|
Post by svart on Dec 15, 2017 16:33:15 GMT -6
Wasn't a problem from 1992 - 2015. Why would it be a problem now? What wasn't a problem? Anything that we've been told would happen after the 2015 rules were repealed. We're only returning to the un-regulated nature of the internet as it was before the rule changes of 2015.. AKA the way it's always been until 2015.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 15, 2017 16:44:30 GMT -6
One other thing, real quick. Has anyone considered the fact that the previous administration's FCC actually created a whole new class of federal regulation that wasn't provisioned by Congress to the FCC? They re-interpreted the 1934 regulation act governing the telecom monopoly of AT&T...for the Internet. This was an entirely unconstitutional federal grab at doing what an administration wanted to do without Congress having given them the power to do it. It wasn't "unconstitutional" at all. The FCC is SUPPOSED to be the regulatory mechanism to govern communications related issues. The Internet is nothing more than a technological development of telephonic communications. That's total bullshit. The internet is thououghly and absolutely within the purview of the FCC. The only problem weith the FCC is thgat the have not exerted the power ENOUGH, to proct us from things like piracy. If by "appropriately" you mean stripping the entire working and small business class on which our country's health is based of resources necessary to their survival and well being, and consequently the country's REAL (as opposed to Wall Street Paper) economic and business growth, and transferring that wealth to a tiny minority that doesn't do a damn thing except plot ways to take what they don't deserve, no, it doesn't make a lick of sense. And it's a bluerprint for utter disaster. But there's nothing "proper" about Trump's tax bill. Nothing at all. The word to describe that is "kleptocracy". Obama's administration benefited the citizens of this country, more than any administration in the last 40 or more years. And would have done much more except for Republican obstructionism and refusal to operate as a democracy should. Trump's administration steals from them.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 15, 2017 16:52:23 GMT -6
Anything that we've been told would happen after the 2015 rules were repealed. We're only returning to the un-regulated nature of the internet as it was before the rule changes of 2015.. AKA the way it's always been until 2015. I'd argue that we need MORE regulation, not less, but that the kind of regulation we really need is not the kind that's likely to be enacted by any tech/telecom/media industry controlled FCC we've seen recently or are likely to see anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 15, 2017 18:14:14 GMT -6
I think we need surgical regulation as opposed to more or less.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 15, 2017 19:08:56 GMT -6
I actually fear Hillary more than I fear Trump as I regard Hillary as a compentent psychopath while Trump appears to think he's still in an episode of 'The Apprentice'. Apart from Fox Hillary has had a free pass from the Liberal media inspite of her myriad of documented lies and deceit. Regardless of which 'Commander in Chief' occupies the oval office they are predominantly under the control of larger unseen forces. The idea of "Hillary as psychopath" is 100% the product of the Trump propaganda machine, and is a brilliant example of Trump blaming his opponents/perceived "enemies" for what he himself is guilty of. Trump scares the crap out of me, as there's a very real chance that he could get us all killed by provoking atomic war with either North Korea or Islam, or perhaps both. It should not be overlooked that Pakistan, ostensibly a US allay, is both Islamic and a legitimate (as oppposed to rogue) nuclear power. Hillary is a competent politician and bureaucrat, probably better at her job than most. What I don't like her is that although she identifies as a "Democrat" with lip service to progressive ideas, in reality she's a neo-Republican who is firmly in the pocket of Wall Street and Big Business. She supports gun control because, like many people in Washington, she's scared shitless of what might happen if a majority of the population should actually get fed up and decide to do something about the business oligarchy controlling this country and make a real attempt to restore a real democracy. Not that there's much real chance of that happening.The truth is that virtually none of the accusations of "lies and deceit" have been substantiated and the majority have been conclusively disproved repeatedly. That portrait of her is 100% the product of the Trump/Tea Party propaganda machine, which collapse in anaphylactic shock if they weere ever bittern b y the truth. The only really dishonest thing Hillary has been proven guiltyy of was colluding against Barry Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary, which turned out to be a huge mistake for the Democratic party and the country as a whole. As to the myth of the "liberal media", there is no real liberal media left in this country - the media is, at most centrist. There is no functioning left wing remaining in the USA. What is generally regarded as "leftist" these days is somewhat to the right of the historical Barry Goldwater and the John Birch Society, which were regarded as far right back in the 1960s, which was the last time this country actually had much of a balanced government. I'm astounded and dismayed by the lack of knowledge of US History as recent the end of the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower, himself regarded as a staunch right-winger in his day, issued serious and strong warnings about what he viewed as trends very dangerous to the country and democracy itself - warnings which have been born out by recent events. The Bush era Neocon's who kick started the so-called Global War on Terror in order to balkanise the Middle East backed Hillary during the election as the President they figured would finish the job. Hillary is by definition of her own actions a Neocon herself and yes in she is in the pocket of Wall Street and the corporations and is available to the highest bidder. And the 'Liberal' media has also been championing wars of aggression for years so it's not only Fox. Under Neo Liberalism the Democrats have become addicted to corporate money and have shifted towards the right which is what has caused the rise of the progressives and the likes of Bernie Sanders as many long term Democrats have become disillusioned with their own party. So I agree with everything you say except I have been watching the Clinton's for decades well before Trump was on the radar and there are many examples of Clinton's lying and deceiving to be seen and these examples are in her (and her husband's) own words not some claims by another party with an axe to grind. (And don't take that as some kind of endorsement of Trump. It's not!) Also Hillary threatened to nuke Iran on behalf on Israel which was an issue of concern for me in the lead up to the past US election. The reality is regardless of which political party or leader get the 'vote' it all ends up leading to the same hellish place for the majority of the people. Yes and if you don't learn from history you will repeat the same 'mistakes'. Libya was one of Hillary's personal projects as US Secretary of State. Libya is now another failed state. Hillary comments on the death of Gadaffi who was sodomised with a wooden stake.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 15, 2017 20:01:22 GMT -6
Ha, please don’t paint me with some kind of partisan brush. I didn’t vote for Trump.
If anything I’m of the opinion that an unlimited democracy is a fools errand. Limited franchise Republic or monarchy with electors!
I don't agree that the FCC and expand their scope under the communications act of 1934 without amendment by Congress. Congress amended it to include cable back in 84 and 92 when we at least pretended to follow the constitution. Commissions and government departments don’t have a license to expand their scope just cuz. They have legitimate scopes and charters based on law. Or should, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 15, 2017 20:06:04 GMT -6
Relevant: Even the NN document itself admits that it harms emerging ISP. This is directly from Page 329 of FCC 15-24: This also seems like a balanced position. Even the term "net neutrality" was coined not by an engineer but by a legal academic, in 2003. Since Donald Trump's election, the rhetoric surrounding net neutrality's imminent demise has been frenzied. Every move by newly appointed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Ajit Pai generates a chorus of consumer advocates bemoaning the death of neutrality and the "end of the internet as we know it." Businesses and consumers are being warned that Republican lawmakers are united in their determination to not just modify the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order, but to "kill," "destroy," "dismantle," or "abolish," the open internet, as soon as possible. In the interest of exploring these issues, I've compiled some of the most important questions about net neutrality and the 2015 order, which grounded the rules in 1930s-era public utility law. To be clear, I agree with Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, who recently acknowledgedthat net neutrality principles have been and will continue to be strictly enforced not by regulation but by powerful market forces. My view is pretty simple: Most efforts to regulate the internet make things worse in the long term or, in this case, much sooner. Here, the effort to transform Internet Service Providers (ISPs) into utilities is a cure far worse than the problem. snip... Next, it's important to understand the 2015 Open Internet Order. This is an FCC rule, advocated for by President Obama, that based new net neutrality rules on old public utility laws originally written to regulate the former Bell telephone monopoly. The 2015 order mostly addressed a radical policy shift from competing private networks to public utility treatment for broadband, or "reclassification," with authority to enforce net neutrality being a mere side effect. The order passed, in early 2015, by a party-line vote of 3-2. (Pai was one of the commissioners who voted against it. More on that later.) At the time, advocates hailed reclassification as a necessary foundation for net neutrality. But reclassification, separate from the net neutrality rules themselves, was less popular with broadband providers, which, along with leading internet engineering groups and companies like Google and Netflix, were concerned that the FCC would use the broad public utility powers it granted itself to regulate the internet well beyond enforcing net neutrality. If the FCC or Congress revises or even reverses the public utility order, isn't that the end of net neutrality? No. The Open Internet principles (as the FCC has always referred to net neutrality) long predate the 2015 Order. When a court found in 2010 that the FCC lacked authority to enforce them, the agency formalized them as rules. The same court rejected that effort in 2014, however, concluding that the agency had failed to identify a source of legal authority from Congress, precipitating the 2015 Order. Thus, for most of the history of the commercial internet, there have never been formal net neutrality rules. Still, during a decade of largely inside-the-Beltway squabbling, the FCC has only once identified a violation of the principles that might have been barred by any version of its rules. That may be in large part because, even without the FCC, the kinds of behavior net neutrality prohibits are either counter-productive for broadband providers to engage in or are already illegal under anti-competition laws actively enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. If the FTC was already the internet's "cop on the beat," why does the FCC also need to regulate? In part, the net neutrality fight has always been an inter-agency power struggle, with the FTC and the FCC each determined to establish new relevance in the emerging internet ecosystem. One (perhaps) unintended consequence, however, of the reclassification of broadband as a public utility is that the FCC explicitly cut off the jurisdiction of the FTC, which can't oversee utilities. Reversing reclassification but preserving the net neutrality rules an action now being considered at the FCC and in Congress would restore oversight to both agencies. But the internet is a "vital service," isn't it? Why shouldn't it be a utility? Without doubt, our broadband infrastructure has become critical to business and consumers alike as a leading source of economic growth and productivity. But the legal designation of a "public utility" is more than just an acknowledgment of that importance. For over a century, economists have long cautioned that treating infrastructure as a quasi-public monopolyshould only be considered a last resort to overcome severe market failings. That's because utility treatment comes at a high cost. A monopoly or municipal utility, by definition, doesn't compete with anyone, eliminating incentives for investment, innovation, customer service, and maintenance. The sad state of most U.S. power, water, and mass transit systems painfully illustrates that point. By comparison, private investors have spent nearly $1.5 trillion on competing wired and mobile broadband networks over the last 20 years, and are poised to accelerate their efforts if the utility classification is undone. Though consumers in rural and mountainous regions may not yet have the fastest speeds, and contrary to what utility advocates claim, U.S. broadband deployment and pricing is the envy of much of the rest of the world. So if the public utility order is reversed, how will net neutrality be preserved? There are several options. The FCC could, for example, revise the 2015 order along the lines of a 2014 court ruling that even former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler initially referred to as his "roadmap" although that would only defer the possibility of reclassification until the next administration. Inconsistency would depress business investment, which nobody wants. The better solution would be to make the net neutrality rules a matter of federal law. And that is exactly what House and Senate Republicans proposed in late 2014. The chairmen of the congressional commerce committees, with FCC oversight, jointly introduced a bill that codified much stronger net neutrality rules even than those the FCC approved in its 2010 effort. The Republican bill, for example, would have preemptively banned ISPs from blocking websites, slowing traffic, or offering prioritization for content as a paid service (so-called "fast lanes"). That bill also made clear that Congress never intended the FCC to have the discretion to transform broadband into a public utility at will, and in doing so subject it to rate regulation and other micromanagement. But since Democrats expected to win the White House in the 2016 election, they showed no interest in the bill, confident that an FCC chaired by someone Hillary Clinton picked would support the 2015 Order. Even since Trump's election, Republicans have made clear that a potential bi-partisan compromise on this matter is still on the table. Broadband ISPs will never go along with such a law, will they? They will. ISPs are as unhappy about the endless uncertainty around net neutrality as anyone, and support a permanent legislative solution. While some providers have objected to the particular wording of some of the rules in the past, they don't object to net neutrality. Indeed, they practiced it during nearly two decades when the FCC had no rules requiring them to do so. Verizon was actually the only broadband provider to challenge the 2010 version of the rules, and then only on very technical legal grounds. In ongoing litigation over the 2015 Public Utility Order, other ISPs have challenged the substance and process of reclassification, but, again, not the rules themselves. Verizon, whose business model has changed substantially since 2010, now supports aspectsof the 2015 Order with which even some of the advocacy groups took issue. And both Comcast and AT&T remain subject to slightly different versions of the rules regardless of what happens to the 2015 Order, having committed to them as conditions for recent mergers. snip... Don't edge providers like Google and Netflix, as well as start-ups, rely on net neutrality? Advocates for expanded public utility regulation of broadband providers are busy conjuring worst-case scenarios for any change to the 2015 Order, insisting for example that ISPs will immediately begin charging content providers such as Google and Netflix special fees to deliver information to their subscribers, and otherwise destroy the equal playing field by which internet services can be accessed by consumers. These predictions intentionally ignore technical, business, and legal realities, however, that make such fees unlikely, if not impossible. For one thing, in the last two decades, during which no net neutrality rules were in place, ISPs have never found a business case for squeezing the Open Internet. In part, that's the result of intense competitive pressure among mobile providers and increasingly between mobile and wired ISPs. In broadband, it's the content providers who have leverage over the ISPs and not the other way around, as Netflix recently acknowledged in brushing aside concern about any "weakening" of net neutrality rules. This might be why neither Google nor Netflix thought the public utility reclassification was a good idea. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt argued against it at the time, saying he was worried that reclassification meant "starting to regulate an awful lot of things on the Internet," a concern shared by the Internet Society and other non-partisan engineering groups. Netflix, recognizing that public utility regulations for broadband could someday extend to their own non-neutral conduct, reconsidered its own advocacy after the 2015 Order was passed. A frequently misunderstood point is that Netflix's intervention late in the fight over the 2015 Order was not about avoiding future fees for last-mile delivery of its content. The company instead asked the FCC to mandate free interconnection for its wholesale traffic partners and its own content delivery networks embedded throughout ISP facilities something the company confusingly called "strong" net neutrality. Despite claims that Netflix traffic was being "throttled" by ISPs, slowdowns in Netflix traffic in 2014 (which gained extra attention following comedian John Oliver's famous rant about the issue) turned out to be the fault of one of Netflix's own transit providers. The transit provider was over capacity and had reduced service at peak times to wholesale customers, like Netflix, without telling anyone. Netflix actually pays below market rates for interconnection costs so small they don't even show up in financial statements. The FCC declined to extend "neutrality" to the core of the network in its 2015 Order, and Netflix quickly lost interest in the debate. hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 15, 2017 20:07:37 GMT -6
The idea of "Hillary as psychopath" is 100% the product of the Trump propaganda machine, and is a brilliant example of Trump blaming his opponents/perceived "enemies" for what he himself is guilty Man John, how do you really feel? You're wrong though. I thought Hillary was a psychopath more than 15 years ago. And that was long before Trump had any presidential aspirations. I pretty much think ALL politicians are crooks and con-artists though. But that said, I think someone should call Johnkenn. This thread has gone off the rails, and the political and "other" rule have been in violation for some time now..... That's the last I've got to say on THIS thread....
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,739
|
Post by ericn on Dec 15, 2017 20:54:50 GMT -6
Man John, how do you really feel? You're wrong though. I thought Hillary was a psychopath more than 15 years ago. And that was long before Trump had any presidential aspirations. I pretty much think ALL politicians are crooks and con-artists though. But that said, I think someone should call Johnkenn. This thread has gone off the rails, and the political and "other" rule have been in violation for some time now..... That's the last I've got to say on THIS thread.... Anybody who wants the job or thinks they can do the job of President is probably a Narcissisic Sychopath and should be disqualified, but then who would we be left with?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 15, 2017 21:00:54 GMT -6
@dogear can you drop some TL;DR versions of your posts?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 15, 2017 21:10:53 GMT -6
Man John, how do you really feel? You're wrong though. I thought Hillary was a psychopath more than 15 years ago. And that was long before Trump had any presidential aspirations. I pretty much think ALL politicians are crooks and con-artists though. But that said, I think someone should call Johnkenn. This thread has gone off the rails, and the political and "other" rule have been in violation for some time now..... That's the last I've got to say on THIS thread.... Anybody who wants the job or thinks they can do the job of President is probably a Narcissisic Sychopath and should be disqualified, but then who would we be left with? The 'democratic' two party political system along with its 'Public Relations Department' (the corporate mainstream media) is designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to keep the masses divided down the middle and squabbling with each other over issues designed to distract them from the bigger picture thus allowing the sociopathic social engineers ('The Hidden Hand') to get on with 'business' regardless of which political 'brand' is in office. And to repeat... “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.” - Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (Published in 1966)
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 15, 2017 22:29:09 GMT -6
@dogear can you drop some TL;DR versions of your posts? Haha of course. If reading about Net Neutrality makes you ask for a TLDR you probably can't have a sufficiently informed position on it. Stuffs complicated.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Dec 16, 2017 2:30:22 GMT -6
Talking politics on a chat board designed for pro & semi pro audio is like using an SM7 to record everything.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 16, 2017 12:12:13 GMT -6
The Bush era Neocon's who kick started the so-called Global War on Terror in order to balkanise the Middle East backed Hillary during the election as the President they figured would finish the job. Hillary is by definition of her own actions a Neocon herself and yes in she is in the pocket of Wall Street and the corporations and is available to the highest bidder. And the 'Liberal' media has also been championing wars of aggression for years so it's not only Fox. Under Neo Liberalism the Democrats have become addicted to corporate money and have shifted towards the right which is what has caused the rise of the progressives and the likes of Bernie Sanders as many long term Democrats have become disillusioned with their own party. So I agree with everything you say except I have been watching the Clinton's for decades well before Trump was on the radar and there are many examples of Clinton's lying and deceiving to be seen and these examples are in her (and her husband's) own words not some claims by another party with an axe to grind. (And don't take that as some kind of endorsement of Trump. It's not!) Also Hillary threatened to nuke Iran on behalf on Israel which was an issue of concern for me in the lead up to the past US election. The reality is regardless of which political party or leader get the 'vote' it all ends up leading to the same hellish place for the majority of the people. Yes and if you don't learn from history you will repeat the same 'mistakes'. Libya was one of Hillary's personal projects as US Secretary of State. Libya is now another failed state. Hillary comments on the death of Gadaffi who was sodomised with a wooden stake. I don't Hillary saying anything about nuking Iran - source please? And I don't believe she lies any more than any other government official, unlike Trump, who is a pathalogical liar - he'll lie even when it doesn't make any sense. But yeah, Hillary's hawkishness is one of the things I dislike about her - but lots of "traditional" Dems are hawks - it's not confined to any one party, it's more a function of being owned by corporate conglomerates and Wall Street. I do support Israel though, although I don't like Netanyahu.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 16, 2017 12:15:09 GMT -6
Man John, how do you really feel? You're wrong though. I thought Hillary was a psychopath more than 15 years ago. And that was long before Trump had any presidential aspirations. I pretty much think ALL politicians are crooks and con-artists though. But that said, I think someone should call Johnkenn. This thread has gone off the rails, and the political and "other" rule have been in violation for some time now..... That's the last I've got to say on THIS thread.... Anybody who wants the job or thinks they can do the job of President is probably a Narcissisic Sychopath and should be disqualified, but then who would we be left with? That's pretty much the way I look at it - anybody who REALLY WANTS the job isn't qualified for it. I think Liz Warren would probably be a decent prez.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 16, 2017 14:28:49 GMT -6
I don't Hillary saying anything about nuking Iran - source please? And I don't believe she lies any more than any other government official, unlike Trump, who is a pathalogical liar - he'll lie even when it doesn't make any sense. But yeah, Hillary's hawkishness is one of the things I dislike about her - but lots "traditional" Dems are hawks - it's not confined to any one party, it's more a function of being owned by corporate conglomerates and Wall Street. I do support Israel though, although I don't like Netanyahu. Geez we are really going down the political rabbit hole in this thread and I'm sure John K. is squirming in his boots! However keeping it civil is and avoiding getting personal with one another is important. Sure Trump lies, Obama lies, Bush lies, the Clinton's lie, they ALL lie. You described Trump as a pathological liar (I'm not arguing with you) but I have regarded Hillary's lying as being pathological for more than 20 years. This was Hillary (see video below) during her run for the Democratic Presidential nomination race against Obama in 2008. Iran has no nuclear weapons capabiity. Her rhetoric has not changed since and the Bush era neocons even backed her 2016 election campaign. Bear in mind the 2003 invasion of Iraq was based upon the false claims it posessed WMD's. It didn't and it was shown the intelligence that was used to justify the invasion was manufactured by the same group of Neocons who backed Hillary in 2016. That's what worried me even more than Trump. theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/I'm going to refrain from posting anymore of this on RGO as it has gone well offtrack and into the political 'wilderness'.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 16, 2017 23:54:30 GMT -6
I don't Hillary saying anything about nuking Iran - source please? And I don't believe she lies any more than any other government official, unlike Trump, who is a pathalogical liar - he'll lie even when it doesn't make any sense. But yeah, Hillary's hawkishness is one of the things I dislike about her - but lots "traditional" Dems are hawks - it's not confined to any one party, it's more a function of being owned by corporate conglomerates and Wall Street. I do support Israel though, although I don't like Netanyahu. Geez we are really going down the political rabbit hole in this thread and I'm sure John K. is squirming in his boots! However keeping it civil is and avoiding getting personal with one another is important. Sure Trump lies, Obama lies, Bush lies, the Clinton's lie, they ALL lie. You described Trump as a pathological liar (I'm not arguing with you) but I have regarded Hillary's lying as being pathological for more than 20 years. This was Hillary (see video below) during her run for the Democratic Presidential nomination race against Obama in 2008. Iran has no nuclear weapons capabiity. Her rhetoric has not changed since and the Bush era neocons even backed her 2016 election campaign. Bear in mind the 2003 invasion of Iraq was based upon the false claims it posessed WMD's. It didn't and it was shown the intelligence that was used to justify the invasion was manufactured by the same group of Neocons who backed Hillary in 2016. That's what worried me even more than Trump. theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/I'm going to refrain from posting anymore of this on RGO as it has gone well offtrack and into the political 'wilderness'. Taking quotations out of context is a well known propaganda technique, and besides she did say in one of those quotes that Iran had no nuclear capability at the time. It seems to me that all she was doing was giving a warning in an attempt to discourage nuclear proliferation. That isn't anything different from what nearly all politicians/diplomats/leaders would say in a similar situation. I didn't hear any lies there. It was nothing like Bush falsedly claiming that Iraq had WMDs. It was simply a warning not to go down that path. People need to listen to what is actually being said, not what some opposition spin-doctor says was being said.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 17, 2017 8:37:07 GMT -6
In my experience of internet forums, we've been largely civil in this thread and there's even small efforts to listen to and consider opposing points of view.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 17, 2017 9:09:36 GMT -6
Man John, how do you really feel? You're wrong though. I thought Hillary was a psychopath more than 15 years ago. And that was long before Trump had any presidential aspirations. I pretty much think ALL politicians are crooks and con-artists though. But that said, I think someone should call Johnkenn. This thread has gone off the rails, and the political and "other" rule have been in violation for some time now..... That's the last I've got to say on THIS thread.... I think we're going to see more Hillary's in the future, only they will be on the GOP side. The reason? 25years ago the media figured out- first with Rush Limbaugh and then with FOX News- that you could have a completely partisan political networks and make money. So, Hillary is the first example of the news media demonizing an individual for a long, long time. Now, with MSNBC, there is going to be the same long term focus on the liberal side demonizing GOP politicians and policies. People on both sides want confirmation bias and the media is going to capitalize on both sides. Personally, I think our Republic would be much better off with the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but I think we're well beyond that and-despite both sides of the political spectrum having media outlets stoking people's confirmation bias- we live in an Oligarchy. Yeah, there are social issues to fight over, but both parties are captured by the wealthiest interests in our country who continue to accumulate more of the nations wealth. As technology takes away more and more wealth making opportunities for the little guy, we will become a larger welfare state, with just enough money, food and free entertainment to keep the masses in check. It has already happened and will expand.
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Dec 17, 2017 13:46:41 GMT -6
The reason? 25years ago the media figured out- first with Rush Limbaugh and then with FOX News- that you could have a completely partisan political networks and make money. So, Hillary is the first example of the news media demonizing an individual for a long, long time. If we're limiting this to US political figures, off the top of my head Henry Kissinger, Barry Goldwater, Dan Quayle, and Newt Gingrich would all disagree that Hillary was the first example of such demonization, though the latter two received the beginnings of such right around the same time Hillary did. Anyway, the perception of such is less to do with partisan politics and more to do with the development of the 24-hour news cycle, which took hold in the late-1980s.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 17, 2017 14:32:10 GMT -6
The reason? 25years ago the media figured out- first with Rush Limbaugh and then with FOX News- that you could have a completely partisan political networks and make money. So, Hillary is the first example of the news media demonizing an individual for a long, long time. If we're limiting this to US political figures, off the top of my head Henry Kissinger, Barry Goldwater, Dan Quayle, and Newt Gingrich would all disagree that Hillary was the first example of such demonization, though the latter two received the beginnings of such right around the same time Hillary did. Anyway, the perception of such is less to do with partisan politics and more to do with the development of the 24-hour news cycle, which took hold in the late-1980s. Yes, she's just the one who had the largest target on her back for the longest time because the right wing saw her coming forever. It was obvious she was gonna be the one to try and take a crack at the WH as a woman and the strategy to portray her as all the usual shit they dump on women (emotional, shrill, weak, volatile) started a long time ago. It's especially comical given the precisely Emotional, Shrill, Weak and Volatile person we got instead, watching hours of cable news a day and getting bent out of shape and throwing tantrums at every little slight. HRC has plenty of actual baggage, no doubt, it's just that it's the kind of run of the mill baggage that your average white dude politician gets a pass on. And any actual missteps on her part are embellished by 300%. But her being a mediocre candidate and there being a massive, disingenuous, multi-decade effort to demonize her aren't mutually exclusive and in this case are both true in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 17, 2017 14:40:11 GMT -6
The reason? 25years ago the media figured out- first with Rush Limbaugh and then with FOX News- that you could have a completely partisan political networks and make money. So, Hillary is the first example of the news media demonizing an individual for a long, long time. If we're limiting this to US political figures, off the top of my head Henry Kissinger, Barry Goldwater, Dan Quayle, and Newt Gingrich would all disagree that Hillary was the first example of such demonization, though the latter two received the beginnings of such right around the same time Hillary did. Anyway, the perception of such is less to do with partisan politics and more to do with the development of the 24-hour news cycle, which took hold in the late-1980s. I'm 60 years old and watched Walter Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, William F Buckley, Tom Brokaw et. al. There was never a 24 hour daily attack- all day on radio and all night on television- for 25 years on Kissinger, Goldwater, Quayle or Gingrich. Today, there are and will be 24 hour attacks on Trump, Ryan, McConnel et.al. to go along with the attacks by the Limbaugh types and FOX. It's all a national disgrace imo. You have to be a certain personality type to want to go into that media Machiavellian political darkness, but lots of people do every day.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 17, 2017 14:44:32 GMT -6
Hillary Clinton traveled all across the South busting newly organized church schools for racism. Nobody is more hated by the KKK or loved by the black community.
Make no mistake, the election was really all about racism.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 17, 2017 15:15:00 GMT -6
Whaaaaaaa....did somebody hijack Bob's account?? It might have been racism for you Bob, but there were a million more important issues for the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 17, 2017 15:18:29 GMT -6
Whaaaaaaa....did somebody hijack Bob's account?? It might have been racism for you Bob, but there were a million more important issues for the rest of us. Heheh. “The rest of us...” Edit: not agreeing that the election was “all about” race. But it sure was an animating factor for a big chunk of people. There is zero doubt about that. HRC’s history of busting Southern racist orgs combined with the big time backlash against a black POTUS created a frothing-with-anger chunk of the white GOP base that Trump and propaganda outfits like Breitbart/InfoWars/etc very successfully riled up.
|
|