US Politics Megathread
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
I don't know what simp is, but they're just examples. There are many good news outlets, point is you don't need to rely on biased youtube personalities for news.
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... af6341a843
Tell me that isn't top notch reporting
Tell me that isn't top notch reporting
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Both of those are also biased though. Look at the NYT coverage of Bolivia or Brazil.Goodspeed wrote:Yeah, that's part of why I wouldn't go looking for good journalism on an internet TV show. It's definitely still out there though. WaPo and NYT are great newspapers.
mad cuz bad
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Okay, sure thatās great reporting. What about the Intercept coverage of Brazil? Also great reporting, but youād probably say that they are biased left wing reporters.Goodspeed wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... af6341a843
Tell me that isn't top notch reporting
mad cuz bad
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Don't know anything about that but I'll take your word for it. Still, the difference between serious newspapers and a youtube show is obvious
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
i just think these huge media outlets are far too big to get the proper quality control needed to have consistent objective reporting. that's why you often see conflicting articles coming out from the same publication
better are the smaller to medium sized ones. better yet is to individually vet the writer of whatever article you're reading. i wouldn't place the appeal to authority in nyt/wapo themselves but rather the reputation of the journalist whose work you're consuming
better are the smaller to medium sized ones. better yet is to individually vet the writer of whatever article you're reading. i wouldn't place the appeal to authority in nyt/wapo themselves but rather the reputation of the journalist whose work you're consuming
sorry, i edited post to say "vouch" which is much more accurate to what i mean. i agree with your main point.Goodspeed wrote:I don't know what simp is, but they're just examples. There are many good news outlets, point is you don't need to rely on biased youtube personalities for news.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
They're all really bad. Even the big ones. Even those reports that are apparently well-researched and documented occasionally get a story completely wrong. Remember that big scandal created by the Bloomberg report that one Chinese company built chips for lots of servers used by big companies like Amazon, Apple, etc and those chips were used for snooping on their data? All the affected companies denied this possibility, offering technical arguments, the story was never really confirmed, and yet Bloomberg stood by their report. Really makes you wonder whether they got tricked into running that story, they made a mistake and were afraid they might tarnish their reputation if they retracted it or it was part of a campaign that was meant to target Chinese companies.
It's likely that, very often, journalists who work for these outlets don't even have a clear understanding of the subject on which they're writing. I had a long debate on Quora with some guy, who wrote for The Slate, on whether Trump is a Nazi or not (he claimed Trump belonged ideologically to National Socialism). His arguments were taken from some short article by Umberto Eco. After I dismantled his arguments and explained to him the distance between Italian fascism, Hitler's Nazi ideology and Trumpism, he basically resorted to appeal to authority: he wanted me to believe his arguments because Eco said so. He didn't even have a minimal understanding of the subject on which he was pontificating as if he was an expert. So I wouldn't be surprised if many such "journalists" exist even at bigger outlets. They project this outward impression of knowledgeability, but if you debate them down to details, you start seeing them fall apart.
Also, you shouldn't expect one outlet to publish articles that support the same point of view in every article. For example, while The Daily Telegraph has a certain pro-Brexit, pro-monarchist, conservative editorial line, occasionally they publish articles that disagree with this main editorial line.
There isn't really any rule on which outlets are better at providing a balanced point of view or useful insight. It could be some random Youtuber, some blogger or some Reuters analysis. Being part of a media institution doesn't necessarily make you more credible or more likely to have valuable insight or good arguments.
It's likely that, very often, journalists who work for these outlets don't even have a clear understanding of the subject on which they're writing. I had a long debate on Quora with some guy, who wrote for The Slate, on whether Trump is a Nazi or not (he claimed Trump belonged ideologically to National Socialism). His arguments were taken from some short article by Umberto Eco. After I dismantled his arguments and explained to him the distance between Italian fascism, Hitler's Nazi ideology and Trumpism, he basically resorted to appeal to authority: he wanted me to believe his arguments because Eco said so. He didn't even have a minimal understanding of the subject on which he was pontificating as if he was an expert. So I wouldn't be surprised if many such "journalists" exist even at bigger outlets. They project this outward impression of knowledgeability, but if you debate them down to details, you start seeing them fall apart.
Also, you shouldn't expect one outlet to publish articles that support the same point of view in every article. For example, while The Daily Telegraph has a certain pro-Brexit, pro-monarchist, conservative editorial line, occasionally they publish articles that disagree with this main editorial line.
There isn't really any rule on which outlets are better at providing a balanced point of view or useful insight. It could be some random Youtuber, some blogger or some Reuters analysis. Being part of a media institution doesn't necessarily make you more credible or more likely to have valuable insight or good arguments.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
That's crazy. I once had an argument with someone who was clearly anti-Semitic but pretended not to be by using coded language to create a layer of plausible deniability. Crazy world, huhDolan wrote: I had a long debate on Quora with some guy, who wrote for The Slate, on whether Trump is a Nazi or not (he claimed Trump belonged ideologically to National Socialism). His arguments were taken from some short article by Umberto Eco. After I dismantled his arguments and explained to him the distance between Italian fascism, Hitler's Nazi ideology and Trumpism, he basically resorted to appeal to authority: he wanted me to believe his arguments because Eco said so. He didn't even have a minimal understanding of the subject on which he was pontificating as if he was an expert. So I wouldn't be surprised if many such "journalists" exist even at bigger outlets. They project this outward impression of knowledgeability, but if you debate them down to details, you start seeing them fall apart.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
>posting memes == being anti-something
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Better than drinking baby blood cocktails with Soros, like you.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
How would you know unless you've done that?Dolan wrote:Better than drinking baby blood cocktails with Soros, like you.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
I should post the comment you quoted to R/Iamverysmart to get mad karmafightinfrenchman wrote:That's crazy. I once had an argument with someone who was clearly anti-Semitic but pretended not to be by using coded language to create a layer of plausible deniability. Crazy world, huhDolan wrote: I had a long debate on Quora with some guy, who wrote for The Slate, on whether Trump is a Nazi or not (he claimed Trump belonged ideologically to National Socialism). His arguments were taken from some short article by Umberto Eco. After I dismantled his arguments and explained to him the distance between Italian fascism, Hitler's Nazi ideology and Trumpism, he basically resorted to appeal to authority: he wanted me to believe his arguments because Eco said so. He didn't even have a minimal understanding of the subject on which he was pontificating as if he was an expert. So I wouldn't be surprised if many such "journalists" exist even at bigger outlets. They project this outward impression of knowledgeability, but if you debate them down to details, you start seeing them fall apart.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Imagine having a debate on Quora about whether it's okay to "liebe" Wildwood
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
We donāt drink baby blood. We eat fetus sandwiches.Dolan wrote:Better than drinking baby blood cocktails with Soros, like you.
mad cuz bad
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Reading this tweet, it seems to imply that Glenn Greenwald subscribes to the adrenochrome conspiracy theoryn0el wrote:We donāt drink baby blood. We eat fetus sandwiches.Dolan wrote:Better than drinking baby blood cocktails with Soros, like you.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
So not sure you actually want a serious answer or not but I'll give you one. You seem to have made 2 separate hypothesis in your statement so I will address both separately.Dolan wrote:Soo, what happens if Sanders or Warren get elected and by the time they're sworn in office all US billionaires have moved their wealth outside the country and left? They could move to New Zealand or Australia.
How will Sanders or Warren get the money to fund all their promises?
Scenario A: Wealth gets moved overseas but the billionaire still claims residency/citizenship of the US.
Firstly moving their wealth to NZ or Aus would be pointless as we aren't tax havens. So let's say it is moved to a tax haven, this is the plan with the wealth tax. The billionaire and all their lawyers and accountants tally up all the assets they want to say they own. Great, they only say they own 100 million in assets. The government then taxes them on their 100mil, but here comes the kicker, the government will seize any assets they then find in their search of their finances, because guess what, they didn't claim to own them. So billionaires will have to weigh up whether running the gambit on hiding assets will be cheaper than just saying what you own and copping the tax bill. Now obviously many might claim issue to the idea of seizing assets and how easy it is to seize overseas assets but that is the thought process behind the wealth tax. At least in the way I've seen it explained.
Scenario B: Billionaire moves overseas and has no US citizenship/residency.
Probably unlikely as they then have other major tax obligations still having to operate their businesses and assets, plus would then have tax to deal with in the new country. The other possible reason it might be unlikely is having less political influence. Campaign donations and the US political sphere is probably much easier to operate within as a US resident/citizen but I don't know enough about this to say for sure.
āTo love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.ā
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
I was mainly thinking of Scenario B, because as long as they'd keep their US citizenship, they would fall under the provisions of the wealth tax law. So that would mean gaining citizenship and declaring fiscal residence in another country.
As far as wealth transfer would be concerned, it would probably be different for each case. For example, someone who is a billionaire because they are a major stakeholder in Apple might be able to get dividend payments outside the US, since Apple is known to hold a massive amount of cash outside the US. They could continue to get dividends from Apple outside the US without having to pay a dime.
Others could find other ways to escape the wealth tax. If they are investors or shareholders in a company that is incorporated in the US, then they will not need to pay income taxes in the US. Afaik, non-US citizens can buy and hold shares in US companies without having to become US citizens. So they could continue to control their companies in the US and be able to avoid paying any wealth tax. I'm sure there are a lot more tricks they could use. They could incorporate a company in an offshore, then buy a majority stake in an US company and control it from outside the US, without the actual owner of those shares having to pay income taxes in the US. If the company has global sales, they could receive dividends from profits made outside the US. Etc.
As far as wealth transfer would be concerned, it would probably be different for each case. For example, someone who is a billionaire because they are a major stakeholder in Apple might be able to get dividend payments outside the US, since Apple is known to hold a massive amount of cash outside the US. They could continue to get dividends from Apple outside the US without having to pay a dime.
Others could find other ways to escape the wealth tax. If they are investors or shareholders in a company that is incorporated in the US, then they will not need to pay income taxes in the US. Afaik, non-US citizens can buy and hold shares in US companies without having to become US citizens. So they could continue to control their companies in the US and be able to avoid paying any wealth tax. I'm sure there are a lot more tricks they could use. They could incorporate a company in an offshore, then buy a majority stake in an US company and control it from outside the US, without the actual owner of those shares having to pay income taxes in the US. If the company has global sales, they could receive dividends from profits made outside the US. Etc.
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Now I agree, most of that is possible. The only thing I would say is, why hasn't this already happened? Why haven't all these people already claimed citizenship and changed residency to tax havens? Surely if they could do all that to save money in the future, why wouldn't they have already moved to save money now? I don't actually know without knowing tax law well enough but it seems odd to me if they could already be saving bulk cash.Dolan wrote:I was mainly thinking of Scenario B, because as long as they'd keep their US citizenship, they would fall under the provisions of the wealth tax law. So that would mean gaining citizenship and declaring fiscal residence in another country.
As far as wealth transfer would be concerned, it would probably be different for each case. For example, someone who is a billionaire because they are a major stakeholder in Apple might be able to get dividend payments outside the US, since Apple is known to hold a massive amount of cash outside the US. They could continue to get dividends from Apple outside the US without having to pay a dime.
Others could find other ways to escape the wealth tax. If they are investors or shareholders in a company that is incorporated in the US, then they will not need to pay income taxes in the US. Afaik, non-US citizens can buy and hold shares in US companies without having to become US citizens. So they could continue to control their companies in the US and be able to avoid paying any wealth tax. I'm sure there are a lot more tricks they could use. They could incorporate a company in an offshore, then buy a majority stake in an US company and control it from outside the US, without the actual owner of those shares having to pay income taxes in the US. If the company has global sales, they could receive dividends from profits made outside the US. Etc.
āTo love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.ā
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Ideally you would vet each writer, but it's not like writers act independently. Quality control is done by editors, and of course by the hiring process. Quality news outlets don't hire just anyone. Now of course that won't prevent every single instance of biased or low quality reporting, but it's definitely worth something.Cometk wrote:i just think these huge media outlets are far too big to get the proper quality control needed to have consistent objective reporting. that's why you often see conflicting articles coming out from the same publication
better are the smaller to medium sized ones. better yet is to individually vet the writer of whatever article you're reading. i wouldn't place the appeal to authority in nyt/wapo themselves but rather the reputation of the journalist whose work you're consuming.
Anyway, we can have a debate on what constitutes a good news outlet but I'm not particularly interested in that. Whoever doesn't think WaPo and NYT are good newspapers, let's agree to disagree. All I know is that I often read high quality content from there.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Sondland testifying right now is insane. Just straight up admitting everybody knew what was going on
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
- spanky4ever
- Gendarme
- Posts: 8389
- Joined: Apr 13, 2015
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
I still remember WP writing 16 smears in one day, in the 2016 election. How is that objective, in any way?
If it was not for the Internet, we would be stuck with the corporate media, and their biased take on "everything". Thanks to the Internet, we also get other voices to be herd.
If it was not for the Internet, we would be stuck with the corporate media, and their biased take on "everything". Thanks to the Internet, we also get other voices to be herd.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
- spanky4ever
- Gendarme
- Posts: 8389
- Joined: Apr 13, 2015
Re: 2020 Democratic Primary
Money, from big Corp donations, . He basically swims in it. So he put all his effort in Iowa, backed by corporate media and big Donors. It's not a secret Butti is basically a corporate playboy.Amsel_ wrote:What happened to cause buttboi to surge in the Iowa polls?
The more he moves away for M4A, the more money from Healthcare and Big Pharma hits his bank account
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests