Jump to content

Politics 2016 (election edition)

lost highway

By lost highway,
in Tongue-Tied Lightning

 Share Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Doug C

Doug C

Posted
Posted

Also, even if Michael Moore completely made it up, it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Actually that is the definition of untrue.

 

Actually it isn't. Moore could completely fabricate the story that he posted, but it could still have happened exactly as he imagined it. A made up story, but a true event.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

Actually it isn't. Moore could completely fabricate the story that he posted, but it could still have happened exactly as he imagined it. A made up story, but a true event.

That is super weird way of looking at things. I am having a hard way of wrapping my head around that logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh

Winston Legthigh

Posted
Posted

That is super weird way of looking at things. I am having a hard way of wrapping my head around that logic.

What's so hard to understand.

 

"It's raining right now in Des Moines." I just made that up. I don't know if it's true or false. But it might be true.

 

Moore is a dubious source of "facts," but just because he doesn't want to reveal his mole doesn't mean he's lying. Journalists protect their moles all the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

John Smith

Posted
Posted

Dana Perino had a series of tweets yesterday about polling. Essentially her tweets were a reaction to Fox selling the notion of not trusting the polls (again). They seem pretty honest and take a realistic look at the situation. I would post a link, but I'm on my phone and not very handy with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

What's so hard to understand.

 

"It's raining right now in Des Moines." I just made that up. I don't know if it's true or false. But it might be true.

 

Moore is a dubious source of "facts," but just because he doesn't want to reveal his mole doesn't mean he's lying. Journalists protect their moles all the time. 

 

I guess it comes down to belief and truth.  You can certainly believe something, but belief does not make it truth.

 

Is the Trump story likely, based upon what we know about him, sure.  Is it a fact, not at all.  And that what has been bothering me the last couple of days.  Is people seem to be having a double standard based upon where the information is coming from.  

 

Take the Clinton story from a couple of days ago, when Pharma Bro and others said that she had Parkinson's or whatnot.  There is about as much verifiable fact with that story as with Michael Moore's.  I just think we need to approach major stories like these with a heavy dose of skepticism.  And it is yes, because Moore  wants to protect his source doesn't mean he is lying.  But it doesn't mean he is telling the truth either.  I guess the biggest reason I have trouble accepting this story is that is coming from Moore, who you admit is a dubious source of facts.  If this story came from someone else, it would be more believable and more likely in my mind is true.  

 

I think our political process would be much better if we where more skeptical and that is my point.  We run into a dangerous situation when we blindly accept things just because we like the content and it affirms our world view.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
jff

jff

Posted
Posted

What I want to know is, what the hell is going on in Rio?

 

My gut reaction is that this is Rio's attempt at damage control.  it not only silences the people that were pulled from the airplane (even if only temporarily), but it will cause others to think twice about reporting criminal activity that is all but guaranteed to happen during the remainder of the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh

Winston Legthigh

Posted
Posted (edited)

My gut reaction is that this is Rio's attempt at damage control.  it not only silences the people that were pulled from the airplane (even if only temporarily), and it will cause others to think twice about reporting criminal activity that is all but guaranteed to happen during the remainder of the games.

But isn't the problem that they didn't report the criminal activity? (to the police?)

 

 

Edit: Uh oh... (read the "update" at the end of this story). Brazil says they have video of Lochte fighting security at a gas station...

 

Blame Lochte's mom. He made up a little lie to tell his mom, and she flipped her shit and started talking to the media.

 

Jeah?

Edited by Winston Legthigh
Link to post
Share on other sites
jff

jff

Posted
Posted

But isn't the problem that they didn't report the criminal activity? (to the police?)

 

 

Edit: Uh oh... (read the "update" at the end of this story). Brazil says they have video of Lochte fighting security at a gas station...

 

Blame Lochte's mom. He made up a little lie to tell his mom, and she flipped her shit and started talking to the media.

 

Jeah?

 

I was unaware of these facts.  It's certainly possible that these guys are just typical entitled douchebag alpha-jocks.

 

Neither scenario would surprise me in the least.  But knowing athletes were being removed from their flights home would certainly make me think twice about talking about being the victim of a crime (real or made up) at least until I was safely back home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

The funny thing is, is that Moore's theory has apparently been floating around for a while, and is even believed by righty blogs.

 

THEORY!  That is perfect.  It is fine to believe in a theory.  I am not saying we can't believe this story.  I am not saying it isn't true (nor am I saying it is false).  I am saying we shouldn't take it as fact.  

 

Yes there has been opinion pieces written about this as far back as April (from Salon and national review, etc.)  But Moore states in his article, "I know this for a fact."  When you say that you better offer proof.  He doesn't.  That is my issue.  It is a fine theory, it is an opinion, it is not a fact.  Now, other news organizations are picking up this story.  So that is a thing.  I guess in the public's mind it now fact.  

 

Just because a shitty documentarian (his movies from a movie stand point are pretty terrible, regardless of content), knows a guy who said this thing about Trump, we need to take it as face value?  I just feel that we need to question where he is coming from.  It is our duty in a democracy to question it.  Or at least take a step back from it.  Doug C actually did that when he said I wish he had named names.  But he believes it.  I never had an issue of him believing it (and maybe I did not make it that clear).  I have an issue with Moore saying it is fact, with no proof.  To be truthful, it is a very plausible theory and one that makes sense.  But it is not a fact.    

 

I have come to my end on this (hopefully).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh

Winston Legthigh

Posted
Posted

That John Podesta is Hillary's campaign manager, and the Podesta Group (the lobbying group that he founded) took money from pro-Yanukovych groups (as well as other shady governments - such as Azerbaijan and Albania).

 

Manafort seemingly resigned due to the bad connections he's had with pro-Russia Ukrainian sources. But some of the money they took was routed directly to the Podesta Group.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-sources-manafort-tied-to-undisclosed-foreign-lobbying/ar-BBvJ0rk?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=HPDHP

 

Seems like nobody's hands are clean here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
uncool2pillow

uncool2pillow

Posted
Posted

Manafort out.  Ties to Kremlin.

Scary fucker. I'm glad he's gone, but hope it doesn' t help Trump in the campaign. Here are some words I put on the internet earlier this week.

 

 

 

I rarely post political items on Facebook. One reason why is that the issues are usually much more complex than a typical Facebook post can address; so forgive the length of this post. I will comment on other people’s posts, but don’t go out of the way to instigate discussions that inevitably end up divisive without changing anyone’s minds.

I post this in hopes that maybe it will change minds. This piece articulates well the core reason I will not vote for Donald Trump. His campaign has already caused significant damage to our national principle of “E pluribus unum (Out of many, one)”. Iowans may remember when some kids from Dallas Center – Grimes high school chanted “Trump” during a basketball game against heavily Latino Perry. That fills me with sadness and anger.

We can be a much better people than the Trump campaign aspires to. His primary campaign tactics are to prey on fear, anger, and divisiveness. He has, on numerous occasions, condoned political violence.

 

There are many candidates in this race besides Trump and Clinton. I fear, though, a vote for anyone other than Clinton will only increase Trump’s chances. I am hoping for a landslide of the likes of 1984 when Reagan won every state save Minnesota and the District of Columbia. Only then can the majority of this country speak with pride about our true principles.

Clinton is far from my ideal candidate. I believe she is corrupt and dishonest in many ways. This country has survived other corrupt administrations. I fear the damage Trump can cause and has already caused will be more difficult to undo compared to whatever happens under 4-8 years of a Clinton administration.

I was a lifelong (moderate) Republican until Trump became the GOP’s standard bearer. I have voted strongly, though not exclusively Republican; and though there are issues with which I have always disagreed with my party, I was proud to belong to the party I grew up watching my parents expending so much time and energy to support.

 

If you are going to vote for Trump, so be it. I am not going to “unfriend” you online or off. I might secretly question your sanity, but that’s okay because you’re probably secretly questioning mine. Maybe you think he is the lesser between two evils. If you are a parent or grandparent, aunt or uncle, I hope that you let the children in your life know that Trump’s lack of civility, divisiveness, and crudeness are not the ideal traits in a president or any human being for that matter. We are better than that.

 

Now, back to pictures of kids, pets and food and silly observations on life, sports, and music…

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

So, my question is: Why isn't Podesta getting the same kind of media heat that Manafort did?

 

I am not sure the ties were as strong, or the influence is a much.  I really don't know much about it and have only seen the little blurb you referenced.  But honestly, Clinton is not that big of news story.  Trump for all of his faults brings in huge ratings for TV.  Look at the last couple of weeks, Clinton has hardly been heard from, whereas it has been wall to wall Trump.  I don't think the Manafort Ukraine thing really is that big of deal.  But because it was involved with Trump and his dumpster fire of a campaign it got covered more.  

 

The thing in with media today, it is there to make money.  Journalism has become secondary.  That is why I find it so amusing that Trump sees the media as unfair to him.  Trump is a personality that gets people to tune in.  The news is gonna find ways to get money out of him.  Just think how boring this would be if it was Jeb Bush?  OMG an election about policy and how best to run the country?  Instead it is a reality show, disguised as news.  The media created Trump, and the media feeds off his crazy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Followers 2
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...