641–650 of 964 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News. The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now! .
Find one positive article from MSNBC or CNN about Trump during his presidency?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an example of how Fox is less honest than other news companies, exactly what you asked for. They let people on air spout obvious lies all the time. Find a mainstream channel that does the same. I'll wait
I am not from US. And could not care less who won. I think there is no less honest. It is simple, you lie or don't. In my eyes they are all bad, and it is up to me to inform myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE There was no pressuring over intent. The World Wildlife Fund owned the rights to WWF and sued. https://www.cnet.com/news/wrestling-loses-wwf-to-wildlife
I'm aware of that, but I don't think that changes things much. They chose to call it "entertainment," when they could have called it any number of things. But at the time they had been under increasing criticism of the matches being fixed, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your flavor of centrism is actually relatively rare. That you distrust both sides I think is the key to enabling 'the good kind' of centrism. Many with a similar viewpoint would call themselves Independent to separate themselves from the parties. The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimensio…
It's hard to say either way without getting into polling data but anecdotally, I would say the amount of people whos issue with American politics is that they trust both parties so much that they can't decide who they like so they settle for the middle is many orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people whose primary issue is that they feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.
There is a large silent majority of people who distrust both parties and ignores and avoid politics.
However I think the "trusts both" group tends to be overrepresented in the media, government and political classes because it has utility to them: hard to work with or get interviews or jobs with politicians that you've called disingenuous or bought by special interests - even when it is clearly the case.
I think there is a breed of people who watch the West Wing and see it as a utopian possible reality ("Federalists"?) and they prioritize the power and respectability of the state as more important than the results of political actions. I believe these people self-sort into these roles and are able to advance in these roles more easily because of this ideology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change. That's an understandable position, but it isn't neutrality. Especially not if the status quo is actively negative for certain people. As an aside, t…
Not the OP, but I'll counter: >You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change. It's not that I don't want ANYONE to enact change, I just don't want people with extreme views enacting change. And it's this all-or-nothing discussion that drives the country apart and makes for little or no common ground on major issues. Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Economist doesn't hide their ideology and advocacy. Unlike many "well renowned sources" (ahem... NYT)
What would you think the ideology of the Economist is and where in their website do you get that from? Just asking for the sake of argument.
I listen to their articles and they often repeat this.
Literally typing this into Google would have provided you with the link to their website.
https://www.economist.com/news/2020/06/19/frequently-asked-q...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal. As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”. In a society with a capitalist (including most modern mixed) economy, “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal, because the status quo elites in a capitalist society are those empowered by and dependent on…
> As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”. That's a very narrow understanding of conservativism. > “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal Conservatives have often taken steps to restrict market forces, that forced radical changes. So no - you cannot generalize conservativism to "economically liberal". But rather than listeni…
...which amounts to “lots of people have used it lots of conflicting ways, some even denying it has meaning.” Which, as someone with a political science degree with cobsiderable exposure to both political philosophy and more common political dialogue, I’m well aware of. If you accept that whole space of use and non-use, the upthread claim that you can’t be a conservative and an economic liberal at the same time is more, not less, ridiculous, so perhaps you posted your response one comment two far down the thread?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal. As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”. In a society with a capitalist (including most modern mixed) economy, “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal, because the status quo elites in a capitalist society are those empowered by and dependent on…
> As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”. That's a very narrow understanding of conservativism. > “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal Conservatives have often taken steps to restrict market forces, that forced radical changes. So no - you cannot generalize conservativism to "economically liberal". But rather than listeni…
I also don't think that being economically liberal means letting the market destroy itself or push large societal changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh- voted against Trump twice. The fact of the matter is the Ratcliffe Letter [0] shows that President Obama was given an briefing well before the Steele Dossier was leaked to the media that the Russians' had picked up intelligence that exactly that kind of fake evidence would be planted by the Clinton campaign. I really don't believe in a coincidence that big and unless Steele was simultaneously a Russian and Clin…
> Sigh- voted against Trump twice. You cannot vote "against" someone in any election except a recall. Who you voted for is who you voted for . Simple example: When I voted for Howie Hawkins in 2020, who was my vote "against"?
Voted Libertarian this election and McMullin last. Both were ways to keep my vote away from Trump, though I had historically voted near straight party Republican most years (never actually straight ticket, just close.)
Going forward no party gets my allegiance and I'll vote per person/issue, but Trump was the turning point.
When you feel a civic duty to vote, but none of the candidates are really acceptable, I'll vote 'against' the worst by picking the least objectionable, until the whole country gets the Nevada option of 'none of the above.'