Thread: Republican National Convention

Well, from this Canadian's perspective, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, you're all American's, from the United States of America, and sometimes it's important to remind yourselves what a great country the United States of America is.

Here's a radio address, from the late Gordon Sinclair, an "outsider", and a revered Canadian journalist, that was reprinted and was carried all over the world at the time...I'll leave you to listen to Mr. Sinclair, and to remember what you all have in common. You're a caring, helpful nation of people

Originally Posted by gugi

In 2016 there are hundreds and probably even thousands times more non-profit shows than there were in the 1950s, 1960s, and the 1970s.

Lack of freedom and access to diverse viewpoints is one thing, lack of intellectual curiosity is completely different.

Arguing that one is better for the society than the other is, how shall I put it, perhaps 'shoveling the ocean'?

I'm also not quite sure why reading yesterday's news in this morning's newspaper on one's commute is supposed to be better than getting the up-to-the-minute news on one's phone, or reading a magazine, a book, listening to music, playing a game, or any other way that one sees on the NY transit these days.

Up to the minute news from where and from whom?

There used to be many more press people which translated to more reporting going on and more importantly investigative journalism which is sorely lacking these days.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Up to the minute news from where and from whom?

From whatever source(s) one choses.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

There used to be many more press people which translated to more reporting going on and more importantly investigative journalism which is sorely lacking these days.

Could be (or not, I haven't seen any data to show it one way or another), but even if it's the case that's only because nowadays people have the freedom to get exactly what they value.

In the times you are speaking of all that news was underwritten by the entertainment which was making the money. When you have high barriers and only a choice of handful of money-making entertainment shows there is tons of money and the man at the top can choose to throw some of it into news and investigative journalism.
But when the modern technology allows Jethro to create entertainment on his phone that keeps Cletus away from the daily soap opera, which he instead catches up 3 days later on the TiVo without any annoying ads and when you have hundreds of millions of those from all over the world, suddenly that old pile of money that Scrooge McDuck loves to swim in is gone and there is no more 'free news' and 'free serious investigative journalism'.

And you know how much all that 'fee news' was worth, right? Enough for Michael Bloomberg to build an empire by delivering alternative news to those who were willing to pay for it. Even in the age of twitter and facebook his terminals are still on every trading desk as we speak.

One way or another you are bound to eventually end up with the amount of 'serious news' that people are willing to pay for.

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

I'm not sure where I'm going with yet another one of my long rants, but this is just something that disturbs me, and I have no idea what to do about it, really.

Completely understand your feeling. It should disturb all of us to the point where we start to demand in very certain ways that the system changes to suit our needs not the reverse.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't care at all about people changing others' political opinions. The primary thing I hope to get out of these threads is for people to realize that even if they have different political views they can still share the same fundamental values and suffer from same weaknesses. And that ultimately it is better to act as a decent human being than the opposite.

I would just add to this comment that the hope would also be for people to understand there is still a middle ground to occupy where a common consensus can be reached.

Originally Posted by edhewitt

if you give a politician 4 years to do something, the first year will be spent undoing whatever the last one did, 2 years putting plans into place and 1 year getting it started, just in time for the next round..

Except that a single politician can't make these kind of reversals as one person. They would have to convince the majority and without the current party system in place if the majority still felt by feedback from their constituents that the change is not required then the bill would be quickly defeated and new business would proceed.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Honestly I blame it all on our electronic world and the Internet and Social Media. For all the good it does it does equally bad things too.

Back in the day folks got their news from Newspapers and News Departments on TV were a public service and money loser but they gave pretty fact based reporting. Sure you could find right and left wing media but you had to really look for it and there were always folks fanning the flames but most were looked upon as crazies.

You could discuss politics and folks did change their minds.

Now with 24 hour stations with a profit motive and a "news cycle" and highly partisan media folks get suckered in like getting caught in a maze and you can't find your way out. Folks can tweet their opinions and start rumors and make up lies and millions instantly read it and become brainwashed. It all feeds upon itself and gets worse.

People have lost the ability for critical thinking and are allowing others to do their thinking for them and that never turns out good.

From an Anthropological viewpoint humans evolved in small family related groups and it's hardwired into us to view with suspicion anyone outside that group and the more outside they are the more we dislike them. It's only society and laws and social customs that have allow the populace of this world to exist together without killing each other and it has been tenuous at best. Human society is and has always been on the brink.

The current political climate just feeds off this hard wiring and makes it easier to brand this person or that person.

The solution? Maybe a few hundred thousand years of evolution if we survive that long. Maybe natural selection will take the mean out.

My buddy Mr L. (the guy on my avatar) tells me he's been on extended vacation for years now. He doesn't have to do anything cause we're doing a better job on our own than he ever could.

Your describing our inherent tribal nature. It's the reason we survived as a race at the beginning and will ultimately be our death knell if we don't control it. If anyone thinks we can't control it they should consider how we got to this point. Unchecked in any way tribalism would have taken us out many years ago. Our increasing capacity for rational thought has allowed us to survive by adaptation. So we know it can be done. All we need to do is reach for the rung on our ladder. The act of climbing is always harder than being stationary but we need to do it.

The big question we all need to address is the "HOW".

We have our 6 year-old granddaughter overnight and when we just walked back from the Chinese Restaurant she was telling my wife about Donald Trump and how he wants to be 'Prime Minister' of America.

Now I'm pretty sure that at that age I would not have an idea who was running for the Presidency - although I do recall a campaign slogan of 'I like Ike' - so the fact that his name came up during a class discussion speaks volumes for the power of the media. When I asked if she knew any other names of people who were running she didn't.

By the way, I should add that we live in England and my GD is not precocious - this was just part of a normal discussion where children nominate well known names and have to explain what they know about them.

Originally Posted by UKRob

We have our 6 year-old granddaughter overnight and when we just walked back from the Chinese Restaurant she was telling my wife about Donald Trump and how he wants to be 'Prime Minister' of America.

Now I'm pretty sure that at that age I would not have an idea who was running for the Presidency - although I do recall a campaign slogan of 'I like Ike' - so the fact that his name came up during a class discussion speaks volumes for the power of the media. When I asked if she knew any other names of people who were running she didn't.

By the way, I should add that we live in England and my GD is not precocious - this was just part of a normal discussion where children nominate well known names and have to explain what they know about them.

Well, if you PM me an address, I'll see that she gets some Trump goodies to show her class.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

Well, if you PM me an address, I'll see that she gets some Trump goodies to show her class.

I forgot to add that over here a 'trump' is a childish word for passing wind - maybe that's why the name stuck out.