P&R bullsh#t that clogs up the Dbag thread

[knapplc]

I'll just put it out there. Personally, I don't think it makes two squirts of piss who gets elected president. The real powers behind this country aren't elected by the people. The whole election process is nothing more than a way of keeping citizens divided and distracted from the fact we have no say in how this country is run. They pick the candidates and we dance like monkeys arguing about Hillary being a criminal and Trump being a racist/sexist.

The real governing bodies behind the United States are not elected officials, they are chosen by themselves. I have no facts to base these claims off. I don't spend hours on anonymous websites. These are just things I believe to be true based off my perception of our government and country.

Do with that what you will. Poke holes in it and offer information all you want, I'm pretty open minded.

I agree. The President doesn't have near the power people would like to believe. The Rothschild family basically runs the world.

The world is run by the Pentaverate. Everyone knows this.

 

[Landlord]

Like I said, congrats. Your informed research knows no limits. You proved that Donald Trump cares about....stuff.

Now, why is it important?

I know knapp already mentioned it, but it is extremely important for citizens of a democracy to be well-informed. You make the claim that we don't really have any power and that people behind the scenes are running the whole thing.

Maybe you're right. Imagine if all of America was informed of that truth. Do you think 300 million people would be okay with it? I don't. I think people would be pissed and would fight back once they realized their freedom was an illusion. That's what being informed does, and especially in the face of the Trump administration, it is important to hold onto facts and lies, because they're going to try and turn everything into an ambiguous mystery where only Trump has the answers.

 

[Redux]

That's why they prefer the two party system, it keeps us distracted and divided.

I'm just saying, Trump's ball park mention that he saw 1.5 million, not 250k people at his inauguration is pretty insignificant to debate over.

 

[knapplc]

Here's a pretty good rundown of why you should care.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/5ppsp0/in_regards_to_the_whose_inauguration_crowd_was/dcsvcci/

 

[Danny Bateman]

So, I'm curious Redux.

You seem averse to media, which is understandable. There is implicit bias, sometimes almost none, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, in any reporting. I've always thought it was best to try to read stuff from a variety of reputable sources to try to get a well-rounded view and hack through the bias as best we can. Just because there is bias in something doesn't mean it's useless if we can see through it.

But fact is fact.

What do you personally use to get info on something? Is it just conversations with other people? Do you have a particular outlet you trust? I'm just trying to figure out how you get informed on stuff you want to learn about.

If I feel strongly enough to look into a hot topic I tend to discuss it with people I know first. I know enough people that swing majorly both ways that I can come up with an unbiased opinion from that. Then I will read up on the matter. I don't have one specific location for learning information.

I guess you could say I have madsive trust issues with believing the media and internet.

I'd venture to guess that's how a lot of people operate. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'd strongly encourage you continuing to read up on stuff that's really important to you. The only thing that could trip you up is if the group of people you talk to regularly consume a particularly partisan news source (say if they all got all their news from Fox News or MSNBC). Your worldview would then be shaped correspondingly secondhand.

There's a bunch of people in here making an impassioned case FOR the media. Personally I feel like we've been building towards this moment for a long time - at least ever since the Fairness Doctrine died under Reagan. That was the start of the proliferation of unashamed partisan media. Now we've got a gigantic right-wing media structure telling lots of people that conservatives don't get a fair shake by the media writ large. But then you look at some of the editorial decisions Fox News makes and the agenda they have - that knife definitely cuts both ways. But a partisan environment is the one in which we live, and so we've got to try to just sift through the news we do get and learn what we can from it.

I will say this: Sometimes the MSM tries to create some pretty stupid narratives to fill time when they don't have an obvious one.

But again, it bears repeating: A fact is still a fact.

Not alternative facts. Not "disagreeing with the facts." Those are both really tortured ways to say "not factual".

Facts are still out there, still being reported by good reporters. It's on us to find them and sift through the fluff that can envelop them.

 

[Redux]

Here's a pretty good rundown of why you should care.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/5ppsp0/in_regards_to_the_whose_inauguration_crowd_was/dcsvcci/

Link doesn't want to open for me. EDIT, got it. A bunch of people disagreeing on reddit is why I should care? I mean, f#*k, is this how the next 4 years are gonna go? Trump is generally disliked so every day we are going to nitpick everything the guy says and pretend it's some giant ordeal when he's wrong? Wake me when he does something I should care about like actually takes rights away.
I'll just say this. Today, while we were arguing what a big deal it was that Trump was innacurate in his crowd size assumptions, he was doing president things that actually matter.

Donald Trump said something outlandish

 

[knapplc]

For a guy who's so not into this conversation, you're pretty argumentative.

You want to be stupid, you want to be ignorant of facts? Fine. Be ignorant. Just don't vote, don't talk about politics, don't b!^@h about politics here, and don't b!^@h AT the people who do care. Because we'll do all the heavy lifting for your sorry a$$ from now on.

f#*k this sh#t. I'm done with you.

 

[Mierin]

Here's a pretty good rundown of why you should care.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/5ppsp0/in_regards_to_the_whose_inauguration_crowd_was/dcsvcci/

Link doesn't want to open for me. EDIT, got it. A bunch of people disagreeing on reddit is why I should care? I mean, f#*k, is this how the next 4 years are gonna go? Trump is generally disliked so every day we are going to nitpick everything the guy says and pretend it's some giant ordeal when he's wrong? Wake me when he does something I should care about like actually takes rights away.
I'll just say this. Today, while we were arguing what a big deal it was that Trump was innacurate in his crowd size assumptions, he was doing president things that actually matter.

Donald Trump said something outlandish

Why the crowd size thing matters is going completely over your head.

The reason it matters is because a President shouldn't give a single f#*k about it but keeps obsessing about and because he's having his people lie about it.

a) he talked about it in a speech to the CIA in front of a wall which is a memorial to fallen CIA members.

He talked about it in a meeting with the 8 important members of congress

This isn't the sign of a rational/mature person who is going to handle actual real problems well.

b) he had his minions lie about it when there is evidence for everyone to see that they're lying. This is important, not because anyone should give a sh#t about the crowd size, but because if they're willing to lie about this petty inconsequential sh#t that doesn't matter, what are they going to lie about for the next 4 years and possibly beyond?

 

[Scratchtown]

I'm glad I didn't spend half a days time to convince someone of something that doesn't matter on a message board.

But keep going. I would like to see if you guys can change Redux' mind. My money is on that you won't.

 

[Landlord]

I'm glad I didn't spend half a days time to convince someone of something that doesn't matter on a message board.

If nobody spent time trying to talk about things that don't matter on messageboards, this website wouldn't exist, because there would be zero members with zero posts.

 

[Redux]

For a guy who's so not into this conversation, you're pretty argumentative.

You want to be stupid, you want to be ignorant of facts? Fine. Be ignorant. Just don't vote, don't talk about politics, don't b!^@h about politics here, and don't b!^@h AT the people who do care. Because we'll do all the heavy lifting for your sorry a$$ from now on.

f#*k this sh#t. I'm done with you.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why I don't go to the P&R forum. People take sh#t way too personally.
I never once said that Trump was right, I never ignored your facts. I'm simply not as invested in this non story as you and others are. That apparantely makes me a jacka$$ or stupid or whatever. But I'm the one who didn't lose sleep over it and you are the one who was so obsessed with it that when you couldn't convince me it was a big deal you threw a tantrum.

 

[Redux]

Here's a pretty good rundown of why you should care.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/5ppsp0/in_regards_to_the_whose_inauguration_crowd_was/dcsvcci/

Link doesn't want to open for me. EDIT, got it. A bunch of people disagreeing on reddit is why I should care? I mean, f#*k, is this how the next 4 years are gonna go? Trump is generally disliked so every day we are going to nitpick everything the guy says and pretend it's some giant ordeal when he's wrong? Wake me when he does something I should care about like actually takes rights away.I'll just say this. Today, while we were arguing what a big deal it was that Trump was innacurate in his crowd size assumptions, he was doing president things that actually matter.

Donald Trump said something outlandish

Why the crowd size thing matters is going completely over your head.The reason it matters is because a President shouldn't give a single f#*k about it but keeps obsessing about and because he's having his people lie about it.

a) he talked about it in a speech to the CIA in front of a wall which is a memorial to fallen CIA members.

He talked about it in a meeting with the 8 important members of congress

This isn't the sign of a rational/mature person who is going to handle actual real problems well.

b) he had his minions lie about it when there is evidence for everyone to see that they're lying. This is important, not because anyone should give a sh#t about the crowd size, but because if they're willing to lie about this petty inconsequential sh#t that doesn't matter, what are they going to lie about for the next 4 years and possibly beyond?

That's why I didn't vote for him. He's egotistical and has no experience. But the election is over.

No the problem is that everyone is allowing it to be a giant problem. EVERYONE who voted either for or against him knew that he spews words at random with no factual data to back them up. He talks, a lot. This shouldn't be a surprise.

Now are we really going to pretend this nonsense is some precursor for the President lying for 4 years? Of course he will, they all do! Obama was just more eloquent about it.

 

[Enhance]

The notion that we have to research the news to find the news that's factual is pretty telling.

And "fake" is am extreme term. I would use the phrase "convenient". Most major media still put out real news (with obvious bias). It's the stories that become major stories that are being manipulated or used. We have multiple channels that offer news, and none of them hide which way their bias swings. That's nice for those of us still needing that guidance and want to be affiliated with one party.

We've been asking people for decades to research the news and find what's factual. Tabloids, e-mags and radical journalism have existed almost as long as journalism has. This again goes back to the idea or notion that media bias is somehow a relatively new construct. The truth is simple - media bias has existed almost as long as this country.

 

[Redux]

The notion that we have to research the news to find the news that's factual is pretty telling.

And "fake" is am extreme term. I would use the phrase "convenient". Most major media still put out real news (with obvious bias). It's the stories that become major stories that are being manipulated or used. We have multiple channels that offer news, and none of them hide which way their bias swings. That's nice for those of us still needing that guidance and want to be affiliated with one party.

We've been asking people for decades to research the news and find what's factual. Tabloids, e-mags and radical journalism have existed almost as long as journalism has. This again goes back to the idea or notion that media bias is somehow a relatively new construct. The truth is simple - media bias has existed almost as long as this country.

Yes, it has. But with information as readily available as it is today, it becomes harder and harder to sift through the crap to find the factual information without strong bias.
It's not impossible though and can be done relatively easily if something is that important to you to look up.

 

[Landlord]

If it's easy to do, then it should be done for things that aren't even that important.