The current climate of politics D vs R

[pucho812]

This guy gets it. So I am sharing
I thought this was really good.
watch the pinned video talking about why trump won...

https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/videos/1044777035645189/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
[/quote]

 

[fazer]

I like this but a friend of a friend posted this on FB

Age and experience has taught me (in regard to election results) not to be euphoric when my platform wins, not to despair when my platform loses, and not to vilify the people on the other side of the conversation.
We cannot assume motives onto others, and I would hope others would not assume motives onto me, based on the platform that each chose to support.
Be kind, be gracious, and be mindful that our hope is and always will be, in God and God alone!

 

[pucho812]

I agree.

I have been keeping low profile about  the results and kept my feelings to me.  I am more excited about the process and how it was done, how if necessary we have a system that allows for things to change. 

 

[sodderboy]

Have you ever read Rich Dad Poor Dad?  One of the big concepts there is that the very nature of government bureaucracies is to get larger, to spend more.  There are NO market efficiencies built into bureaucracies the way they are in nature.  If we acted the DC "R and D" way in our personal or professional lives it would be a train wreck of inefficiency, over-indulgence, and subsequent doubling/tripling-down thereof.

The system corrupted over the last 100+ years will be very difficult to change.  But then Donald J Trump is someone who took-out the Bushes, the Clintons, AND the Obamas. . .

 

[john12ax7]

The system corrupted over the last 100+ years will be very difficult to change.  But then Donald J Trump is someone who took-out the Bushes, the Clintons, AND the Obamas. . .

It's funny that people complain about oligarchy but then support Clinton. Haven't we supposedly done away with the whole idea  of royal families? I didn't vote for Trump but did find the whole idea of "drain the swamp" appealing. Problem is he seems to be gravitating to the same insider cronies now that he has been elected.

 

[pucho812]

Well draining a swamp takes time I suppose.    just pulling the drain plug is not enough.

 

[benb]

I've seen it, a couple of conservative friends have posted it on Facebook. I sent it as a private message to a liberal friend who was, I forget exactly, "looking for some sort of justification from the other side" but he said he was not impressed with this video

But I thought the thread might have been along the lines of this guy's writing here, from March of this year: 
https://michaelhyatt.com/disrespect-poisons-presidential-race.html

 

[dmp]

I think it is obvious that Democrates lost the propaganda war if that is the point of the dude's video rant. 
Hillary was a weak candidate that voters didn't connect with - and she really didn't have a message that got through to people - especially rural.  She couldn't compete with the volume of the attacks.
Unfortunately, "all liberals" don't move in a herd. There was a lot of dissent. The conservatives seemed much more united with anti-government, anti Obama fervor.
The "D vs. R" in the title is the most depressing point. So many people picked their side and then went all out to destroy the other side. Using facebook propaganda like this to stoke up the base. Nobody has captured this the way Trump did before because he embodied it. Before this election season could you imagine a candidate calling their opponent a nasty person while they were talking about social security in a national Presidential debate? Life has become absurd.

 

[fazer]

I always wanted Bernie and Trump to run.  That way your flipping the  Finger to both parties.  The D vs R means we fight each other instead of the Parties that put the common man against each other    I love the fact that all the money was on Hillary who out spent Trump 2 to 1 on negative ads and in the end big money lost.    That is a statement of the absurd  nature of Citizens United.  God I hope that its repealed for all our sake.

 

[pucho812]

I think that clinton losing shows exactly how ineffective citizens united really is. That may or not be rule of thumb as far as spending and winning or losing an election But boy if there ever was an example  that money does not equate to a win it's that one.

 

[dmp]

Citizen's united was a case where a law got overturned - so I'm not sure how to understand it being "ineffective".
The Citizen's United decision basically said the 1st amendment protected advertisements or other media (a 'documentary' in the actual case) whether paid for by individuals or corporations, no matter how overt the politics or falsehoods.
As a strong free speech supporter, I agreed with this decision, even if it allowed some pretty undesirable outcomes.
There was much more to it, however, than simply the candidate spending on traditional media advertising.
This is an interesting subject to keep in mind with the amount of outright propaganda and fake-news in the past year, and it's influence on the election. In my opinion, this past election was the equivalent of a person buying a $500 audiofile USB cable.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes... protected speech is important (we agree).

Modern media and the rapid dissemination of information raises a new 21st century problem. Misinformation can be spread and damage done faster than the truth squad pooper scoopers can sanitize the mess.  Not like the good old days when fast breaking news arrived via pony express. (no I'm not actually that old).

Zukerburg at FB is wrestling with this right now. While fake news sites may be less than 1% of all news feeds, modern  elections can be decided by less than 1% of the popular vote so fake news "could" (not saying it was) be significant.

The humans curating news feeds at FB were found to have bias, so he is moving to machine decision making, perhaps news fact checking is a good application for AI.

------------

@Pucho:  yes, Hillary spent more than Trump, but neither were very typical or normal candidates so I would be careful about drawing hard lessons from the outcome. As much as Hillary looked like a classic presidential candidate on paper  (perhaps a little too much), and had compelling advantages going for her (1st woman, government experience, etc), the classic democratic faithful did not show up in adequate numbers this year. I will leave it to others to speculate why. I expect both party leaders are scrambling to get their old bands back together by 2020.

I saw an interesting news item where major ad agencies are rethinking how so many "experts" got it wrong and were so out of touch with so many voters.  Of course the ad agency has simple mercenary intent, how to sell more razor blades to flyover state Freddie. I expect the political consultants to be doing some soul searching too.

Could be a tense thanksgiving holiday for some families, but not as bad as during the civil war when families literally went to war against close relatives and even siblings. 


JR

 

[fazer]

Repeal/Overturn, the Citizens United Decision is what I meant to say.  It is a more complex issue than I originally understood but ,  Its we the people not we the corporation and or union. 

The complex nature has more to do with the freedom of the press being able to endorse a candidate which is a big corporation but another corporation cannot.  1947 Taft Hartley act is overturned in one decision.    What do you do?