Why My Friend "S." Is A Republican

[PureX]

Referring to modern liberals (N Americastanian usage), a great many of them would restrict speech, limit who can speak in public venues, impose compulsory service, etc.

You don't seem to realize that this is mostly fiction written by the right-wing media because it gets the right-wing bigots to keep tuning in (and thereby sells the advertising). Also, logic does not dictate that people must tolerate intolerance to be tolerant. Nor does it dictate that to be liberal means one must tolerate radical intolerance. In fact, it would dictate just the opposite.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't seem to realize that this is mostly fiction written by the right-wing media because it gets the right-wing bigots to keep tuning in (and thereby sells the advertising). Also, logic does not dictate that people must tolerate intolerance to be tolerant. Nor does it dictate that to be liberal means one must tolerate radical intolerance. In fact, it would dictate just the opposite.

A vast right wing media conspiracy, eh?
Ever read the NY Times?

 

[PureX]

A vast right wing media conspiracy, eh?
Ever read the NY Times?

These media outlets exist to make money by selling advertising, not to "tell us the truth". They write the stories that they believe will get people to buy their papers, listen to their radio shows, and watch their TV networks. The difference is that some of them just make stuff up, like FOX and Rush Limbaugh, because they know their audiences don't really care about honesty or accuracy, as they're just tuning in to have their ignorance and bigotry ratified. While other outlets like the N.Y. Times do care about honesty and accuracy, but only to the extent of telling the story they choose to tell. Not to the extent of selecting the stories that they choose to tell.

Nearly every story of "liberals enforcing political correctness" that I've ever seen or heard of have come from the right-wingnut media, and were either completely untrue, or were so skewed and hyperbolized as to be blatantly deceitful. But because the media knows their audience wants to believe it, and already does believe it, and they will tune in to have those biased beliefs ratified by these dishonest and hyperbolized stories, they keep churning them out. And the right-wing nuts keep seeing-and-believing that they reflect reality.

Such dishonesty has become a way of life, in America, in American media, in American politics, and in many of the American people. And it's all about the money.

It's always all about the money, in America.

 

[metis]

Dems are just as guilty as Repubs in this regard.

Is this why we see so many Republicans leaving the Republican Party and/or choosing not to run for reelection, such as former representative Joe Scarborough, or the former chief editor of the National Review, George Will for a couple of examples of the former? And even some Republican Party spokespeople still in the party are bad-mouthing Trump, such as Steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, George Romney, Jeff Flake, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

These media outlets exist to make money by selling advertising, not to "tell us the truth". They write the stories that they believe will get people to buy their papers, listen to their radio shows, and watch their TV networks. The difference is that some of them just make stuff up, like FOX and Rush Limbaugh, because they know their audiences don't really care about honesty or accuracy, as they're just tuning in to have their ignorance and bigotry ratified. While other outlets like the N.Y. Times do care about honesty and accuracy, but only to the extent of telling the story they choose to tell. Not to the extent of selecting the stories that they choose to tell.

Nearly every story of "liberals enforcing political correctness" that I've ever seen or heard of have come from the right-wingnut media, and were either completely untrue, or were so skewed and hyperbolized as to be blatantly deceitful. But because the media knows their audience wants to believe it, and already does believe it, and they will tune in to have those biased beliefs ratified by these dishonest and hyperbolized stories, they keep churning them out. And the right-wing nuts keep seeing-and-believing that they reflect reality.

Such dishonesty has become a way of life, in America, in American media, in American politics, and in many of the American people. And it's all about the money.

It's always all about the money, in America.

If the media all lie to us, then how do you know The Truth?

 

[Enoch07]

Is this why we see so many Republicans leaving the Republican Party and/or choosing not to run for reelection, such as former representative Joe Scarborough, or the former chief editor of the National Review, George Will for a couple of examples of the former? And even some Republican Party spokespeople still in the party are bad-mouthing Trump, such as Steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, George Romney, Jeff Flake, etc.

I am not sure. I would like to think it's a sign of obsolete politics coming to an end. But that's probably overly optimistic. Trumps election shook up the GoP just as much as it did the Dems. Which I see as a huge wake up call to career politicians that the people are tired of being jerked around.

 

[metis]

I am not sure. I would like to think it's a sign of obsolete politics coming to an end. But that's probably overly optimistic. Trumps election shook up the GoP just as much as it did the Dems. Which I see as a huge wake up call to career politicians that the people are tired of being jerked around.

I agree, but Trump's not doing it the right nor moral way. If he had started off with going for infrastructure improvement and serious reform of the ACA that would make it more efficient and less expensive, even I would be singing praises of him. But he didn't. And instead of "draining the swamp", he has done the complete opposite by taking actions that strongly favor the well-heeled, their lobbyists, and a greater ability for them to avoid paying taxes. And if they're paying less taxes, I think we both know who's going to be paying more in the long run.

 

[Enoch07]

I agree, but Trump's not doing it the right nor moral way. If he had started off with going for infrastructure improvement and serious reform of the ACA that would make it more efficient and less expensive, even I would be singing praises of him. But he didn't. And instead of "draining the swamp", he has done the complete opposite by taking actions that strongly favor the well-heeled, their lobbyists, and a greater ability for them to avoid paying taxes. And if they're paying less taxes, I think we both know who's going to be paying more in the long run.

I agree, but then again I am a flat tax guy and believe everyone should pay 10% tax on their income regardless of their income level with no loopholes, lobbying should be made illegal, and a small government that has little to no place in our personal lives.

 

[PureX]

If the media all lie to us, then how do you know The Truth?

I'm smart.

The media does not all "lie", and if you had read my post more carefully, you would have seen that this is not what I wrote. Some media outlets sell advertising by telling us the truth, but they select what of the truth they choose to tell us, according to what they think will not upset their advertisers, and will not turn away their subscribers. Others just make up whatever stories they think will keep the eyes and ears on the advertising, to keep that ad money coming in (the phony tabloid "journalism" of Rupert Murdock, Rush Limbaugh, and the like).

Understanding this means that we can begin to determine what media outlets, and what stories they tell are more likely true. And even what stories are NOT being told because they would be "unpopular" to advertisers and/or audiences whether they're true or not. Also, there are media outlets that do not exist to sell advertising, like PBS and NPR (though even these have to cater to their supporting audience, to some degree).

Still, our access to real news has been dwindling for many decades, as maximizing profits has become the prime directive of everything we do in America and around the world. It is getting harder to know what the truth is, which is why a lot of us have given up trying, and instead just tune into whatever phony news outlets tells us what we already believe, and what we want to hear. To do otherwise requires intelligence, and effort, and we just don't care enough about the truth, to bother.

Thus, the rise of the 'American Ignoramus', and the new age of idiocracy.

 

[metis]

I agree, but then again I am a flat tax guy and believe everyone should pay 10% tax on their income regardless of their income level with no loopholes, lobbying should be made illegal, and a small government that has little to no place in our personal lives.

I agree with that, which may shock some people here, as long as there's a cut-off for low-income families. Matter of fact, I would love to see us have what conservative economist Milton Friedman proposed a few decades ago, namely what's called a "negative income tax". See: Negative income tax - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm smart.

Well, shucks....I wish I had me some'o them smarts what gives you the know'n power!

 

[Enoch07]

I agree with that, which may shock some people here, as long as there's a cut-off for low-income families. Matter of fact, I would love to see us have what conservative economist Milton Friedman proposed a few decades ago, namely what's called a "negative income tax". See: Negative income tax - Wikipedia

Hmm not quite so sure about the negative income tax. But yes putting in a low income tax cut-off I could live with. I would propose something along the lines anyone earning less than $20,000 per year there is no state or federal taxes. Just a SS pay in perhaps. This gives the minimum wage workers a bit of relief.

 

[metis]

Hmm not quite so sure about the negative income tax.

With Friedman's proposal, there's an incentive for even a minimum-wage worker to work and improve themselves since s(he) and the government split the difference on any wage increase. Thus it helps the worker and the government to even take on menial jobs and also learn new skills versus just sitting at home doing nothing. And, again, Friedman was a conservative economist under Reagan.