Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Put their arguments into your own words and put it on here, you can do it, I believe in you!

Why, to demonstrate to you that I can? :lol: How unfortunate that low brow tactics are the heart and soul of US political discourse rather than substance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Padme said:

I meant to bring the other side of the coin to the immigration debate. It takes two to tango. Authorities never go after companies that hire illegal immigrants

They don't, because they really don't want to solve the problem. The people who really fund the Republican party (the big boys) don't want this problem solved and want the cheap labor and consumers to keep flowing in. The ICE raids were all for show.

3 minutes ago, soon said:

Why, to demonstrate to you that I can? :lol: How unfortunate that low brow tactics are the heart and soul of US political discourse rather than substance 

You, of all posters, speaking of substance, is really rich. Posting a 20 minute video with no argument from yourself isn't how a message board works chief. No one cares about your video, make your argument in your own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Posting a 20 minute video with no argument from yourself isn't how a message board works chief

Says who?

People post videos of stuff that appeals or agrees with them all the time.  It's not the responsibility of Soon to summarize or analyze viewpoints expressed in a video.  Otherwise, why even post the video?  

1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

No one cares about your video

Again, says who?

If you don't care about it, then don't watch it.  But you've spent the last three or four posts disparaging the mere fact it was posted rather than engage in the actual merits of what the video says.  In other words, the only one wasting time over this is you.  

1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

make your argument in your own words.

So every opinion you have is fully formed by yourself and not just recycling what you have heard from other people?

Sorry, but your standard here is unrealistic nor reflective of how most people process information.  You're not in any position to demand anything other than genuine responses or clarifications.  Soon found opinions that he believed spoke to many of the common discussions found here and in American political discourse in general.  If he doesn't want to summarize those positions in his own words he doesn't have to.  You can choose to engage or not.  But if your engagement is limited to attacking the person rather than the points made, then ultimately it's you who shouldn't be take seriously.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, downzy said:

Says who?

People post videos of stuff that appeals or agrees with them all the time.  It's not the responsibility of Soon to summarize or analyze viewpoints expressed in a video.  Otherwise, why even post the video?  

Again, says who?

If you don't care about it, then don't watch it.  But you've spent the last three or four posts disparaging the mere fact it was posted rather than engage in the actual merits of what the video says.  In other words, the only one wasting time over this is you.  

So every opinion you have is fully formed by yourself and not just recycling what you have heard from other people?

Sorry, but your standard here is unrealistic nor reflective of how most people process information.  You're not in any position to demand anything other than genuine responses or clarifications.  Soon found opinions that he believed spoke to many of the common discussions found here and in American political discourse in general.  If he doesn't want to summarize those positions in his own words he doesn't have to.  You can choose to engage or not.  But if your engagement is limited to attacking the person rather than the points made, then ultimately it's you who shouldn't be take seriously.  

Wait a minute, let's discuss how average people process information. If you just post a random 20+ minute video, let's be honest, most people watching this thread aren't even going to watch it or watch all of it. Second, for the few that do, there will have already been several other pages of arguments that had passed by the time they respond. It would be much better for timely discussion if people posted a summary of the posted video to give people context and give them some meat on the bones to respond to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Wait a minute, let's discuss how average people process information. If you just post a random 20+ minute video, let's be honest, most people watching this thread aren't even going to watch it or watch all of it. Second, for the few that do, there will have already been several other pages of arguments that had passed by the time they respond. It would be much better for timely discussion if people posted a summary of the posted video to give people context and give them some meat on the bones to respond to.

This forum isn't meant to be home work.  People can do what they want.  If you want to watch the video, great.  If not, fine.  But let's cut the nonsense that people can't post videos of discussions they found engaging.  If you don't want to engage in the contents of the video, then fine.  But let's stop wasting everyone's time with suggestions that people shouldn't take the video or the poster's positions seriously because they didn't write out a 500 word summary to be graded by everyone else.  That's just not how we, nor every other forum, runs.  If you don't want to talk about something; then ignore it.  Don't blame others for not doing what you think is required when it's absolutely not.  

So let's move on and stop wasting people's time with this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/07/after_gilroy_mass_shootings_a_white_thing_oh_hell_no.html

Quote

But in the two-week run-up to Gilroy, there were 36 other mass shootings from coast to coast — and 34 of those shooters were black.  One was white and one Hispanic.  These results echo a New York Times story from 2016 that stated, much to the surprise and chagrin of the reporters, that whenever there are three or more victims of gunfire, 75 percent of  shooters in America are black.

That darn White Supremacist mass media again made sure to not cover any of these stories on the national level, really makes you think! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/07/after_gilroy_mass_shootings_a_white_thing_oh_hell_no.html

That darn White Supremacist mass media again made sure to not cover any of these stories on the national level, really makes you think! 

Not really.

Most of the shootings enumerated in the article are most likely gang related with the victims targeted for a very set of motivations unrelated to the victims skin colour.  There's little randomness to it like the mass shootings we saw at the Gilroy Festival, Walmart, and Dayton, OH.  The victims of the listed shootings were likely known to the shooters.  

I'm not trying to diminish the carnage or excuse that it happens, but the reality is that when a early 20 something walks into a Walmart and starts indiscriminately killing people, it's different then a multiple homicide situation in West Baltimore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 8:58 AM, bt88 said:

Twitter is not the media. Its a platform. it can set it's own standards just like any other business. The real issue here is a campaign posting photos of it's opponents tombstones just days after a shooting, not one media platform of many deciding to enforce rules. Twitter has it's flaws but its quite different than "the media." Twitter and FB should be treated more like the media but that's a different debate. Twitter enforcing standards isn't the same as say the NYT or WSJ burying a story. 

Twitter is considered "social media".  Whether you want to call it media or not is semantics.  In 2019, it very much is a news source for millions of people.  So when they pick and choose what they want show, it's censorship. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Twitter is considered "social media".  Whether you want to call it media or not is semantics.  In 2019, it very much is a news source for millions of people.  So when they pick and choose what they want show, it's censorship. 

 

If that is the case, then millions of people are mistaken. Media is (or supposed to be) a source for truthful information based on facts that a reporter/news anchor gives to the public. Of course you can post in your social media a video you found in Fox News website or in their own twitter account, same thing with an article from the New York Times. But that doesn't make you the source. And neither is Twitter by itself. Twitter is not a news company

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Padme said:

If that is the case, then millions of people are mistaken. Media is (or supposed to be) a source for truthful information based on facts that a reporter/news anchor gives to the public. Of course you can post in your social media a video you found in Fox News website or in their own twitter account, same thing with an article from the New York Times. But that doesn't make you the source. And neither is Twitter by itself. Twitter is not a news company

 

Stop with the semantics.  Twitter IS social MEDIA.  And the fact that they can censor what they show (especially something they may not agree with politically) shows that they are a biased platform.  

And newsflash:  most of the current news you see isn’t typically from the original source.  It still doesn’t mean that it’s not considered “media” smh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Stop with the semantics.  Twitter IS social MEDIA.  And the fact that they can censor what they show (especially something they may not agree with politically) shows that they are a biased platform.  

And newsflash:  most of the current news you see isn’t typically from the original source.  It still doesn’t mean that it’s not considered “media” smh.

 

KK, your account here on the forum is a social media platform that you exercise a reasonable amount of control over. May I please do an account takeover and start posting about the Zapatista? Or would you rather that your platform not be used to promote things that you want no association with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, soon said:

KK, your account here on the forum is a social media platform that you exercise a reasonable amount of control over. May I please do an account takeover and start posting about the Zapatista? Or would you rather that your platform not be used to promote things that you want no association with?

Apples and Oranges.

 Now if I posted linked news articles about something Downzy didn’t agree with, and he then removed it, then that would be comparable to what Twitter has done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Apples and Oranges.

 Now if I posted linked news articles about something Downzy didn’t agree with, and he then removed it, then that would be comparable to what Twitter has done.

 

But you didnt say no to the account takeover... so hand over the keys, comrade. :P :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Apples and Oranges.

 Now if I posted linked news articles about something Downzy didn’t agree with, and he then removed it, then that would be comparable to what Twitter has done.

It's a sad world when people don't understand the differences between modern social media and old traditional media. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It's a sad world when people don't understand the differences between modern social media and old traditional media. 

It’s a sad world when people don’t understand that social media is the new media.

 

Jeffery Epstein was just found dead from an apparent suicide in a Manhattan jail.  If anyone would care to post the link, feel free. 

Edited by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

It’s a sad world when people don’t understand that social media is the new media. 

It is pretty much defined as part of the new media, isn't it? :lol:

Anyway, just because it has media in its name doesn't mean it is more credible than anyone's opinion. It is not part of the free press that is crucial to the survival of democracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is pretty much defined as part of the new media, isn't it? :lol:

Anyway, just because it has media in its name doesn't mean it is more credible than anyone's opinion. It is not part of the free press that is crucial to the survival of democracy. 

And?

My original point said that it was concerning that they would censor certain politically based information that they may not agree with for whatever reason.  Twitter is a source of breaking information for millions of people. They typically click on a tweet that is most likely linked to a news article.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

And?

My original point said that it was concerning that they would censor certain politically based information that they may not agree with for whatever reason.  Twitter is a source of breaking information for millions of people. They typically click on a tweet that is most likely linked to a news article.   

As a private corporation with no societal obligations, twitter is free to do as they want. The problem isn't twitter but stupid people using it as a source of news with little critical sense. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

And?

My original point said that it was concerning that they would censor certain politically based information that they may not agree with for whatever reason.  Twitter is a source of breaking information for millions of people. They typically click on a tweet that is most likely linked to a news article.   

They didn’t censor politically based information. They removed verbal threats that violated their corporate and user guidelines. 

Moreover, it’s not as though no one is aware of what happened. If anything, it has more people discussing what happened compared to what would have happened had they allowed to keep the content up. 

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

As a private corporation with no societal obligations, twitter is free to do as they want. The problem isn't twitter but stupid people using it as a source of news with little critical sense. 

This.

Twitter doesn’t own a monopoly on social media. It can do what it wants. Don’t like it?  Use another social media platform. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

As a private corporation with no societal obligations, twitter is free to do as they want. The problem isn't twitter but stupid people using it as a source of news with little critical sense. 

Twitter is a publicly traded company.  Anyway, they can do what they want.  And I can also complain about it.  I was going to buy some Twitter stock, now I won’t.   :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Jeffery Epstein was just found dead from an apparent suicide in a Manhattan jail.

Well thats not suspicious :lol: 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Twitter is a publicly traded company.  Anyway, they can do what they want.  And I can also complain about it.  I was going to buy some Twitter stock, now I won’t.   :) 

 

Complain as much as you want, but don't compare it to newspapers or other journalistic, editorial media censoring content from a political bias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Complain as much as you want, but don't compare it to newspapers or other journalistic, editorial media censoring content from a political bias. 

I never did.  Others said it wasn’t traditional media.  And I said that it was a source of news for millions of people and that social media is becoming the new media.

Attention to detail, folks.

In any case, it’s a matter of semantics, imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Stop with the semantics.  Twitter IS social MEDIA.  And the fact that they can censor what they show (especially something they may not agree with politically) shows that they are a biased platform.  

And newsflash:  most of the current news you see isn’t typically from the original source.  It still doesn’t mean that it’s not considered “media” smh.

 

It is not semantics. If you and me talk about our vacation plans in twitter, in what way is that newsworthy? There are a lot of people who talk about a lot of things in twitter that have nothing to do with politics, local news or breaking news! Twitter is not the same thing that newspapers, radio or T.V. are.

There is reliable alternative media as oppose to mainstream media. But Twitter, FB or Instagram are not such a thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×