point in your post, it comes across as somewhat one eyed. Granted there are idiots who take Breitbart and the incoherent ramblings of Donald Trump as gospel, but there are loads of Sanders groupies who have similarly ridiculous and narrow views of the world - global capitalist conspiracy types. The total number of these peoples is probably depressingly high. Granted - since selection the majority of visible crakyness has been on the right, but thats because the bottom feeders on the right have been more confident and out there due to their mad candidate being selected - while the democrats have ditched their unelectable candidate and concentrated on going to the centre. If you limited your post to campaigns and maybe even parties I wouldn't argue, but my phrasing it in such broad terms I do. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Aug 28, 2016 15:26:00 GMT
I'm trying to remember where I read it recently, but there was a study showing that in the US, left-leaning voters got their information from a wider range of sources than right-leaning voters, and that the latter specifically focused heavily on websites like those I've mentioned plus talk radio. And you don't think that left leaning voters get their news heavily focused on left wing websites, newspapers and TV stations then you are wrong. In fact I think it far more likely that left leaning Americans get their news exclusively from left leaning sources to a much greater extent than right leaning Americans get theirs from right leaning sources. This is clearest in the area of television. The proportion of left wingers who get their news from right wing news channels (i.e. Fox News) will be much lower than the proportion of right wingers who get their news from left wing news channels (i.e. NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and PBS). Or newspapers. I suspect you would find that their will be more right leaning Americans reading left wing newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times etc than you would find left leaning Americans reading the Washington Times, WSJ or New York Post. The there's websites. Left wing websites include the websites of the above mention left wing TV stations and newspapers as well as Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Slate etc. Right wing websites include the websites of the above mentioned right wing TV station and newspapers as well as Drudge, Breitbart etc. Again if you are saying that left leaning Americans are more open to getting news from right wing sites then right leaning Americans are to getting their news from left wing sites I would be very surprised. I would be interested to see any study that showed that. I almost have the impression you might be American, @pjones, or at least have a strong personal connection with the USA. Am I right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 17:27:04 GMT
No, that's completely NOT what I'm talking about. Your post appeared to me, even on re-reading as dog whistling. Apologies if I misread your tone. Further, although there is obviously a point in your post, it comes across as somewhat one eyed. Granted there are idiots who take Breitbart and the incoherent ramblings of Donald Trump as gospel, but there are loads of Sanders groupies who have similarly ridiculous and narrow views of the world - global capitalist conspiracy types. The total number of these peoples is probably depressingly high. Granted - since selection the majority of visible crakyness has been on the right, but thats because the bottom feeders on the right have been more confident and out there due to their mad candidate being selected - while the democrats have ditched their unelectable candidate and concentrated on going to the centre. If you limited your post to campaigns and maybe even parties I wouldn't argue, but my phrasing it in such broad terms I do. 1. Dog whistling. You use this term a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means. 2. I was talking about sources of information. The paper you linked to (very interesting, thank you for that) is about intelligence. Intelligence is not information sourcing. 3. 'One eyed.' Did you miss this: Now, there are examples of this from both the left and right or this ? Yes there are lots of the left who are similarly limited in scope, but there is actual evidence that the numbera re greater on the American right. I do not think it is necessarily the case in the UK. 4. This is not since selection, all the sites I mention have been going for a considerable time and as the right-wing Charlie Sykes says, this has made a difference to the way those on the right view things. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Aug 28, 2016 19:17:58 GMT
Your post appeared to me, even on re-reading as dog whistling. Apologies if I misread your tone. Further, although there is obviously a point in your post, it comes across as somewhat one eyed. Granted there are idiots who take Breitbart and the incoherent ramblings of Donald Trump as gospel, but there are loads of Sanders groupies who have similarly ridiculous and narrow views of the world - global capitalist conspiracy types. The total number of these peoples is probably depressingly high. Granted - since selection the majority of visible crakyness has been on the right, but thats because the bottom feeders on the right have been more confident and out there due to their mad candidate being selected - while the democrats have ditched their unelectable candidate and concentrated on going to the centre. If you limited your post to campaigns and maybe even parties I wouldn't argue, but my phrasing it in such broad terms I do. 1. Dog whistling. You use this term a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means. Inconceivable.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 19:52:46 GMT
Yes there are lots of the left who are similarly limited in scope, but there is actual evidence that the numbera re greater on the American right. I do not think it is necessarily the case in the UK That's quite an extraordinary claim to make given that a huge number of people, especially older people, get most or all of their news from TV. There is only one channel showing news that is right leaning and that is Fox news. Almost all of its audience is right leaning, very few left wing people watch it. That means that of those left leaning people who get their news mostly or entirely from TV almost all of them will be getting it entirely from left leaning TV channels. left leaning in your view. In the view of most rational people, most American TV is neutral or right leaning. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 28, 2016 23:19:24 GMT
Murrow's piece is polemical, notwithstanding that most of the case is made up of unedited film of McCarthy. But what pjones omits to mention is that Senator McCarthy asked for a right to reply and was given one - of the same length and in the same timeslot.
|
|
