Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Cars have uses besides hurting people.  Weigh the positives and negatives and nearly everyone will conclude the value of cars is greater than their hazards.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Cars have uses besides hurting people.  Weigh the positives and negatives and nearly everyone will conclude the value of cars is greater than their hazards.

So now we weigh acceptable losses when you might lose your car.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Cars have uses besides hurting people.  Weigh the positives and negatives and nearly everyone will conclude the value of cars is greater than their hazards.

Well, here's my $0.02 as someone who doesn't like guns and doesn't own one.  Guns might not have value to you, but they clearly have value to millions of people who don't want to kill others.  And while it's easy to dismiss that as someone who doesn't like guns, I think it's important for the debate to take that into account.

So what might some of those reasons be, and what would be a safe and effective way to appease both parties.

"I like to hunt with guns"

This is a big thing for people.  Hunting can be a time-honored tradition with families, and guns are essential to the process.  People will fight hard for tradition and family and memories, and so I think there needs to be a hunting exemption. 

My idea - either you "rent" your guns from a specific office where you keep it (near a hunting ground) and you aren't allowed to take it off the ground.  If you only want the gun when you're hunting, this makes sense (just like how you rent bowling shoes or a paintball gun or ice skates).

"Guns are fun to shoot"

This is something that people have a problem with, but it can be a hobby like anything else.  It's a skill you can learn, and there's adrenaline that you get from shooting. 

My idea - create special gun ranges where people can go and shoot guns for free.  Everything is subsidized by the government - the guns themselves, ammo, targets, and most importantly, security.  And assuming that the security is strong enough, I'd be okay letting people shoot basically whatever guns they want.  This is where I'd want background checks to be run, but if people want to shoot and it can be safe, I don't see any reason why they can't be allowed to shoot.

"I need a gun for protection"

This is the trickiest one.  I saw an online debate where people were arguing in favor of AR-15s because they were better for protection.  That the gun makes it more likely that you'd only hurt an intruder.  I don't know nearly enough about guns to know if that's true, and honestly, it doesn't matter to me.

What's interesting...and it's something that I don't see why people are so scared.  Home invasion seems to be a very-real threat that people are concerned about, and it's not something that seems to be addressed.  So I wonder...are home invasions more prevalent in the US than other countries?  If not, how do foreigners make their families feel safe?  If so, what do other countries do to keep home invasions down?

And I honestly don't have an idea here.  You could stiffen the punishment for a home invasion to hopefully keep the numbers down.  Maybe that might help people feel safe.  Maybe subsidize other forms of home security so that people don't think guns are their only option.  Additional police presence?  Subsidize something like tazers or a non-lethal form of home protection?

And that's the thing.  I think most people just don't feel safe.  And not from the government....from each other.  And when the government talks about taking away people's guns, I think most people aren't worried about the government taking over - I think it's just that they're going to feel less safe.  That the police won't get there in time.  That their spouse or children could be killed because they don't have the tools to defend them.

Now I know it might seem silly to say an assault rifle is necessary for security, but some people feel that way.  Take away their gun, and they feel like their child is in danger.  And I think until both sides understand where the other side is coming from, we're just not going to get any better on this issue.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If I bit my tongue any harder, I'd need stitches. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Should the politics of an entertainer impact your enjoyment of that person's work?

I've never watched Roseanne.  My parents didn't like her brand of comedy, and something about the show turned me off.  But it was widely popular with a lot of people, and it re-premiered the other night to huge numbers.

Roseanne Barr is a Trump supporter, and her character on the show is a Trump supporter.  This has called for a lot of anti-Trump people to boycott the show.  I was interested in reading about this so I went to Twitter.  I saw a lot of this:

"I loved the show back in the day, but I cannot support her if she's a Trump supporter."
"America doesn't want to see Trump supporters painted in a positive light"
"No one wants to watch a show done by a Trump supporter."
"If you watch this show, you're as bad as Trump."

Hollywood has always skewed liberal.  When the West Wing came out, it skewed to the left, but it was still a widely popular show.  Even with Republicans.  And while it focused on a Democratic White House, the Republican figures weren't shown as cartoonish monsters that were trying to pollute the Earth and destroy the poor.  People disagreed, there was a healthy debate, and democracy prevailed.

And I don't think watching a show by a liberal or even a show *about liberals* means that I agree with everything that the creators/writers/performers believe.  I disagree with a lot of entertainers but will still fork over money.  At the end of the day, I like the work and not the person.

We've become so divided that there's no more separation.  Conservatives hate Hollywood and are avoiding anything made by the "liberal left" - and liberals are trying to do the same with Roseanne.  Even people who admitted to liking the show when it first aired or people that admitted to liking the shows that aired *this week*.  To me, it shouldn't matter.  To a lot of people now, it really does.

Should it matter?  Will we eventually get to the point where there's "liberal" scripted television and "conservative" scripted television like the CNN/FOX divide with news?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It shouldn't matter, unless the writers are going out of their way to bash you, or jam politics where it doesn't belong. I obviously get annoyed when stupid political jabs are made for no reason, but I don't boycott shows or movies just because of a liberal slant. I think that if conservatives did that, there would be nothing left to watch. Aside from Roseanne, who are the conservatives on TV? Schmidt on New Girl? Are there any others?

And when Christian conservatives are depicted, it's usually as some weird culty figure that dresses like a 1950's sitcom character, while spewing a ton of hatred at people, because they're written by people who have never actually met a conservative.

I was reading a review of Roseanne, and the person reviewing it dinged the show because they couldn't believe that Roseanne not only voted for Trump, but because she expressed no remorse for her decision. They dinged the second episode because they couldn't see how a Trump supporter would possibly stand up for their "gender fluid" grandkid who had to face bullies at school. (and I put the term "gender fluid" in quotes because the reviewer used this label for a character who clearly identified as a boy, not because of any personal views that I have about this transgender issue)

It's insane and it's stupid. I watch a lot of TV, which means that I'm fed a steady diet of liberal ideals and being told how evil I am. The thing is, for a lot of those characters, it makes perfect sense for them to be liberal, so I don't care. Some characters are in no way liberal, but the writers will not call them conservative because it would probably make them sick to do so.

What I liked about Roseanne this week was that the show made fun of everyone. Whereas most comedy has skewed away from actually telling jokes and more toward tearfully preaching to the audience about the evils of conservatism, the show actually told jokes, and they were funny. Hell, I laughed out loud at a Jackie line, despite the fact that she was wearing a pussy hat and a "Nasty Woman" shirt the whole time.

The show was having a real discussion about the grandson who wears girl's clothes, and what that decision will mean for him. It was making gay jokes about Darlene (who isn't gay, but who is played by a lesbian actress). Comedy is funny when its honest, and these discussions were more honest than pretty much anything else I've seen from the teary-eyes dramas over the past decade.

Over the years, I've gone through phases of enjoying Roseanne's show, and thinking that it was disgusting and annoying. I don't know why, but sometimes I'm in the mood and sometimes I'm not. I did make an effort to rewatch some old episodes on Amazon Prime before the revival started, and I can see why people connected to it. TV characters are usually portrayed as upper middle-class families who never wear the same outfits twice, and who walk around with Starbucks cups in their hand as though they have their own personal barista following them around all day. A large, large chunk of the population can't relate to them at all. Roseanne depicted a family who struggled for money, who had to decide between buying shoes for one person or a dress for another, or who had to work two jobs and barely ever saw their spouse. A lot of America relates to those struggles, and a lot of those people voted for Trump.

It seems like every interviewer who sits down with Roseanne to discuss the new show wants her to answer for her Trump-supporting sins. Whereas they will accept a Trump joke from most celebrities, and act as though it is some deep political insight, they want Roseanne to explain foreign relations, healthcare, and union crap.

The media clearly has a bias. Entertainment is made for liberals 99.9% of the time, because the writers live in bubbles where everyone thinks like they do, and they genuinely believe that "most of America" thinks that way. I've long said that writers should have to live wherever their shows are set/filmed, because they way they do it is unrealistic. I have friends who are liberal. I have friends who aren't Christian. In the real world, most people know different types of people, and it's fine. It's just in television and movies that we're expected to follow the liberal propaganda while being told that conservatives are evil at every turn. And Roseanne's numbers prove that this needs to change. Hollywood needs to get out of its bubble and recognize not just the large American audience that they've been ignoring, but the large audience around the world that share similar beliefs.

So I probably could have summed all of that up by simply saying, no. It should not matter, but sometimes it does.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I was reading a review of Roseanne, and the person reviewing it dinged the show because they couldn't believe that Roseanne not only voted for Trump, but because she expressed no remorse for her decision. They dinged the second episode because they couldn't see how a Trump supporter would possibly stand up for their "gender fluid" grandkid who had to face bullies at school.

Well, that's because we've stopped seeing each other as people with different political beliefs.  If you're a Republican, you see liberals as whiny, weak, East/West coast snobs who look down on hard-working people.  If you're a Democrat, you see conservatives as naive, prejudiced hillbillies who hate everything that isn't Fox News.

Voting for Trump doesn't mean that you agree with everything he does or everything he stands for.  There are countless issues, and everyone weighs those issues differently before they make their choice.  If your number one issue is (EXAMPLE) and your candidate is still advocating your side of (EXAMPLE) , then you'll support that candidate no matter what else they do.  You could be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and you could vote for either party depending on a million factors in your own life and how they rank at any particular time.

So you can like what Trump has done with the economy and still support gay marriage.  Or protect children from bullies.  Or a hundred different things that Trump might not support.  It's not as black and white as people want it to be.  It wasn't 20 years ago when Roseanne first aired, and it isn't now.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Exactly (though, to be nitpicky... Trump was pro-gay marriage before Hillary was). I think most of America gets that, but there are some coastal liberals who don't. I had an east-coast family member over once, and she acted as though she legitimately didn't think that we got, like, *the news*, in Texas.

There are groups that benefit from keeping people scared and angry. Most people aren't eeeeevil, but if they can make enough people believe that the other guy is out to get them, it keeps those groups alive. If the fear and anger ends, they lose their jobs. This is why people should never trust anyone who wants them to avoid discussion and debate. I saw a quote somewhere online where someone said that if you're not willing to hear the best argument against your belief, you can't really know what you believe (or something along those lines), and that's true.

I wish less people would take the time to sit down and really learn the other side of the debate. Like, to the point where you could argue the other side in a debate if you had to. Nobody should fear understanding the other side. And a lot of the people that I see avoiding those conversations seem to fear what they don't know about their own side more than they fear the other guy.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My GF (bigger fan of orig than I) watched Roseanne, and gave me a quick synopsis.  Said political persuasion was not important; however, way too many OLD story lines that they tried to recap, left her head spinning.  She was more annoyed by how the characters "wound up" all these years later!  I myself was not a big fan.  I thought Aunt Jackie, and the friends were far funnier than the actual family.   For me, the show is out of date, I prefer something like Shameless.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well from what I heard, most of the political aspects were Roseanne defending her decision to vote for Trump and the rest of the family busting her balls for it.  If you looked online, I'd have assumed that the whole show is pro-Trump when it sounds like Roseanne is the only one on her own side.

I don't care about Trump.  I think he's a doofus, and I think he's totally in over his head.  But I also don't think that we need to vilify people that like him.  There used to be a dialogue between people that didn't get along.  It was how people got along with each other, and it was how understanding was found.  I might disagree with someone with the opposite beliefs, but understanding their POV is a goal of mine.  When you've cut out all your friends that disagree and cut out all the media that disagrees with you and formatted your social media to only include people that agree with you, you start believing that you're in the vast majority of sane people.  You've cut out the dialogue.  You've cut out the understanding.

It's easier to hate something you don't know and don't understand.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I didn't hate how the characters wound up. Darlene and David were always the broody artst types, and that's hard to make a living at. I know this from experience smile
Becky was always kinda flakey, so it doesn't surprise me that she never started her own business or anything like that.
Jackie being a life coach is just funny.

I don't think we know much about DJ, but he seemed to be doing okay. And Jerry is probably making a solid living on a fishing boat up in Alaska.

And it makes sense that most of the family would be liberal, though I think that DJ would be a good choice for another conservative. Maybe one who didn't vote for Trump.

And I agree on all of the stuff about not cutting everyone who doesn't agree with you out of your life. I found it really disturbing when some celebrities were telling people to abandon any family members who didn't vote for Hillary. That's just wrong.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Prince of Wails anyone? … 1824233490

Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner or operator of nearly 200 television stations in the U.S., would be forcing its news anchors to record a promo about “the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country.” The script, which parrots Donald Trump’s oft-declarations of developments negative to his presidency as “fake news,” brought upheaval to newsrooms already dismayed with Sinclair’s consistent interference to bring right-wing propaganda to local television broadcasts.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't get it. What's the scandal here? They recorded a scripted promo for their company. That's pretty standard. And they didn't say anything that hasn't been said by plenty of left-leaning corporations/personalities. … s-facebook

This wasn't even a news report. It was a corporate mission statement, read by local affiliates. I find it far more unsettling when I see many people across different platforms using the same exact language (usually with uncommon wording) when reporting an actual news story. Or when many media outlets omit the same information from stories. Hell, there was an online group a few years back, filled with journalists from different outlets, discussing the best way to slant stories in order to promote a unified political agenda.

Sorry, but I have a hard time buying into the outrage surrounding a promo video when blatant media corruption has been ignored for years.

And that's not me defending people who are "right-wing". I have said many times that I don't trust any news outlet without checking their facts for myself (which really never involves visiting a fact checker website, which are biased themselves). I just clutched these particular pearls many, many years ago, for much better reasons.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The scandal is that they are forced to "inform" viewers that stories being covered by the rest of the media are "fake" when they are NOT.  It's the Trump admin and friends decrying negative press as fake, even though the facts continue to prove otherwise.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

But... Reports in the mainstream media are fake all the time. The media routinely generates outrage, fear and division by manipulating the information that they give viewers. They outright lie quite often, or sometimes allow the audience to believe a lie by not providing the facts in their stories. The fact is, you can't trust the information that you get on a regular news report because of what they choose to leave out.

I don't see how it scandalous to say this when half of the time people are complaining about fake news, it's the Democrats doing the complaining about Faux News.

And it's a little dramatic to say that these people were "forced" to do anything. They're anchors, reading a script. That's pretty much the job description.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The scandal is that Sinclair broadcasting is dictating to local news channels that they own to report the same national stories using the same conservative slanted script, this has been a practice for the last year or so, saying that I can watch an almost identical local news telecast in dayton ohio and orlando florida.

slightly scary, if the local sinclair network doesnt complie they fire the crew and start over.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I just fail to see how that's a scandal. I'm not saying that it's the way things should be done (I'd have to see more examples of what stories they've pushed and the angle they've pushed. So far, I've only seen that one video that wasn't a news report at all, but an address to the audience, from the company), but this is how the media works. Am I supposed to act shocked by this, despite knowing about media corruption for many, many years? Or is it just a thing now because people suddenly care when it's a conservative organization?

The news lies. I know someone who appeared on a national news broadcast, in character, for a total lie of a story. I've been openly talking about this, and poo-pooed as a crazy conservative conspiracy theorist. Then I've watched as liberals said the same things about Faux News (which literally means fake news).

I don't buy the shock or outrage. If anyone really cared, every major news outlet would have been called out and held accountable years ago. I think this is just a convenient story, meant to remind the public that they should be outraged at eeeeevil conservatives. But not liberals. Because liberals never do this stuff. Liberal news outlets are totally reliable. CNN never pushes an agenda. Nor does NBC/MSNBC. Nor do all of the local affiliates who just innocently happen to omit the same vital facts all across the country.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not complaining about a slant this way or that.  Everyone exaggerates these days, one way or the other.  What you should not be doing is flat out lying about facts.  Trump routinely lies, often out of thin air on the spot.  The media (beyond Fox) calls him out on it, and he brandishes this fake news.  These are not policies issues, these pertain to his disaster of a White House, and the various lawsuits and investigations it's embroiled in.  That remains my concern with him, the media has often acted as a check on his power, while Congress has laid down in front of the train tracks.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Nobody doubts that Trump loves to BS. However, the media does lie about him all the time, and they fail to report much of what he does, creating a narrative that doesn't represent the full picture. They did the same with Obama, but the other way around.

A lot of people believe that Trump is guilty of Russian collusion. That isn't based on any facts or evidence. In fact, as we've learned, most of those people have no idea what he supposedly did. The reason they believe it is because the press presented it as fact. They create narrative after narrative, causing people to feel like things are totally out of control and we're all doomed, when that's not really the case. As a President, Trump isn't the best ever, but he is nowhere near warranting the level of fear, hatred and disturbing displays of insanity that people feel toward him. That's all narrative.

Similarly, the comments that I'm seeing more and more often about guns and the NRA are ridiculous to anyone who has any knowledge of these subjects at all. Yet people believe them, because the media has created the narrative. They don't present the facts that would lead to more rational debate, because the blind fear is what moves their agenda along.

We have examples of the liberal press actively helping liberal candidates, feeding them debate questions, reading their talking points, taking part in a secret internet group where they discuss how to frame stories to benefit their candidates.

If the people who are outraged by Sinclaire were really outraged by the facts at play here, they would have been crying foul ling ago. But they didn't. Because they only mind it when it appears that the other team is guilty and the outrage could help their own side.

This swooning and fetching of the smelling salts is laughably disingenuous. Especially when you consider that the only reason why Trump is President is because the media liberals thought it'd be funny to push him during the primaries, just to goof on conservatives.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wonder if we should start a post for non-American politics? These topics could inform what we do in our own country. … lent-crime