A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 70 of 725
Quote:Why do you assume they don't understand? Maybe they DO understand, but their opinions are scattered between the two parties. DISLIKE free trade agreements LIKE government-paid healthcare DISLIKE global warming LIKE reasonable approach to dealing with Russia ...
Originally posted by second:
I suspect from my experience that most "Independent" voters will never understand the difference between parties until every GOP Congressman votes one way and every Democratic Congressman votes in the opposite direction on every issue, including the death penalty.
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is an article showing the scattered opinions. The Democrats overlap some of the Independents who overlap some of the Republican opinions, but you see the differences in the parties: www.vox.com/2018/3/20/17134328/mcconnell-popularity-nurses-poll-bartel
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:Why do you assume they don't understand? Maybe they DO understand, but their opinions are scattered between the two parties. DISLIKE free trade agreements LIKE government-paid healthcare DISLIKE global warming LIKE reasonable approach to dealing with Russia ...
Originally posted by second:
I suspect from my experience that most "Independent" voters will never understand the difference between parties until every GOP Congressman votes one way and every Democratic Congressman votes in the opposite direction on every issue, including the death penalty.
s-chart-republicans-democrats
There are even more points plotted in blue and red for D and R starting on page 44 of www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/includes/Workingpaper2_2108.pdf
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters is a warmonger’s warmonger. As such, he fits in perfectly as a commentator on Fox News. But he’s finally decided he’s had enough and has decided to leave the network. Here’s his email explaining his resignation: www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters
Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed. In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts—who have never served our country in any capacity—dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller—all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of “deep-state” machinations—I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.
As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin’s agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the “nothing-burger” has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true—that’s how the Russians do things. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He is not the only one who has left due to, or pointed out the lesser character of, the change of Fox following the takeover by the Libtard Murdoch sons.
Originally posted by second:
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters is a warmonger’s warmonger. As such, he fits in perfectly as a commentator on Fox News. But he’s finally decided he’s had enough and has decided to leave the network. Here’s his email explaining his resignation: www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters
Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed. In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts—who have never served our country in any capacity—dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller—all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of “deep-state” machinations—I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.
As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin’s agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the “nothing-burger” has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true—that’s how the Russians do things. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.
How could it possibly be that you failed to include the portions where he specifically excluded the NEWS department and ANALYSIS department from his displeasure?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Facebook is enmeshed in another controversy, this time over accusations that the firm Cambridge Analytica abused Facebook data to help Donald Trump win the 2016 US presidential election. But this is a big deal fundamentally because of a larger and more fundamental problem: Facebook is bad.
Lots of companies, to be clear, are built around products that are bad. Indeed, being bad is by no means an impediment to success in a capitalist economy. Cigarette companies, for years, made enormous profits off selling a highly addictive highly carcinogenic substance to millions of Americans. Even in their current somewhat fallen state, tobacco companies continue to be viable ongoing enterprises.
Alcoholic beverages are enjoyed in moderation by many, but the real profit in the industry lies with the minority of serious alcohol abusers who account for the lion’s share of consumption — often with deadly consequences. Casino gambling features a similar, albeit less directly deadly, addiction-based business model.
None of which necessarily implies any specific public policy approach — legal prohibition of alcohol rather famously caused a lot of problems. But I do think it’s true that executives of companies that make money by hurting their customers should feel kind of bad about themselves. Or at least not good.
And therein lies the problem for Facebook. Not only is the product bad, but the company is in a deep state of denial about it. Mark Zuckerberg and other top leaders believe they are making the world a better place. The labor market for the kind of talented engineers that Facebook needs to hire is robust enough that you can’t compete on the basis of money alone — they need to believe that Facebook is a decent, honorable place to work. But in fact, Facebook is bad. And it probably can’t be fixed.
The good news is that the executives have already made a lot of money and the workers have valuable, in-demand job skills. You could shut the whole thing down tomorrow and everyone would be fine.
Move fast and break human society
The sophisticates’ defense of Facebook is to question whether having half the country marinate in a cesspool of misinformation for an hour or two a day really swung any votes. It certainly doesn’t help. But if you look at a society where Facebook plays a larger role in the information ecology, like Myanmar, you see a disaster emerging where United Nations human rights investigators say Facebook has been a clear dissemination channel for hate speech and propaganda that are driving an ethnic cleansing campaign that’s displaced more than 600,000 Rohingya people to Bangladesh and killed thousands.
More at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17144748/case-against-facebo
ok
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I always considered Facebook on similar turf as Micro$haft.
Just further proof. To be forgotten soon, if not already.
Go buy more Windows, and post on fb.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've heard people tell me they're done with Facebook.
I just laugh when I hear it.
"You can check out any time you'd like. But you can never leave"....
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've never been on social media, not even professional social media like LinkedIn. I have no interest in over-sharing the minutia of my life, and an actual antipathy to viewing other people's over-sharing. I've been extremely suspicious of social media's hidden objectives, like I have been of Microsoft (and what an unfortunate phallic reference), and telecoms in general as well. And if I could completely divorce myself from Google and Amazon, I'd do that too. I also have a stupid phone, as my small gesture of resistance to the surveillance state. Unfortunately, to be truly free of snooping, you either have to be a complete Luddite (hello Amish country!), or a tech-genius ahead of the NSA. And, sadly, I'm neither.
In some way, large or small, everyone with a cell phone or inet connection participates in the cesspool.
ETA - and what a brilliant technical achievement is the inet! It had the capability to transform human society. But alas, human society is made of humans. And humans, once programmed by their early family and society, are loathe to change. Even more, vested human structures will not willingly give up power. The inet was born as a beautiful, transformative brilliance. And just look at it today.
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A stupid phone was not available the last time I hot a new number.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I've never been on social media, not even professional social media like LinkedIn. I have no interest in over-sharing the minutia of my life, and an actual antipathy to viewing other people's over-sharing. I've been extremely suspicious of social media's hidden objectives, like I have been of Microsoft (and what an unfortunate phallic reference), and telecoms in general as well. And if I could completely divorce myself from Google and Amazon, I'd do that too. I also have a stupid phone, as my small gesture of resistance to the surveillance state. Unfortunately, to be truly free of snooping, you either have to be a complete Luddite (hello Amish country!), or a tech-genius ahead of the NSA. And, sadly, I'm neither.
In some way, large or small, everyone with a cell phone or inet connection participates in the cesspool.
ETA - and what a brilliant technical achievement is the inet! It had the capability to transform human society. But alas, human society is made of humans. And humans, once programmed by their early family and society, are loathe to change. Even more, vested human structures will not willingly give up power. The inet was born as a beautiful, transformative brilliance. And just look at it today.
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
I avoid google and amazon. What do you use them for? What do you require of them?
Oh, you added to it. What does ETA mean?
I'm thinking that inet is your slang for algore's invention of the Internet. I do not consider Internet to be similar to Micro$haft or Facebook in any way. Internet was not designed to fail. Internet had great potential, and still does. It's misappropriation to take pictures and spellcheck do not redefine it's fundamental design.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Microsoft (and what an unfortunate phallic reference)
Holy shit. lol
How did I never think of that, and how is it 2018 and this is the first time I've ever heard anybody else think of it?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME