If you have an interest in US politics

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Removed User 19 Dec 2018

Then this should interest you:

youtube.com/watch?v=Igc_1TPfK9Y&

There is a lot of bollox on this forum about Americans and how stupid they are and how could they possibly vote in Donald Trump and this podcast goes a little way to explain what has happened to their Democratic system.

This long form discussion (2+hrs) is the best methodology for understanding a topic and likely the best antidote to click bait news media.

This is the you tube version but you can get a podcast ap and listen on your smartphone. I do a lot of driving and I find that podcasts are the new alternative to the radio.

3
Removed User 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Really interesting lack of response here. I don't think it is a lack of interest in the topic but perhaps a lack of available time to listen to the podcast?

4
 pneame 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Lack of time indeed!  And a bit like watching paint dry. 

But thanks for posting- saved for weekend 

In reply to Removed User:

Everyone here is too excited over whether someone said ‘woman’ or not.

absorbed by such weighty matters, we don’t have time to deal with your frivolities...

 Offwidth 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Why don't you help us by giving the presenter's credentials and by summarising their ideas. There are endless reports on Trump's rise and 2 hours is a long time to invest and be disappointed.

On the stupid people voted for Trump meme. Well sure they did but as I constantly point out on UKC that it was far more important to him that most white college educated americans did and pretty much all of GOP (who have a lot to answer for in their greed and tribalism).

Post edited at 09:05
removed user 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

> Really interesting lack of response here. I don't think it is a lack of interest in the topic but perhaps a lack of available time to listen to the podcast?

I'm into US politics, love a podcast, but Joe Rogan grates on me. 

 Offwidth 20 Dec 2018
In reply to removed user:

Oh well I would have turned off as soon as I realised it was him. The people's martial arts and hunting libertarian.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan

Removed User 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> Oh well I would have turned off as soon as I realised it was him. The people's martial arts and hunting libertarian.

Absolute opposite for me. I find him a well informed and genuinely curious presenter who rarely lets his subject off with anything that doesn't sound right.

Perhaps its the accent? I'm used to that everyday so it doesn't stand out and I like the fact that he swears etc. I also like his politics which seem to be sensibly middle ground.

 

4
 rka 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Brilliant so insightfull but next distraction from cleaning up the malware https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/if-then-podcast-renee-diresta-senate-i...

 

 Offwidth 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

I've listened to quite a few of his podcats and critical articles resulting from them . From what I've heard and read I regard him as tedious comedically and more recently politically dangerous in his podcasts. He comes across as simplistic popularist with a libertarian edge and a tendancy to spread 'tin hat' conspiracy theories and plays faux naive and unchallenging with some very dodgy guests.... imagine a UK equivalent lets say Tommy Robinson guesting on a jokey mainstream chatshow.   Really dumb stuff he said, that he got picked up on, he writes off as just joking. He's a longstanding Trump semi-apologist who loves the fact the president can say 'motherf*cker' and lists really bad things Trump says and does as things he 'disagrees with'  without really stressing their seriousness. He hates the 'whining of the democratic elite' and so he thinks because this happens on Trump, he is probably doing the right thing as President. He regards PC behaviour as a modern US disease.  To me he typifies much of what is wrong with the modern US.

We are all different I guess so feel free to like such stuff.

Some media democratic style whining:

http://www.mediafiledc.com/time-end-joe-rogan-experience/

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kv9qd/the-joe-rogan-experience-...

1
Removed User 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

I think you have read most of that somewhere else. I don't think you could have formed that opinion from listening to his podcasts. Perhaps you could? As the song says "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

 

PS, You don't think the two links you gave me have their own agenda?

Post edited at 19:52
8
 Offwidth 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

The links were just examples from a quick web search. I've read quite a few in magazines and US papers on on online media. Its a fact he runs with tin hat conspiracy stories and has alt right guests and gives them an easy ride andmcant stand 'PC' stuff. You are probably right some  just hear what they want.

2
removed user 20 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

> Absolute opposite for me. I find him a well informed and genuinely curious presenter who rarely lets his subject off with anything that doesn't sound right.

> Perhaps its the accent? I'm used to that everyday so it doesn't stand out and I like the fact that he swears etc. I also like his politics which seem to be sensibly middle ground.

For my part it's a combination of things. The shilling his products while pretending it's just a friendly chat is really offputting. The broscience stuff is evidence-resistant quackery and potentially dangerous. I don't think hes a good interviewer. In the Alex Honnold episode he seemed pretty unengaged to me, always trying to steer the conversation back to topics in his comfort zones. And I definitely wouldn't call libetarianism sensible middle ground. More like wood cabin full of canned goods, "all taxes are illegal" blokes.

Just my view, I'm not saying you should stop listening.

Removed User 21 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> Its a fact he runs with tin hat conspiracy stories and has alt right guests and gives them an easy ride andmcant stand 'PC' stuff. 

He does, but not quite in the way you propose. When you say "runs with" what he does is raise these as possibilities and when you look at his guest list the range is so huge that, yes, it includes alt right but it includes so many others that fit the full spectrum of politics that it would be hard to argue a bias.

I am not suggesting for minute he is a liberal left leaning socialist but I would certainly argue he doesn't have a far right agenda either.

4
Removed User 21 Dec 2018
In reply to removed user:

> For my part it's a combination of things. The shilling his products while pretending it's just a friendly chat is really offputting.

Yes, to a Brit it often is. But very normal in North America.

>The broscience stuff is evidence-resistant quackery and potentially dangerous.

He gets some very highly respected scientists on his show and challenges things that don't have evidence or scientific study. For example he has explored the newly trending "Carnivore diet" with at least two highly regarded nutritionists in an attempt to answer what they think is going on. So I'm not clear where the "broscience" piece comes in but perhaps you can link an example?

>I don't think hes a good interviewer. In the Alex Honnold episode he seemed pretty unengaged to me, always trying to steer the conversation back to topics in his comfort zones.

I found him to be quite engaged for someone who isn't a climber

>And I definitely wouldn't call libetarianism sensible middle ground. More like wood cabin full of canned goods, "all taxes are illegal" blokes.

I wouldn't place him in this category. And I wouldn't agree with your analogy of libertarianism

> Just my view, I'm not saying you should stop listening.

Thanks, I won't

Overall, he has good days and bad ones, good guests and poor ones and different classifications of podcast. Don't expect to get a serious discussion when he invites one of his comedian colleagues onto the show like Bill Burr or someone from the UFC or MMA like Deontay Wilder but when he has Sir Roger Penrose on there then perhaps its worth a listen?

6
 Sharp 21 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Would have thought podcast posts would be better in the culture bunker. I never really got into his podcasts for similar reasons to offwidth, but I agree more people seem to be discovering podcasts. Audio blogging has been around since the 80s but it's only the last 10 years or so that it's become more mainstream.

His podcast is something like the 5th most downloaded podcast (or something like that) so it's not exactly niche or unheard of, I would liken it to an american version of loose women or pierce morgans good morning - my impression of it is that it's squarely aimed at mass consumption by people who don't want to ask too many questions. It is the most dangerous form of pseudo-science propaganda, because it moonlights as credible. This is a guy that thinks it's likely that the twin towers were a controlled explosion, I wouldn't highlight him as a bastion of American intellectualism. I'm not sure if it's been taken down now but there was a cringeworthy video on youtube of him a while ago arguing that the moon landings were faked. If it's still around it might be worth a look, it goes some way to explaining why he has the reputation as a bit of a loud mouth bully.

To be fair there is a lot of Rogan-hating out there, I think it might become classified as a sport soon. I have only briefly listened to a few of his podcasts before deciding they weren't for me so a lot of my reasons for disliking him have come from else where and not necessarily a true reflection of how I would feel if I sat and listened to his entire back catalogue. Although I expect I would feel the same way.

If you like long form have you tried Time Suck with Dan Cummings? Not for those who can't handle Americanisms and American humour but his podcasts are very well researched. The world war I episode is good. Another good one is Dan Carlin's Hardcore Histories, but we're talking properly researched 3 hour+ long episodes. The blueprint for armageddon is incredible, but there are 6 episodes so I hope you have a long commute!

Post edited at 07:11
 Offwidth 21 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

What full spectrum of politics? It's well known there has been a dearth of leftist thinkers and politicians  (even in US terms) on his show and the US is still super paranoid even about mild socialism. Can you ever see anyone from the intellectual left on his show, or a socialist politician like one of our Labour leaders? In terms of who has been a guest on his show from the left, a few Democrats get mentioned (many of whom would be right wing in european terms), Sam Harris, Louis Theroux, Russell Brand!? If I had to place him in UK political terms he looks very UKIP with his soft libertarianism, his line on hard work (the poor should think themselves lucky to be born in America and stop whinging and get on with life ) and his anti PC stuff. Just because those like him are supporting legalising pot, it doesn't make them leftist, its a libertarian rights issue.

On the conspiracy theory point...do you think it's possible the moon landing was faked and his twin towers stuff is true? He's only a few steps away from the likes of David Ike (who has also been pretty successful in the US).

Post edited at 11:22
1
 Offwidth 21 Dec 2018
In reply to Sharp:

I certainly don't hate Rogan, he's just another successful low-brow entertainer.  I just despair that he is so popular. The real interest in current US politics is in articles like this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/12/16/mueller-exposes-putins...

Removed User 21 Dec 2018
In reply to Sharp:

I take my opinion from listening to him, not listening to others' opinions of him. I haven't heard the moon landing or twin tower stuff and I would dismiss this if I did. That said, I don't necessarily listen to Rogan's podcasts for Rogan. I think he gets some very interesting people on. And TBH, I don't necessarily mind that they are likely to lean to the right. I can get a balanced view somewhere else. Remember this is US, not Britain so the politics tend to be more right leaning in any case.

BUT, I'm not married to the guy and my OP was really about the subject of the US political system and how many Americans realise that it isn't working.

4
 Offwidth 21 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

It's not working partly down to people like him. I see all this alt right stuff he facilitates as creating a smokescreen to avoid blame heading where its most deserved the business elite and the political elite they fund. You might look elsewhere for more balanced news but too many in the US rely on very limited news sources.

Americans are being screwed over. Just watched The Big Short: all that obvious criminality that nearly destroyed the world economy and hit the poor the hardest and only one mid level banker was jailed. I fully get why people are angry, but lashing out at unfair targets  is very unwise and most certainly helping to elect the most dodgy businessman that's ever been in the office isn't the solution. Everything in the US looks a complete mess at present... stock markets collapsing, government shutdowns and the web link above now giving the top man a direct motive for the Russian conspiracy. 

A lot of this tough love stuff ignores those like him from poor backgrounds who make it are to a large degree lucky exceptions. Plenty of equally talent people don't. The american dream is real ... some do win.... but the game is fixed to benefit the house.

Post edited at 19:20
2
Removed User 21 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

You are actually talking bollox now, but whatever, stick to the sources of information that feed your agenda and fit your picture of the world and I'll stick to mine.

8
 Shani 21 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

It's as if you've never heard of lobbying or indeed, the Koch brothers.

 Offwidth 22 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Feel free... here is some  fun posts about a discussion about vaccines with one of his guests  (remember the west is facing epidemics because of media morons sowing suspicion in their fanbase).

https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2013/08/20/dr-kelly-brogen-and-th...

https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/1uthdf/in_regards_to_rogan_and_d...

Also its not only Jo

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4125

David Ike will be so dissapointed not to make this list.

Meanwhile back in the real world

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/21/stock-markets-worst-week-i...

Post edited at 00:13
Removed User 22 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

Ok, so I think this will need to be my last post on this topic, not because I don't like a good argument but because we both know that the chances of us changing each other's mind are slim to nil.

The reason I call "bollox" on your previous post is because you associate the failure of the American political system with the alt right and people like Joe Rogan. The same system elected Barrack Obama and the same system will elect the next democrat President. The system is f**ked but that is regardless of the outcome of an election and if you listened to the podcast I linked in the OP there is an explanation of why. Most Americans are neither alt right nor alt left and to suggest that one or other of these extremes are what is causing the system to fail is missing the point.

Posting links which describe why the JRE is bad is ineffective. They all have their own agenda and appear to rely on the assumption that everyone who listens to his podcasts are uneducated, alt right morons who have no ability to discern the information that is being presented. I can assure you that at least one of them is neither alt right nor uneducated nor a moron and I would argue that there are many more in that camp. Most would be able to identify that Joe is an entertainer 1st and that he will include extreme view points for effect. If JR doesn't believe that men walked on the moon that does not mean I don't.

He does, however, have some excellent guests who are well worth listening to and I also find that the long form conversation makes it very difficult to hide behind.

1
 Offwidth 22 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Look at that list in the link of other big name presenters who gave an easy time to snake oil sellers, unlike Jo, often on the main TV channels. Top of the list is Oprah. My concern is that the US entertainment system is guilty and the spead of bollox helps lead to popularist presidents and the lack of public attention that in turn contributes to them getting f*cked. The alt right  are more a symptom than a cause. Obama became pretty much a lame duck president, as despite doing sensible stuff to fix the recesssion and trying to sort out the mess in healthcare and education he ended up facing a Republican house and senate for most of his two terms. The history and politics is increadibly complex but in my view the biggest blame of a large number of serious problems is greed and tribalism in GOP and how that became malign when they had to react to the backlash that produced the tea party. It dragged the Republicans away from the wider public and generated a schism in national politics... much like brexit did to a lesser extent in the UK. 

I didn't want to listen to a comedian with dodgy views, a tendancy to support tin-hat nonsense and no great intellect explain this highly complex politics to me. However maybe you've incentivised me now... debunking bullshit is important and there is a small chance I might be surprised as even a stopped digital clock is right once a day.

As an aside of how media stars can swing national politics, according to a Republican senator there is a clear message in the government shutdown with Limbaugh in particular being cited as causing Trump to reject the negotiated holding deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/21/trump-government-shutdown-b...

 

Post edited at 10:37
 Offwidth 22 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

OK first impressions.... its going to take me a while as I'm going to need rests...  a positive to start: at least its an episode with a Democrat candidate and academic (his first with that combination?) , dealing with real US political problems with a focus on political corruption but with the time this podcast takes you might as well speed read one of Lessig's recent  books and remove the depressing nature of the medium.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

To quote someone from Reddit

"700 episodes of "college kids with pink hair are ruining America". In the meantime the richest of the rich got a massive tax cut. The concentration of money is even faster now. Joe has been an unknowing accomplice in the subversion tactic. If even half a half of the attention identity politics and social justice got was directed towards money in politics, it would have been addressed more. (Edit: i mean youtube/internet in general. Not just joe. Bazillions of anti-sjw channels popped up thanks to the outrage they created and several careers were born too) Depressing, isn't it? Pink haired kids were scarier to the average Joe than guys with assets worth trillions of dollars."

Joe is almost certainly playing dumb at the start in terms of awareness of the problem. This is a typical dishonest rhetorical position presumably for the sake of his fandom (either that or he is really stupid). Lessig's intial stuff looks way too simplistic but I'll see how it develops before I critique it. The UK has first pass the post democracy, political campaign funding issues  and safe seats but this hasn't led to anything like the levels of problem in the US. Such systems don't automatically move candidates to the extreme because of the system... its neither necessary or sufficient. I'd add that there is no significant extreme left in the US for the democrats to move to (although that may change if things stay this bad much longer).

 

Post edited at 12:11
1
 Offwidth 22 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

OK next post...

Listen to Lessig's podcasts direct. It's crystal clear he is on Joe's show to gain a wider audience.

https://equalcitizens.us/anotherway/

I'm still of the opinion Lessig is stuck on the congressional fundraising and bizzarely on freedom of speech. He says with no irony that Joe's podcats are vital to get the message out providing they don't spread scare stories (maybe a hint of a blush). The vast majority of ordinary americans don't want to listen to serious stuff like this and I'd argue someone like him speaking on Joe's show might help legitimise all the rest of the bollox on Joes show that burys it by sheer volume.

Funding first of all. I agree with many of Lessig's fundraising points (especially the veto factor and sheer time spend fundraising being major problems) and agree his ideas would help fix things,  but 80%, seriously?? This argument ignores many other malign influences:. another, as big, is religion, then we have dubious political philosopies influencing the big funders (who if they can't lobby as efficently through congress will buy media to influence the public, or do something else). It also ignores the people: most americans have become lazy in terms of debate and angry at the wrong targets as the malign rich throw out their bogus political squirrels through the media they control (or the Russians who understand very well that disaffecting voters makes them less likely to vote) . The Freakanomics team showed that funding focus on buying seats was largely bogus:  most money followed the best candidates, irrespective of party or faction. Several democrat camdidates have also raised money online avoiding the big funders.

On freedom of speech the US has too much. What it needs is apolitical media regulation to kick the bs into touch that is swamping real debate.

 

 Offwidth 22 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Post 3.

More denial about the real problem in the US media as it relates to Trump and the future. Too much freedom of speech allowing the bs and plain lies to drown out fair analysis. The obvious solution is at least partly improved media regulation and they illustrate the benefits by discussing when the news channels were more honestly self regulating in the days of Watergate and how this led to Republican support hemorrhaging from Nixon. The idea that 'deep news' Joe Rogan style podcasts is the modern solution instead is frankly laughable....when Joe evens out a bit more politically and regularly hits the tens of millions weekly US views I'll maybe believe that its a possible part of the solution. They both imply CNN is as bad as Fox in being biased towards its base due to advertising revenue  but what other other independant news sources think so? CNN has a much bigger worldwide base compared to US style Fox news. They rightly say Hannity is a disaster for democracy, and lampoon his direct support in Trump rallys but who the hell is the CNN version of him? Joe being much better than Fox simply doesn't make him the best solution. 

Joe has moderated his public views and the Skeptoid blog has some interesting musings on this and on the continuing danger in his more modern blogs (and some honest apologies where Skeptoid was wrong):

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/02/05/joe-rogan/

 

Post edited at 15:21
Removed User 22 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

So, despite my earlier claim to a final post on the topic I do feel that you have contributed a serious response and therefore deserve something of a reply.

I think you might at least have modified your views on Joe Rogan although I accept that you still don't like the format nor the medium. For me he is a guy I can relate to. My age, similar socio-economic background, a practical view of the world, likely more right leaning than left leaning but it depends on the topic and comfortable with the use of profanity. I also think he is genuinely curious about things that interest him but where he has a limited amount of knowledge. He has, however, the ability to explore these topics via his podcast. So he approaches this in a way that most of us would, he invites the proponent of a certain idea, ideology, political viewpoint etc.  onto his show to discuss their ideas. He might do a little background reading in order to be able to hold the conversation but perhaps not enough to fully argue a point and he goes with the flow. Surely this is a better approach than the Cathy Newman/Jordan Peterson debacle where the conversation becomes more about scoring points than actually trying to understand what is being said? I might sit in a pub listening to some guy ramble on about a theory and perhaps question some of the key points but I might not necessarily want to get into a full blown argument especially where I don't have all the facts to counter it. That doesn't mean I agree with the theory.

The use of the term "Pseudo-science" seems to me to be a complaint leveled by people who simply don't want a topic to be discussed because it doesn't hold up to their own standard of scrutiny. And I understand the inherent danger in allowing some of these topics to have air time but, on the balance of risk, I prefer it to the alternative.

When I look at how you have addressed the actual topic of this OP, which is the discussion between JR and Lawrence Lessig I think "great" you seem to have a strong grasp of the key issues and you are willing to present your own views and arguments which counter some of those proposed in the podcast. I do, however, think you are being a little unfair. America can't "fix" its religious problem overnight (I don't think there is any appetite to do this) and the people have not become "lazy", just frustrated. There is a reasonable argument that the Republicans and Trump didn't necessarily win the last election so much as the Democrats lost it by fielding a candidate in Clinton who was utterly unsuitable for the task.

I suspect that your idea of limiting free speech and regulating the media will never get off the ground so I think you need to have a better alternative. The point made in the podcast was that people weren't being exposed to a balanced view. They either listened to Fox or CNN and their reality was formed as a result. So I do think that the long form medium might have a role to play in order to address the existing polarised media problem but I also think it has a long way to go.

 Offwidth 23 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

OK... about an hour and a half in and Joe lets his mask slip. Anti-conservative media bias and a bit of sneering at Russian issues. Lessig all but lets him off but does point out most of the bias that Joe sees on some platforms is down to algorithms and that it goes both ways and gives the Jew hater example that came from the AI on one of them.

On your responses I have a few points.

I've not changed my views on him one jot... he's a likable dude with a working man's libertarian outlook common in the US. If the world was sane his show should be a minority irrelevance and its simply not worth watching compared to alternatives.

Psuedo science is bollox pure and simple. The MMR conspiracy stuff is killing kids in their thousands. Science works because of expertise most of the public can't follow. Giving proven quacks a voice is very dangerous.

I think americans are lazy with their news viewing, not in their general life. Its very excusable as they work way too hard (if they have a job) compared to Europeans. Its why 3 hour podcasts are laughable... many working americans struggle to find time for their basic family needs.

I know the right wing conservative religious influence won't go away soon, nor the obsession with the first amendment which was about individual freedom of speech, not the rights of modern media outlets like Fox to lie and distort truth with impunity. I still think this all needs calling out. All media will have some bias but CNN does try to provide honest coverage and apologise when they make mistakes, so there is no direct equivalence. For me its not really about left and right bias its about trying to provides news honestly versus telling prokies to suit your sponsors and the politicains they favour. I think RT is almost as bad as Fox. The second amendment has been similarly distorted and is severly harming to the nation as well.

Hillary wasn't totally unsuitable as a candidate, I agree she was flawed (I cant think of any candidate who wasn't), she made campaign errors, but she was an angel compared to Trump and she won the popular vote. Bernie was never going to do better.... someone is is middling left in Labour party terms would be regarded as extreme socialism incarnate by many americans. The whole 'centre-ground' in the country is stuck on this.

This collection of problems and many others  is why the populace is f*cked for a good while and its a multifaceted social and political problem and won't be fixed by election process/ fundraising reforms (desirable though they may be).

Currently the President and House seem susceptible to smallish middle ground votor swings and that makes elections not that different to the UK. The Repuplican state gerrymandering is probably counterproductive as people will feel elections have been stolen. The biggest problem Lessig identifies in my view is the time wasted by politicians fundraising and the lobbyist influence and I suspect reforms will just move the influences elsewhere and amount to the same thing... that's what power is.

Removed User 23 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> OK... about an hour and a half in and Joe lets his mask slip. 

I don't think he has a mask. I think you get what you get. 

> On your responses I have a few points.

> I've not changed my views on him one jot... he's a likable dude with a working man's libertarian outlook common in the US. If the world was sane his show should be a minority irrelevance and its simply not worth watching compared to alternatives.

That's a tough one though, isn't it? A bit like saying "these people shouldn't be allowed to vote"

> Psuedo science is bollox pure and simple. The MMR conspiracy stuff is killing kids in their thousands. Science works because of expertise most of the public can't follow. Giving proven quacks a voice is very dangerous.

Absolutely 100% agree with you. Unfortunately I think that, with 5 podcasts a week, he's going to have quacks on from time to time. And I think he should be completely called out on these.

> I think americans are lazy with their news viewing, not in their general life. Its very excusable as they work way too hard (if they have a job) compared to Europeans. Its why 3 hour podcasts are laughable... many working americans struggle to find time for their basic family needs.

> I know the right wing conservative religious influence won't go away soon, nor the obsession with the first amendment which was about individual freedom of speech, not the rights of modern media outlets like Fox to lie and distort truth with impunity. I still think this all needs calling out. All media will have some bias but CNN does try to provide honest coverage and apologise when they make mistakes, so there is no direct equivalence. For me its not really about left and right bias its about trying to provides news honestly versus telling prokies to suit your sponsors and the politicains they favour. I think RT is almost as bad as Fox. The second amendment has been similarly distorted and is severly harming to the nation as well.

Agreed. But bitching about it won't change anything so changing viewing and listening habits might have a better chance. What listening to the JRE does is expose people to other podcasters and allows people to go and explore ideas and views. 

> Hillary wasn't totally unsuitable as a candidate, I agree she was flawed (I cant think of any candidate who wasn't), she made campaign errors, but she was an angel compared to Trump and she won the popular vote. Bernie was never going to do better.... someone is is middling left in Labour party terms would be regarded as extreme socialism incarnate by many americans. The whole 'centre-ground' in the country is stuck on this.

Hillary was/is a totally unpleasant piece of work. If you remove those people who vote Democrat come what may, she left many middle ground Americans without a viable choice. The fact that this should have been a "no brainer" election result speaks absolute volumes.

> This collection of problems and many others  is why the populace is f*cked for a good while and its a multifaceted social and political problem and won't be fixed by election process/ fundraising reforms (desirable though they may be).

> Currently the President and House seem susceptible to smallish middle ground votor swings and that makes elections not that different to the UK. The Repuplican state gerrymandering is probably counterproductive as people will feel elections have been stolen. The biggest problem Lessig identifies in my view is the time wasted by politicians fundraising and the lobbyist influence and I suspect reforms will just move the influences elsewhere and amount to the same thing... that's what power is.

Come the revolution brothers, come the revolution

 

 Offwidth 23 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

I see a mask otherwise his podcasts would be as aggressive and mad as his earlier ones. I dont beleive people change very much, even if they say they do. They do get advice and he's making money and a lot of his audience wont tolerate that much bs. His guest was playing the same game.. he held his tongue almost certainly due to desperately wanting the wider audience Joe could provide him.

Any media with a half decent research policy would avoid damgerous quacks at all costs. Its happened so often with Joe he must know and clearly doesn't care. He is not unique in this, but worse than most. Me saying his show is too popular because too many people tolerate a media star with his very dodgy history is nothing like saying people shouldn't vote. How in earth do you get to that?

If you think Hillary is a nasty piece of work, that looks very much like personal bias to me. I think Trump is a monster based on evidence and Hillary is a pretty standard US politician who is heavily maligned usually based on bs. I've got time for plenty of Republicans but since McCain they don't seem likely to get anywhere in selections for Presidential candidate as the party has gone so far right. 

I didn't see this election as a sure thing. Most well educated white voters voted for Trump, as they are tribal Republican,  and shared your blinkered views on Hillary. They held their nose and voted for the monster instead. Add in illness, FBI probes, Russian interference and campaign mistakes and her chances of  losing were always significant. It wasn't middle ground voters that swung things as much as working class rust belt Democrats struggling so much they bought a lie out of desperation. 

You can stuff your revolution, slow democratic change is what is required.

Post edited at 17:49
Removed User 23 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> I see a mask otherwise his podcasts would be as aggressive and mad as his earlier ones. I dont beleive people change very much, even if they say they do. They do get advice and he's making money and a lot of his audience wont tolerate that much bs. His guest was playing the same game.. he held his tongue almost certainly due to desperately wanting the wider audience Joe could provide him.

You don't think its possible he's wised up a little? I think people do change. I'd hate to think what type of podcast I would have put out 20 yrs ago.

> Any media with a half decent research policy would avoid damgerous quacks at all costs. Its happened so often with Joe he must know and clearly doesn't care. He is not unique in this, but worse than most. Me saying his show is too popular because too many people tolerate a media star with his very dodgy history is nothing like saying people shouldn't vote. How in earth do you get to that?

Because you are implying that his popularity is wrong. You might not like it but it isn't wrong. From this then you might get to a place where people are obviously too stupid to make "correct" choices. I know that you didn't say "people shouldn't vote" but it is the same sentiment. I do agree, though, that he should avoid the quacks and it makes him much less valid because he doesn't. Perhaps now he has the momentum he might be a little more discerning?

> If you think Hillary is a nasty piece of work, that looks very much like personal bias to me. I think Trump is a monster based on evidence and Hillary is a pretty standard US politician who is heavily maligned usually based on bs. I've got time for plenty of Republicans but since McCain they don't seem likely to get anywhere in selections for Presidential candidate as the party has gone so far right. 

Of course its personal bias. But based on what I know and understand about her. I also think Trump is a monster and I think it is an absolute tragedy that the Democrats allowed this one to slip through their fingers by fielding such a woefully shite candidate. Saying she's a pretty standard US politician isn't really a glowing endorsement either.

> I didn't see this election as a sure thing. Most well educated white voters voted for Trump, as they are tribal Republican,  and shared your blinkered views on Hillary. They held their nose and voted for the monster instead. Add in illness, FBI probes, Russian interference and campaign mistakes and her chances of  losing were always significant. It wasn't middle ground voters that swung things as much as working class rust belt Democrats struggling so much they bought a lie out of desperation. 

Perhaps you should have been on their advisory team then? I might counter that its you who has the blinkered views on Hillary but I'm not sure if that will get us anywhere.

> You can stuff your revolution, slow democratic change is what is required.

Yes. But you've pretty much dismissed all of the suggested approaches and your own ideas on limiting free speech won't get out of the gates so where does that leave us?

 

 Offwidth 23 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Of course he has 'wised up', thats what a mask is. I really don't believe his opinions have changed much.

Yes his popularity is wrong because of his past history and remaining dodgy views and guests that don't match evidence or sometimes science. The people listening in the main won't be stupid.... just looking for echo chambers and entertainment, like most people. The benefit of media regulation is that the bad behaviour that leads to dishonest  or dangerous bias gets removed.

Hillary was never woefully shite. Recent history has seen mainly incumbent parties loosing after two term presidents, even against below par candidates (llike George W). Trump got full Republican backing and the Republican's output on Hillary was as nasty as I've ever seen..  so if you think she was shite you are an idiot or you know stuff I don't (very unlikely). Are you saying someone should have told her not to get ill... to interfere with the FBI probe into her emails... that using a crystal ball the Russians might (on no evidence back then) be leading to major distortions by using various nefarious online methods (to encourage certain people to vote for Trump using lies, and black voters not to vote at all) or even attacking electonic voting machines. I agree many might have told her to campaign more in the rust belt.

I've dismissed nothing... it will just take time. They elected Obama. The demographics and current state of the nation are also against the Republicans and there is growing pressure for Democrats to legislate for improvement.

Post edited at 18:45
Removed User 23 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

As I said in a previous post, this becomes an "I'm right, no your not" argument so I'll leave it to you to have the last say...…...after this one, of course

How can his popularity be "wrong"? I think you might argue it is misplaced but it can't be "wrong" because it is a fact. That's like saying the popularity of football is wrong because I don't like the game. Perhaps this is just semantics?

I don't believe that someone who wises up is necessarily creating a mask. Perhaps they are just learning more and understanding more? I do, however, think that your assessment of him is likely because, despite learning more, he might still take a right leaning stance which I suspect is your greater issue with him.

As for Hillary, the fact that she was up against some extremely dodgy (criminal?) tactics is a separate issue. Her winning or losing doesn't change who she is and she has her own dubious characteristics to account for. Just google Hillary Clinton and Ethics. I don't doubt you'll come back at me with some dismissal of the sources but you might at least read what is said. 

It seems a shame that you have resorted to calling me an idiot as I felt this was a fair exchange of views up to that point.

 Offwidth 24 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

What you said about Hillary was idiotic unless you can persuade me otherwise. I recognise her flaws but that's sadly normal for politicians of her stature (and she is a saint compared to Trump and of minor guilt compared to true political 'ends justifies the means' types like McConnell). Nearly all the campaign stuff I saw against her was pumped up to 11 with rabid dishonest tribalism. If you said you didn't like her or her politics, or just dealt with serious concerns about what she did wrong that's grown up, saying sheswoefully shite as a candidate is not. As for her and ethics do you seriously get the impression I might have missed any of that. The Libyan embassy, the emails, being married ro Bill, or whatever.. yet which opponents could, in biblical terms, cast the first stone? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Clinton_controversies  ... Trump beats this sort of list almost monthly.

The system makes the person, she was quite simply better than anyone else prepared to stand with a chance of winning (the alternative candidates). Maybe the child slavery stuff below the pizza parlour was a mistake though.

Back to Joe, and he's far from the worst, but the better sport  analogy is cycling back when it was highly popular and full of EPO but no one was calling it out. At some point the people of the US will realise media regulation is neccesary and I think things will get steadily worse until the population force it to change out of revulsion, as happened in cycling. I really don't care what his politics is, I care about  honesty and honest representation and keeping the unchallenged dangerous views of  quacks away from the mass media. If he did a series of shows inviting mainstream science and political sceptics to highlight and apologise for where he had been wrong in the past and put disclaimers on such podcasts I'd be satisfied.

Post edited at 09:12
 Offwidth 24 Dec 2018
In reply to Removed User:

For the last part: Lessig recongnises the need for anti-trust action on huge corporations (capitalism needs regulation to save it from the worst instincts of some of its practitioners,  when they get too big) and rightly bemoans that nothing major  has been done since GW became president. He ignores wider regulatory issues, in some cases where progess has been made (eg on banks after 2008, under Obama) or most importantly that light regulation would really help in media where competition is hardly an issue in the US.  The US media problem he describes as people facing "different facts"... its more that the liberal media use facts with a liberal spin but the right in Fox, Breitbart and endless anti-SJW sites have some facts with their spin but if neccesary will, in some areas, just lie all the time. CNN etc do have a political angle but they simply do not constantly lie.  The far left wouldn't be immune from such tactics but they don't really exist in the US and having two wrongs wouldn't make a right.  Some very big media organisations are just too red in tooth and claw: in a democracy major media outlets like Fox simply should not be allowed to lie with impunity, let alone have a one of their biggest commentators speaking at a candidates rally.

Lessig regards Washington as a swamp but with cognitive dissonance is optimistic about the new intake of house representatives. If the media in its widest sense was required to deal with political dishonesty and always challenge  plain lies Trump could never have been elected, and it would do more to drain the swamp than any change in election law.

Nothing more to add from the end sections. Its way too long, it drags, content wise it calls out to be edited down to somewhere between 60 and 80 minutes. I seriously do not recommend others following my sceptical lead.

Post edited at 10:28
 Offwidth 24 Dec 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

.... as a follow up just stick SJW into your search engine and see what comes up. Its a major embarrasement for Google search and through that, Youtube  and Twitter that pejoritive crap is most of the top hits alongside the wikipedia and dictionary entries.... the media is full of anti right wing bias my arse. This is far more serious in my view to modern democracy than any of Joe's recent output.

Meanwhile the US treasury instigate emergency measures for the first time since the 2008 crash.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/24/us-markets-mnuchin-to-conv...

 

Post edited at 11:49

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...