• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2024 US Presidential Election

donold.png
 
alasdairm said:
the moderators are doing a decent job of keeping things on track and also fact checking both trump and harris in real time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not a fan of this. You're potentially interrupting the flow of a debate and actually influencing the outcome even more than if they were allowed to say something factually incorrect, which were then dissected in the tabloids/media in more depth the following day and allowing the public to contemplate it properly.

Real time fact checking just reeks of establishment control. And what if the fact checkers are biased, or just plain wrong? You have now affected the outcome of that debate by interference.
 
I liked the fact checking. But I wonder why they didn't fact check Kamala when she brought up the Charlottesville both sides lie?
 
mal3volent said:
I liked the fact checking. But I wonder why they didn't fact check Kamala when she brought up the Charlottesville both sides lie?
Click to expand...
This is the point. It's equivalent to corporate news media, who present a condensed version of events (due to 'time constraints'), which may just inadvertently forget to include certain things that results in a distortion of the truth. They may not be lying directly, but it's lie by omission.

The 'fact checking' is just another faceless, corporate, bureaucratic layer that obfuscates the process. Do we know who did the fact checking, and any potential biases or conflicts of interest they may have? Can we see an audit trail of how they reached the conclusions they did, to verify that their verification is even true itself?

It is relying on the goodwill of the public, to trust yet another institution on face value. It is also relying on their intellectual laziness too, to not then verify these things themselves. The 'fact checkers' is just two words, but it obfuscates so much.

It's really not all that different from the process of the corporate media talking heads, who have little earpieces where the producers can whisper directions or statements to them, to try and shoehorn conversations, move things on, etc. It is an attempt to create an artificial narrative, and removing the viewer from the equation in terms of it being a natural flowing conversation.

The only real solution is to increase the publics thinking ability. Not to curate dialogue, because the moment you introduce that you immediately create a backdoor for malign parties to abuse it.
 
mal3volent said:
I liked the fact checking. But I wonder why they didn't fact check Kamala when she brought up the Charlottesville both sides lie?
Click to expand...
Not to split it too fine here, but she did talk about Tiki torch carrying people which would reference the first night. Look into that first night if you get a chance. Weren't a lot of good people. It inevitably led up to the second day...

Car-Plows-Through-a-crowd-of-protesters-in-Charlottesville.gif
 
From an outside perspective (ok ok I'll own it...) From my perspective (as a non usa redsident) It's really, really difficult to comprehend how the fuck the polls are so close between the two, given that one is clearly a mentally ill orange psychopath.

I guess we had Boris Johnson, but as absolutely grim/cuntish as he was/is (still alive I hear), he's nowhere near Donald-levels of nonsense.

It's disturbing
 
brokedownpalace10 said:
She ain't perfect, none are. But, as you have read, I feel she's the best pick of the two, and that includes drug policy.
Click to expand...

Ok Ok Ok, I read some of the last posts a few pages back. Quick thought. Mal is right, we can't just talk about trumps issues, if Kamala is pretentious then we should call that out too. I believe that. But I think it is timing.

Here is the thing. trump has to go. I always said politics is a blood sport. So people have to team up. And what Brokedown and Jasper are saying is this is a team play. Like a play in football. Correct to call out Kamala, but right now there has to be a bond to simply get rid of trump, So maybe call that stuff out while she is president. And the play is we all hold back on that as to not dissuade undecided on a lesser offense. (maybe??)

trump is a cancer. He is still whining about the 2020 election. Being a human is being a sport. In the NFL people move on quick. Players move on. Let go. Letting go is essential to health. Even on bad calls. But make no mistake, this was not a bad call on trump that he lost 2020. And not to offend but anyone I hope anyone that supports trump ends up with children like him. Or that may be a compliment to some but who knows. Good luck with that.

I hate politics. (Loved the West Wing though) I stopped watching in 2000 when the Supreme court decided the election. Then Obama came in, I totally tuned that out as the powers that be let a half black man be president. (but Obama was good if you ask me, effective in facts and he tried from the heart,) But I didn't vote for years. I voted in 1984 and in 2020. I will vote for the lesser of the evils this time in 2024 (Kamala) . Then hopefully everyone starts being a human being again.

Kamala may have locked up people for weed, but will follow the people on total legalization I believe at this point. Man even someone like Chris Christie who said no way to cannabis legalization said while opposing if people voted it they get it. Where as trump wont be paying attention to anyone in his corrupt cabinet, those guys will do whatever they want with abortion and woman's rights. There is a total evil streak from the right against women at the moment..
 
Last edited:
mal3volent said:
I liked the fact checking. But I wonder why they didn't fact check Kamala when she brought up the Charlottesville both sides lie?
Click to expand...

because it's not a lie? :)

we can debate the context but he absolutely said it:



play from 1:01

"and you had some very bad people in that group but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides"


-=SS=- said:
The only real solution is to increase the publics thinking ability. Not to curate dialogue
Click to expand...

indeed. i tend to agree.

people should do their own fact checking, using multiple sources. i did some real time fact checking while watching the debate and, albeit casually and unscientifically, trump just spews lies and misinformation almost every time he opens his mouth.

if we are to hold harris and trump to the same standard - and i agree we should - it's an absolute harris no-brainer when it comes to veracity.

(happy to see your getting over your complete disinterest in u.s. politics :) )

alasdair
 
So we're going to technicalities? Because he said the words, the implication behind her statement is true?

Would her words have had the same impact if she cited the full quote, where he explicitly excludes the racists from the "good people on both sides" scenario?

I guess it's not too surprising that our politics has sunken to this place now, where everyone seems to be embracing these blatant falsehoods as long as they are politically beneficial to them. I thought the democrats were supposed to be setting a higher standard? :(
 
mal3volent said:
So we're going to technicalities? Because he said the words, the implication behind her statement is true?

Would her words have had the same impact if she cited the full quote, where he explicitly excludes the racists from the "good people on both sides" scenario?

I guess it's not too surprising that our politics has sunken to this place now, where everyone seems to be embracing these blatant falsehoods as long as they are politically beneficial to them. I thought the democrats were supposed to be setting a higher standard? :(
Click to expand...
Wasn't the entire side racists, like one side was literally just racists. "Both sides"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top