General politics

[biggentleben]

 

Yes, we all are raised in different environments with differing levels of exposure to media and all of these effects by our environment can make a variety of impact on who we are.  But we all end up being served the same media exposure whether it's 2 minutes of radio here, or 10 hours of television there, or 30 minutes of internet time there.  The messages all are the same and run concurrently.

 

I'm unsure why it is feeble, but yes, education has a part to play in all of this as well.

 

I'm sorry you think I am trolling.  I am not trolling.  I've been a member of this board for many years, approaching a decade.  And saying things like this is adding weight to my original argument in my first post on the matter, that disparaging things may eventually be said to keep the majority opinion in place and to escort minority opinions out.  I understand you may not see that this is what you are doing, but it's unfortunately what you have just done.  We can keep things perfectly civil, which is what I am making sure happens from my end.

 

I'm opening up a new discussion that had not previously been taking place here.  Participants disagree with that assertion.  That's fine.  I will continue ahead stating my case.

 

When you next actually articulately and descriptively state your case...it will be the first time. That is the problem.

[TheLeviathan]

Time to talk in more than vague generalities and answer that question:What sorts of discussions are not happening here that should be?

 

Or, since the discussion here is a problem, describe what a less problematic one would look like.  In detail.  

 

I think I will repeat that until you attempt to answer it.  The more you respond with long, vague replies, the less I think you are making a genuine attempt.  I think Ben is making a point similar to this.

[LaBombo]

 

Consider where the team that this site is associated with hails from and the political makeup of that state. Primarily, the heaviest supporters of the Minnesota Twins are coming from a state that is very Democrat, with only Nixon taking a Republican vote in a Presidential race in the state since 1932.

 

538 rates the Vikings' fan base a D +7.8% lean, and MLB fan bases typically skew older and whiter than those of the NFL, so politically the TD user base should theoretically sit pretty close to neutral.

 

In any case even a hypothetical, rounded upward D +10% skew would account for only one TD'er out of every ten samples being left of center.

[TheLeviathan]

 

538 rates the Vikings' fan base a D +7.8% lean, and MLB fan bases typically skew older and whiter than those of the NFL, so politically the TD user base should theoretically sit pretty close to neutral.

 

In any case even a hypothetical, rounded upward D +10% skew would account for only one TD'er out of every ten samples being left of center.

 

Yeah but those old white folks are scared of "The Technology".  Chief being the exception to the rule of course, but he only does this as a break from keeping kids off his lawn.

[Craig Arko]

 

538 rates the Vikings' fan base a D +7.8% lean, and MLB fan bases typically skew older and whiter than those of the NFL, so politically the TD user base should theoretically sit pretty close to neutral.

 

In any case even a hypothetical, rounded upward D +10% skew would account for only one TD'er out of every ten samples being left of center.

Maybe the theory is incorrect. Or at least the underlying premises.

[Champuckett]

 

 

It's precisely because I understand this, and skepticism about media, that I reject your premise.  You waded into this discussion decrying the "one narrative" that didn't allow outside views.  (Implying right leaning views) It's morphed now into some nationwide "narrative" in which we are all caught as blind or lemmings or whatever.  

 

So as Pseudo notes, we come back to square one.  Without concrete examples of what is not done here or should be done here, we are back to the question I asked you from the get go: can you give an example of what should be done right?

 

I don't think there is a lack of skepticism here.  I don't think people are buying media stories 100%.  I don't think people are only talking about what they are spoon fed.  Those are your characterizations and, thus far, you haven't provided any evidence for that.  Or evidence to the contrary to model what should be done.

 

So I refer you back to my original question, that mike asked in the middle, I asked several times in the middle, that Psuedo just asked again, and I second for about the tenth time.  Time to talk in more than vague generalities and answer that question:  What sorts of discussions are not happening here that should be?

 

Yes, because this isn't about left vs right.  That's what is expected of us to fall into.  We should not be focusing on adjusting more to the left or the right, but abandoning the entire premise altogether, especially when we have discussions about this.  I understand this is not something that happens over night or even in a year, but maybe over a decade, perhaps.

 

I stated what could be done to improve things, which would be to begin questioning the narrative, and eventually discarding the narrative.  Throw out all of the establishment talking points we have, whether left or right, all the appropriately corresponding discussions that follow, and start thinking and acting for ourselves and our families, without interference from media corporations, whether they are right or left.

 

Discussions that should be happening here: are we following a narrative?  Why are we supposed to be talking about this most recent topic?  Do I rely too much on corporate media the primary source for news stories?  If so, what intent does this group of media corporations have for us?    How do we move forward without the corporate media that we are used to?  How will the affect of the media impact the lives of my children knowing the news media is as corrupted as it is?  What sacrifices will I have to make to live without corporate media?  Will my life improve for myself or my family if I cease listening to corporate media? 

 

These questions just begin to touch the tip of the iceberg.  These may not be questions that you are interested in asking, but you asked me what questions you thought you should be asking.  There some are.  This is not a definitive list or anything close.

[Champuckett]

 

 

I suppose I should check; is it still okay to read books?

 

Even Math books?

 

I don't know, depends on what books you are referring to, but asking those questions is a good start though.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Except they aren't. They were established as an entertainment news organization. That has allowed them to avoid numerous lawsuits since their inception. They "play" news, but they are not held to the same standard as actual organizations that are held to standards of journalistic integrity.

 

You are 100% correct in this description.  Now expand that for all of the major media we have that is offered in this country.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Except for 15 pages of the "general politics" thread...

 

I will not be participating in politically based topics derived from the narrative, which is 99% of all discussions around the internet, not just here. 

 

I'm focused more on what is behind the politics that we are discussing and the mechanisms that bring us those topics.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Discussions that should be happening here: are we following a narrative?  Why are we supposed to be talking about this most recent topic?  Do I rely too much on corporate media the primary source for news stories?  If so, what intent does this group of media corporations have for us?    How do we move forward without the corporate media that we are used to?  How will the affect of the media impact the lives of my children knowing the news media is as corrupted as it is?  What sacrifices will I have to make to live without corporate media?  Will my life improve for myself or my family if I cease listening to corporate media? 

 

These questions just begin to touch the tip of the iceberg.  These may not be questions that you are interested in asking, but you asked me what questions you thought you should be asking.  There some are.  This is not a definitive list or anything close.

 

So you want us to talk more about the media?  That's what I glean from this.  Have you ever considered that since some of us have known each other for more than a decade, that these conversations have already happened?  Or that while we consider these questions, we find other points more interesting to discuss?

 

You are making the assumption that because we don't talk about them here, that the questions aren't happening.  And that is a faulty assumption.  It also seems to me that it's the entirety of what you are trying to contribute.  Your premise seems to be one of assumption - you assumed a viewpoint would not be welcome here because you didn't see enough talk about something you are passionate about.  That is a flaw in your reasoning.

 

We can choose to be passionate about different things.  We can talk about politics here and still wonder about truth and narrative in media.  I can chew gum and walk at the same time.  Just because this thread only has me chewing gum, doesn't mean I can't walk.

 

And you have asserted, falsely, to the contrary.  So, I'll repeat, I think your very premise is flawed if not pure bunk.

[LaBombo]

 

Maybe the theory is incorrect. Or at least the underlying premises.

 

If there's an alternative source that confirms BGB's idea that the Twins, unlike the Vikings, draw a heavily Dem fan base, I'll be happy to check it out. Until then, the best information says no.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, this seems timely...

 

The Geography of Partisan Prejudice, brought to you earlier this week by the folks over at The Atlantic.

 

As the title suggests, the focus is on geography, but early in the article there's an acknowledgement that there are demographic trends as well. This sums up the non-geographic component pretty well:

 

"In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves".

 

and

 

"... white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity. They don’t routinely talk with people who disagree with them; this isolation makes it easier for them to caricature their ideological opponents."

 

It's a pretty interesting read even without the context of the current discussion. Geographically FL, SC, MA, VA, and the Rust Belt states jump off the page as higher in prejudice than the national average, but the map lets you mouse over individual counties. As the demographic tendency would seem to indicate, the Twin Cities rates relatively high for partisan prejudice by both D's and R's.

 

Ironically the article allows a basic political prejudice into its own discussion of the subject, misleadingly making 'no abortion' supporters out to be alone on a minority island, when in fact 'unlimited abortion' supporters are also a smaller minority than the plurality who believe in legal abortion with limits.

 

Nate Silver said this is terrible, its all demographics, and not related to geography hardly at all. But the overall conclusion you quoted is still accurate....

[LaBombo]

 

Yeah but those old white folks are scared of "The Technology".  Chief being the exception to the rule of course, but he only does this as a break from keeping kids off his lawn.

 

Seems like only yesterday when Chief warily approached the new LED display that Mrs C. got him for his birthday...

 

http://facets.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2001PR_Featured-730x410.png

[Champuckett]

 

 

So you want us to talk more about the media?  That's what I glean from this.  Have you ever considered that since some of us have known each other for more than a decade, that these conversations have already happened?  Or that while we consider these questions, we find other points more interesting to discuss?

 

You are making the assumption that because we don't talk about them here, that the questions aren't happening.  And that is a faulty assumption.  It also seems to me that it's the entirety of what you are trying to contribute.  Your premise seems to be one of assumption - you assumed a viewpoint would not be welcome here because you didn't see enough talk about something you are passionate about.  That is a flaw in your reasoning.

 

We can choose to be passionate about different things.  We can talk about politics here and still wonder about truth and narrative in media.  I can chew gum and walk at the same time.  Just because this thread only has me chewing gum, doesn't mean I can't walk.

 

And you have asserted, falsely, to the contrary.  So, I'll repeat, I think your very premise is flawed if not pure bunk.

 

Correct, I am not privy to private conversations.  I'm only privy to what I have seen in this thread, and what I have seen in this thread is everyone is talking about the current events of the day, which comes from the narrative the media corporations send out to us every day.

 

If you don't mind me asking, when you have questioned the media with your friends over these last 10 years of knowing them, have you questioned the existence or purpose of the media?  Maybe you have, I don't see that here in this thread.  I see repeated discussions about all of the news topics of the day and the topics relating to them.

 

My premise is flawed and is pure bunk.  That is your opinion and that's fine.  I told you we can agree to disagree about 10 pages back now, so I'm glad we came to a consensus on this.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm not interested in talking about what is allowed to be discussed in this thread, I'm interested in talking about actual issues. You can keep doing that if you want, but I'm interested in how the wealthiest nation on the planet joins the rest of the wealthy nations in providing basic healthcare as a right, not a privilege. Talk about brain washing by the wealthy and privileged! Convincing people that if you don't have money you don't have the right to healthcare.....

[LaBombo]

 

 

Nate Silver said this is terrible, its all demographics, and not related to geography hardly at all. But the overall conclusion you quoted is still accurate....

 

And that would be my guess as well; the demographics are the primary story, not the geography.

 

Well, except for Mass., which is notoriously closed-minded... 

 

Edit: The mirror-image shift in one 'intolerance' index of +10% Repub in 2014 to another that showed +10% Dem in 2018, which coincides with arrival of the Age of Trump, was interesting as well.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Correct, I am not privy to private conversations.  I'm only privy to what I have seen in this thread, and what I have seen in this thread is everyone is talking about the current events of the day, which comes from the narrative the media corporations send out to us every day.

 

If you don't mind me asking, when you have questioned the media with your friends over these last 10 years of knowing them, have you questioned the existence or purpose of the media?  Maybe you have, I don't see that here in this thread.  I see repeated discussions about all of the news topics of the day and the topics relating to them.

 

My premise is flawed and is pure bunk.  That is your opinion and that's fine.  I told you we can agree to disagree about 10 pages back now, so I'm glad we came to a consensus on this.

 

My brother and I are reading and discussing Chomsky's take on it.  We have given up on Chomsky's horrid writing style, but the topic persists.  

 

This is a topic about general politics.  Perhaps you should start one on the media.  It is not fair to walk into a thread, with a purpose clearly stated in the title, and decry it for doing something it isn't.  I don't fault the cow because it can't fly like a duck.  If I want ducks, I'll go where the ducks are.  You made sweeping assumptions about people here being lemmings and blind, but the truth is the fault lies with you.

 

If you want to see what people think or don't think about the media - perhaps you should ask it in a relevant thread.  Not use 20 pages of unrelated material to draw a sweeping conclusion.  That's your narrative that you falsely spun.  There isn't an agree/disagree element to be had here, just you recognizing an approach that was unfair from the get go.

[Champuckett]

 

I'm not interested in talking about what is allowed to be discussed in this thread, I'm interested in talking about actual issues. You can keep doing that if you want, but I'm interested in how the wealthiest nation on the planet joins the rest of the wealthy nations in providing basic healthcare as a right, not a privilege. Talk about brain washing by the wealthy and privileged! Convincing people that if you don't have money you don't have the right to healthcare.....

 

I'm not a mod, nor do I have any other power, I just have a single voice.  The choice on what you and the community talk about is up to you and them.  Pseudo earlier said something along the lines of the community is what we make of it, and that's why I'm here.  You can literally or figuratively ignore me, that's fine.  Topics will continue to be discussed as they have, is there any doubt about that.

 

I personally believe that talking about these issues derived from the narrative is not going to better anyone here or elsewhere in the long run, but thankfully, you are free to have whatever concerns and focuses in your life, and carry that out in any way you see fit as long as you do not harm others.

 

Either way, thanks for the participation while it lasted.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yes.  I have not given my opinion on news bits and political stances of the day.  I have, however, given my opinion on plenty of topics regarding news and how the media operates.  Is it a requirement for me to give my opinion on the topics that you demand that I give.  I don't feel it is, and I am sorry that I ring hollow in part because of this perceived issue.

 

I think I am challenging people plenty to do better in terms of what they think about the media, and the role the narrative plays in forcing us to adhere to the same general talking points.  That does not of course mean I will have any success by any metric of measurement. 

 

If you feel it important to challenge participants on a political/story of the day level, then by all means, have at it.  I'm choosing to challenge in other areas that does not focus specifically on the political, but on the reasons behind the political discourse and narrative that the majority tends to follow.

 

It is possible that I do not, on a personal level, feel that politics are necessary or are useful in any way to anyone here or inside the country and may serve other purposes such as division and preoccupation.  This is why I leave it to you and others to take on those battles if you wish, but I will not personally be getting involved in those at this time.

I think if we'd follow your advice we wouldn't be having any kind of conversation at all.  Like I, and many have pointed out, there's a healthy dose of skepticism around here, and you aren't pointing out something lacking here so much as patronizing us for having the gall to engage with one another about issues, even if ensconced in a narrow field.

[PseudoSABR]

 

538 rates the Vikings' fan base a D +7.8% lean, and MLB fan bases typically skew older and whiter than those of the NFL, so politically the TD user base should theoretically sit pretty close to neutral.

 

In any case even a hypothetical, rounded upward D +10% skew would account for only one TD'er out of every ten samples being left of center.

I think there's further self-selection given the nature of Twins Daily, as we appeal to those who want more Twins news/discussion than what's available through mainstream media. 

 

I'd also argue that football fans tend to be more conservative than baseball fans, but we're just guessing.

 

In law school, conservatives students would complain, with some merit, about how few professors were conservative; but when you dug into that question, you realized that for every position that opened the amount of liberal candidates exceeded the conservatives by 10 to 1 margins.  Essentially, to balance out political affiliations/leanings, you'd have to set up an affirmative action for conservative professors. Generally, I think conservatives tend to want to get out in the market, than want to teach or become an academic.  ("Those who can't do, teach")   I'm not sure the same thing is happening at TD, but I some similar phenomena may be at work.   (I'd also argue that Trump cultists (who may not even be 'real conservatives') aren't interested in engaging any body beyond their cult; so that cuts out of significant portion of Republicans).

[LaBombo]

 

I think if we'd follow your advice we wouldn't be having any kind of conversation at all.  Like I, and many have pointed out, there's a healthy dose of skepticism around here, and you aren't pointing out something lacking here so much as patronizing us for having the gall to engage with one another about issues, even if ensconced in a narrow field.

 

I wouldn't presume to speak for Champ, and this probably relates at best only tangentially to what he's saying about the GP thread. But for what it's worth I've found from personal experience that when 8 people play Trivial Pursuit, the game is more interesting, fun, and social with four two-person teams than it is one vs. seven.

[Champuckett]

 

 

My brother and I are reading and discussing Chomsky's take on it.  We have given up on Chomsky's horrid writing style, but the topic persists.  

 

This is a topic about general politics.  Perhaps you should start one on the media.  It is not fair to walk into a thread, with a purpose clearly stated in the title, and decry it for doing something it isn't.  I don't fault the cow because it can't fly like a duck.  If I want ducks, I'll go where the ducks are.  You made sweeping assumptions about people here being lemmings and blind, but the truth is the fault lies with you.

 

If you want to see what people think or don't think about the media - perhaps you should ask it in a relevant thread.  Not use 20 pages of unrelated material to draw a sweeping conclusion.  That's your narrative that you falsely spun.  There isn't an agree/disagree element to be had here, just you recognizing an approach that was unfair from the get go.

 

I would like to know more about your discussions if you ever have time.  And your response to any of the questions I laid out in a previous comment.  You asked what kind of questions should be asked here, and I gave you some examples.  Would love to hear your thoughts on any of those, or maybe you have your own contributions.

 

Fair enough regarding the thread.  I am ultimately talking about politics, and that's why I am in here, and not another thread, but I'm speaking about it in a non-conventional way than the way we are used to here.

 

How human lives are being governed is politics to me.  This includes the media's impact on our lives and how it shapes what our discussions are and the response is illustrated in how we build our society, the issues we focus most on, etc.  The point does not escape me that this is not the same political discussion that you are typically having here.

[Champuckett]

 

 

I think if we'd follow your advice we wouldn't be having any kind of conversation at all.  Like I, and many have pointed out, there's a healthy dose of skepticism around here, and you aren't pointing out something lacking here so much as patronizing us for having the gall to engage with one another about issues, even if ensconced in a narrow field.

 

I don't think that's true at all.  I've been to other locations where there is thriving discussions about the very things I am speaking of.  There aren't many, but they do exist.

 

And I'm sorry you feel that I am patronizing you.  I'm pointing out an issue that a majority does not want to wrangle with.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I wouldn't presume to speak for Champ, and this probably relates at best only tangentially to what he's saying about the GP thread. But for what it's worth I've found from personal experience that when 8 people play Trivial Pursuit, the game is more interesting, fun, and social with four two-person teams than it is one vs. seven.

Of course.  I want Champ to play the game, not criticize the rules of the game, and not offer any insight to what better rules might be, or a better game to play.  The meta-discussion becomes of thought-experiment and not one of real engagement about ideas.

 

And I'd love more conservative voices here too.  I enjoy the debate, and an echo chamber is worthless.   I don't think any one here has any interest in keeping the conversation exclusive to any one ideology.   That's why discussing politics on a Sports message board is cool, because we didn't come here for affirmation of our political beliefs.

[Champuckett]

 

 

I wouldn't presume to speak for Champ, and this probably relates at best only tangentially to what he's saying about the GP thread. But for what it's worth I've found from personal experience that when 8 people play Trivial Pursuit, the game is more interesting, fun, and social with four two-person teams than it is one vs. seven.

 

Yes, this is of course true, but don't mistake that the majority jumping on the minority was an unexpected outcome.  It was fully known this would be the response long before I came here.  I mentioned it in the first post I made here on the topic, but I only started here because another participant was trying to seemingly put an outside opinion into the mix, and I figured that might be an opportunity to open up dialogue about this.

 

Now I'm getting multiple members asking me to leave essentially, unless I am mistaken, which is the number one way to discourage discussion.  And they have their list of reasons, so that's that.

[LaBombo]

 

 

I think there's further self-selection given the nature of Twins Daily, as we appeal to those who want more Twins news/discussion than what's available through mainstream media. 

 

I'd also argue that football fans tend to be more conservative than baseball fans, but we're just guessing.

 

In law school, conservatives students would complain, with some merit, about how few professors were conservative; but when you dug into that question, you realized that for every position that opened the amount of liberal candidates exceeded the conservatives by 10 to 1 margins.  Essentially, to balance out political affiliations/leanings, you'd have to set up an affirmative action for conservative professors. Generally, I think conservatives tend to want to get out in the market, than want to teach or become an academic.  ("Those who can't do, teach")   I'm not sure the same thing is happening at TD, but I some similar phenomena may be at work.   (I'd also argue that Trump cultists (who may not even be 'real conservatives') aren't interested in engaging any body beyond their cult; so that cuts out of significant portion of Republicans).

 

Here's a study that suggests that intensity of interest may be linked to partisan leanings:

 

"Passionate Sports Fans Are More Likely to Endorse Right-Wing Policies"

 

The article's author doesn't take the Public Opinion Quarterly study seriously enough to quote liberally from it, and really the big cause/effect takeaway was just that "Fan intensity is significantly associated with the belief that economic success is due to individual effort".

 

Just offering it up for discussion.

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

I don't think that's true at all.  I've been to other locations where there is thriving discussions about the very things I am speaking of.  There aren't many, but they do exist.

 

And I'm sorry you feel that I am patronizing you.  I'm pointing out an issue that a majority does not want to wrangle with.

We do wrangle with it, in terms of having evidence-based opinions.

 

Please point out these other places.  

 

And discussions about how to have discourse are different than discussions about substantive issues, whatever they may be.   Again, it's easy to criticize the topics of conversation and how those conversations take place, when you aren't contributing any topics (beyond how media etc. influences us).  Poverty, healthcare, education are real things, and if those aren't the topics we should be talking about, what should we be talking about?  Because it seems we'd only be talking about talking, which leads to that eventual question, now what?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I would like to know more about your discussions if you ever have time.  And your response to any of the questions I laid out in a previous comment.  You asked what kind of questions should be asked here, and I gave you some examples.  Would love to hear your thoughts on any of those, or maybe you have your own contributions.

 

Fair enough regarding the thread.  I am ultimately talking about politics, and that's why I am in here, and not another thread, but I'm speaking about it in a non-conventional way than the way we are used to here.

 

How human lives are being governed is politics to me.  This includes the media's impact on our lives and how it shapes what our discussions are and the response is illustrated in how we build our society, the issues we focus most on, etc.  The point does not escape me that this is not the same political discussion that you are typically having here.

 

But merely because it was not brought up in the first 15-20 pages is not sufficient to draw the conclusions you did.  

 

No one has a problem with you injecting something like this: "Have you all ever wondered how we get our information and if we can trust it?"

 

That's a good question.  You'd have found a lot of interesting feedback to it.  But that isn't what you did, instead you assumed that because in a narrow band of discussion this one thing didn't come up during this one frame of time, that people weren't thinking about it or caring about it.  That wasn't fair and the confusion it caused as a result kept us from getting to a question that would have been interesting.

 

You judged all of us for failing a test we never took.  Perhaps you'll consider starting over and just asking one of those pertinent questions? 

[Champuckett]

 

 

Of course.  I want Champ to play the game, not criticize the rules of the game, and not offer any insight to what matter rules might be, or a better game to play.  The meta-discussion because of thought-experiment and not one of real engagement about ideas.

 

And I'd love more conservative voices here too.  I enjoy the debate, and an echo chamber is worthless.   I don't think any one here has any interest in keeping the conversation exclusive to any one ideology.   That's why discussing politics on a Sports message board is cool, because we didn't come here for affirmation of our political beliefs.

 

I enjoyed this comment.  I'm glad you acknowledged we are playing a game, because we are, and it's not us that set the rules, but the media.  I suppose there is always someone like me that will come around once in a long while and talk about the metaphorical rules of the game.  Is that a problem?  Maybe it is, I don't think it is, but I can understand why it's a problem, if only a minor one.

 

If there are more conservative voices here, that's fine, but that's not my aim, and I still don't think that is ever going to help any of us in our lives to make this world a better place.  I understand the contentious tone to that statement.  You're going to go back and forth, team A vs team B.  Is there a way for either team to actually win, or is it simply going to result in a stalemate, based on our previous experiences.  In my experience, it will always result in a stalemate, until one of the team gets more numbers than the other team, and squeezes the other team out. 

 

As far as politics goes, this is how things operate at the most fundamental levels, generally speaking.  You simply need numbers, then you win.  Ideas don't matter, philosophy doesn't matter, only majority power.  I'm sure exceptions can be pointed out, but when you only have 2 teams to play for, it seems like we all lose at the end of the day.  I think there must be a few that can agree to that last statement.

 

Why not force a change in the rules, or at the very least expose the ruleset for what it is.  Seems like a good start.

[Champuckett]

 

 

We do wrangle with it, in terms of having evidence-based opinions.

 

Please point out these other places.  

 

And discussions about how to have discourse are different than discussions about substantive issues, whatever they may be.   Again, it's easy to criticize the topics of conversation and how those conversations take place, when you aren't contributing any topics (beyond how media etc. influences us).  Poverty, healthcare, education are real things, and if those aren't the topics we should be talking about, what should we be talking about?  Because it seems we'd only be talking about talking, which leads to that eventual question, now what?

 

I think I made a response much earlier in the thread that answered this question, but I'll give it a go again.

 

Poverty, healthcare, education are all real things.  Are they the most important factors in our lives is what I'm getting at.  Yes, they are important, but the way the polemic sets up on both sides doesn't grant us much wiggle room from which to debate from.

 

Poverty - low taxes, high taxes

Healthcare - single payer, universal, privatized,

education - public, private

 

We all know there are many more options on this and these issues are more complex, yet both of the political parties essentially only debate from either of these sides for the most part.  Why is that.

 

The issues that are most impacting our lives right now do not have anything to do with the options that are listed.  Going to war for plunder, not just oil, but for human trafficking and drugs.  Foreign interests from both major political parties having complete control over our legislative branch of government.  The federal banks being owned by foreign powers.  The police force being the modern day version of the slave patrol, why would this be the case.  There are no actual rights for any citizens, only the illusion of rights.  Why do we have the Constitution.  What happened to the Articles of Confederation.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but why is the media or even the secondary media (Trump/conservative) not tackling any of these issues.