Hard News: The fake news problem
440 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Email
....although it's quite funny that the first half-dozen or so posts after I put the test up are people trying to answer the questions.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
we have an Oligarchy.
So your "Trump " steps up to the plate and offers to "drain the swamp". This is essentially about the de-selection process . . . . getting rid of the entrenched oligarchy without having to invoke the guillotine solution.
If Trump succeeds in only one policy outcome during his tenure , a limit on politicians' terms- in- office would satisfy many people. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
My point is that while it might be superficially and in theory an extremely attractive proposition to set some sort of eligibility test for voting, and exclude those deemed incompetent by way of stupidity and/or ignorance, in practice it’s hugely dubious.
It certainly is.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Email
This is essentially about the de-selection process . . . . getting rid of the entrenched oligarchy without having to invoke the guillotine solution.
If Trump succeeds in only one policy outcome during his tenure , a limit on politicians' terms- in- office would satisfy many people.There's plenty of other tweaks that could be made, which would probably improve the outcome, yes. Proportional Representation in some form or other (rather than the electoral college), term limits maybe (I don't know enough about that - the counter-argument is that you end up kicking people out of office just as they're learning how to do the job. There are many effective MPs in NZ and the UK, for example, who keep their seats for decades), effective caps on campaign funding and contributions, effectvie checks on professional lobbyists.
-
Email Web
I agree that the USA is operating as an oligarchy nowadays (as much as a democracy). I suspect Trump will join the club of oligarchs, after draining the swamp sufficiently to make it a hostile ecosystem for his competitors.
The left, having recently tired of demonising Trump, are now busy demonising Barron, so in performing the necessary reality-check I found an excellent in-depth profile on the Bloomberg site, from over a year ago (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/) some of which is worth recycling.
“When Clinton became secretary of state, the foundation signed an agreement with the White House to disclose all of its contributors. It didn’t follow through.” So top democrats can’t even honour the agreements they sign with each other. No wonder voters think they can’t be trusted to run the country.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email
The left, having recently tired of demonising Trump
I’m not seeing that abating much. Nor do I expect to. Demonization of the President Elect is pretty much normal in the USA, if you voted against them.
ETA: Which clearly, is not a good thing if any actual demons do get the Presidency. But hey, that's how it always goes. I mean I read War and Peace recently, and they have serious discussions in their Soirees about whether Napolean is the Antichrist (a few years after having discussions about whether he is the Saviour of Europe and an all round top bloke).
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
“When Clinton became secretary of state, the foundation signed an agreement with the White House to disclose all of its contributors. It didn’t follow through.” So top democrats can’t even honour the agreements they sign with each other. No wonder voters think they can’t be trusted to run the country.
And this just in ...
A Ukrainian steel magnate, Victor Pinchuk, paid $150,000 to Donald Trump’s charity to book the then-presidential candidate to speak via satellite at a conference held in Kiev in the early days of the presidential campaign.
“Victor is a very, very special man. A special entrepreneur,” Trump told the gathering.
In September 2015, when Pinchuk paid the money to Trump’s charitable foundation, the Ukrainian billionaire was also one of the largest donors to the Clinton Foundation. The payment to the Trump Foundation went undisclosed until this week, when it surfaced on newly-filed tax records for Donald Trump’s charitable foundation, raising alarms from some of the Clintons' most vocal critics.
“I think it is troubling,” said Peter Schweizer, author of the book Clinton Cash, which documented the blending of the Clinton’s charitable and political interests. “He’s somebody that donated to the Clinton Foundation, and this is a problem…I think there's no other way to read it other than they are hoping to get some favor in return.”
I think it's fair to say that the Clinton Foundation did at least save millions of lives and does now publish a donor list.
-
Dennis Frank, in reply to
Email Web
Napoleon turned out to be quite benign, as dictators go, but I guess it was a refreshing change from the previous century (in which puritan ideology made depicting the pope as antichrist the prevalent norm).
"Steve Bannon runs the new vast right-wing conspiracy—and he wants to take down both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. By Joshua Green | October 8, 2015" Bloomberg, as pr arm of the yankee capitalist establishment, perhaps tongue-in-cheek posing as conspiracy theorists. But it illuminates rightist identity politics as a confusion, eh?
"Bannon is a kind of Jekyll-and-Hyde figure in the complicated ecosystem of the right—he's two things at once. ... “I come from a blue-collar, Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats,” says Bannon, by way of explaining his politics." "Our vision was always to build a global, center-right, populist, anti-establishment news site." “The modern economics of the newsroom don’t support big investigative reporting staffs,” says Bannon. “You wouldn’t get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We’re working as a support function.”
I've been wondering why the Tea Party is no longer flavour of the month, despite their apparent victory. Rebranded as alt-right? If so,why? Anyone here adept at elucidating the psychology that drives political branding?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email
Napoleon turned out to be quite benign, as dictators go
Yes, only 3.5 - 7 million people died in the wars that resulted from his actions.
-
Dennis Frank, in reply to
Email Web
Hmm, #16 on the all-time greatest hits list, all of which are mere estimates not historical fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll). But I had in mind the lack of the usual overt cruelty (genocide, torture, concentration camps, etc) and he seems to have abandoned the guillotine as standard treatment for political opponents institutionalised by the prior (leftist) revolutionary government.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
...he seems to have abandoned the guillotine as standard treatment for political opponents institutionalised by the prior (leftist) revolutionary government.
The guillotine was introduced as a claimed humane method of execution. It remained in use until France abolished the death penalty in the early 1980s. The National Assembly of the Revolution abolished the death penalty in 1795. It was Napoleon who reinstated it.
-
andin, in reply to
Email
Demonization of the President Elect is pretty much normal in the USA, if you voted against them.
Its an insane way of doing things. But its distant, still I read worrying things about him gutting NASA climate science, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Personally I find the whole thing troubling
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email
I'm less concerned about how cray democracy is than how cray Trump personally is. But except where it affects us outside of the USA, I do rather feel America deserves what they voted for. Sometimes the hard way is the only way to learn. I don't think deliberately disenfranchising the population even more than what it has voluntarily already done to itself is the way to improve matters.
-
Yeah, I really don't think that "accurately reporting what Trump says and does - or tweets" is any kind of definition for "demonising".
Or for that matter, redefining "leftist" as "diplomats, scientists, journalists, a bunch of Republicans, most American voters, etc, etc ...".
-
Stephen R, in reply to
Hmm, #16 on the all-time greatest hits list, all of which are mere estimates not historical fact
You do realise that most history is about estimates, right? They don't know precisely how many people were killed by Hitler, or Stalin, or the US in Iraq, but they can make estimates. It's the best tool they have, and criticising them for saying it's an estimate instead of pretending they know 100% seems a little unreasonable.
I am reminded of a psych experiment where people who are certain about their eye-witness statements are less likely to be correct than people who are unsure, but more likely to be believed by juries. How fucked up is that?
-
Dennis Frank, in reply to
Email Web
Yeah, well put. I was responding to an assertion that was presented as if it were an historical fact. Also thanks to Joe Wylie for his correction: my impression from around 60 years of reading history probably derives from the lack of extensive use of the device in his empire. Just a guess, but reality checks are always helpful too.
On the more substantial current concern, count me as someone else apprehensive about Trump's disbelief in climate change initiatives. All very well to see the UN as part of the problem rather than part of the solution - most perceptive observers adopted that opinion more than 30 years ago - but a true political leader must validate himself by showing a way forward suitable for all, which in this case means advocating a viable solution to the problem.
A suitable international treaty drafted via multipolar negotiation need not be handicapped by UN bureaucrats. He could just ignore them totally and conduct the necessary liaison himself, using his proven skill as a deal-maker. Where there's a will, there's a way - but there's no sign yet of any such will.
-
John Farrell, in reply to
If what I read here is true
Trump's "skill as a deal maker" enriches him, and bankrupts his partners.
-
Dennis Frank, in reply to
Email Web
If. Did you also read the comments below the interview? I liked this: "if a journalist said to me it is raining outside I would check for myself. So even if everything he said is right no one believes him, a la Cassandra."
But yes, I myself made an online comment a few weeks ago re Trump's apparent immaturity. The spoilt brat syndrome could emerge to accompany the narcissism. The critical dimension to watch is how much or how long his team coheres. Bannon is who I'll watch - and whether team coherence persists through to the next mid-term elections.
-
John Farrell, in reply to
I read the comments - it surprises me how many are sucked in by his schtick.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
I do rather feel America deserves what they voted for. Sometimes the hard way is the only way to learn.
Except that, y'know, most of them didn't, and the people who will suffer the most are the ones who were least likely to vote for him.
Otherwise I'd be really happy for Canada to build a wall and just leave the fuckers to it.
-
An argument that a country should produce the things that are consumed by the residents is given an outing by the archdruid.
Godzone needs to be clever here: we live or die by the trade rules in vogue at any particular time. And of course we are canny traders: we canned the trade deal with Russia but kept supplying them with dairy products.
Trump will do what is good for the U.S. : we'll have to get smarter.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/ -
Farmer Green, in reply to
The other question will be - will the ones who voted for Trump be the ones who gain the most, because if they perceive that they have done so , then they will vote for more of the same.
-
andin, in reply to
Email
The other question
Who’s perception is more at fault?… or
Will these people never tire of being self-centred?Milton Freidman was a twatcock
The Chicago school is a blot on humanitya country should produce the things that are consumed by the residents
uh huh?
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
uh huh?
Apparently in the age of "free trade" this idea is radical if not heretical, and is patently anti-globalisation.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email
It's certainly a radical idea that I shouldn't be able to consume cars or electronics, or bananas.
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.