PGA Tour: America is all Effed up: Notes from the Ballwasher

by kwinigolfer Wed 09 Nov 2016, 5:22 am

First topic message reminder :

What an awful, awful night.
The end.

by super_realist Mon 14 Nov 2016, 9:58 am

It's a hyperbolic term. Are you Alex Jones or something?

Where did you even get that 70% figure? As plucked out of the air as claiming the "lurch to the right" is all down to Murdoch.

by MontysMerkin Mon 14 Nov 2016, 10:35 am

Try a little research.
Facts and experts eh? Who needs em picard

by super_realist Mon 14 Nov 2016, 10:58 am

Political parties always change their position and the degree to which they are left or right, it's nothing new, and can't remotely be attributed to Murdoch.

If you are going to claim a figure, at least provide where you got it from, otherwise it just looks like you pulled it out of your arse

by MontysMerkin Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:02 am

I'm just astounded by your lack of knowledge.

by super_realist Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:04 am

Oh yeah, because it's really common knowledge that 70% of broadcasting in the UK is owned by three companies.

Why would you expect anyone to know that?

by MontysMerkin Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:22 am

I thought you were a super realist. It would seem you just lap up what you read. It's called critical appraisal and most adults use it throughout their lives to appraise the evidence they are presented with. Those with an enquiring mind will investigate further to establish the validity of that evidence. However, you are a good example of how someone who claims to be sure of what you ingest and therefore think, can have little or no clue about which you pontificate.

by super_realist Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:25 am

I just haven't happened across a document which has made this claim.
It's not up to me to validate your claims, it's up to you.

by pedro Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:36 am

MontysMerkin wrote: It's called critical appraisal and most adults use it throughout their lives to appraise the evidence they are presented with. Those with an enquiring mind will investigate further to establish the validity of that evidence.

I get the point. Democracy is far too important to leave it to common people...
During the US election, apart from FOX, NO major TV network or newspaper endorsed Trump, in fact they all endorsed Clinton and ridiculed Trump. Putin would envy such a media landscape. What do you want more?

by MontysMerkin Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:38 am

www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/.../DCMS-submission_Narrative-on-media-ownership.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#United_Kingdom
www.mediareform.org.uk/media-ownership/the-elephant-in-the-room
www.mediareform.org.uk/who-owns-the-uk-media
https://www.theguardian.com › Media › National newspapers
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12062176
www.global-briefing.org/2011/10/uk-media-ownership-and-reach/
https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/media-ownership-power-and-influence-belongs-to-few/
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/media-ownership-and-plurality

by super_realist Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:40 am

Well done Monty, but none of that proves that the media are responsible for the political sway of a parties political position.

by MontysMerkin Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:42 am

pedro wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote: It's called critical appraisal and most adults use it throughout their lives to appraise the evidence they are presented with. Those with an enquiring mind will investigate further to establish the validity of that evidence.
I get the point. Democracy is far too important to leave it to common people...
During the US election, apart from FOX, NO major TV network or newspaper endorsed Trump, in fact they all endorsed Clinton and ridiculed Trump. Putin would envy such a media landscape. What do you want more?

It is starting to look that way yes. Especially when you look at the farcical US of A (the current global laughing stock). How can that in any way be described as a democracy? You can either choose a moron or a crook. Nice.

by MontysMerkin Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:42 am

super_realist wrote:Well done Monty, but none of that proves that the media are responsible for the political sway of a parties political position.

Cool story bro.

by super_realist Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:48 am

MontysMerkin wrote:
pedro wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote: It's called critical appraisal and most adults use it throughout their lives to appraise the evidence they are presented with. Those with an enquiring mind will investigate further to establish the validity of that evidence.
I get the point. Democracy is far too important to leave it to common people...
During the US election, apart from FOX, NO major TV network or newspaper endorsed Trump, in fact they all endorsed Clinton and ridiculed Trump. Putin would envy such a media landscape. What do you want more?
It is starting to look that way yes. Especially when you look at the farcical US of A (the current global laughing stock). How can that in any way be described as a democracy? You can either choose a moron or a crook. Nice.

Are you serious? The candidates on offer have nothing to do with whether it is democratic or not. You sound like those idiots protesting about Trump. I didn't like Cameron or Milliband, but guess what, that's democracy for you. What I, or you think of those up for the job has no bearing on whether it's a democratic process or not.

You cannot blame the candidates. These morons campaigning over Trump and demonstrating they don't like democracy should be attacking their own party for not providing them with an electable candidate, rather than acting like the SNP when they didn't get a yes vote, and to think it was Trump who was going to be seen as a bad loser if he lost the election.
It's not Trumps fault that the Democrats didn't have a decent candidate is it?

by MontysMerkin Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:53 am

Correct.
Which begs the question, why didn't they? And is trump really the best the republicans can manage. Again I question the democratic process.

by super_realist Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:58 am

Blame the selection process of the American political system. It doesn't affect whether the outcome of a Presidential election is a democratic process or not.

So these idiots pronouncing "not my President" are protesting the wrong target.

Is it only democratic when you get the candidate you want?

by pedro Mon 14 Nov 2016, 1:41 pm

I would say that the US process of determining candidates is a lot more democratic than over here. At least there are primaries where thousands of people get to vote for whom they think should represent their party. Over here it's just a love-in.
Which of course begs for the question of why there isn't room for serious a 3rd or 4th party, when you look at the outcome of those primaries?
I would say it is democracy at its finest when you can mobilize marginalized white trash to vote for Trump because of his rhetoric, just as you can mobilize other demographics to vote for candidates just because of their gender or race.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 14 Nov 2016, 5:40 pm

pedro wrote:I would say that the US process of determining candidates is a lot more democratic than over here. At least there are primaries where thousands of people get to vote for whom they think should represent their party. Over here it's just a love-in.
Which of course begs for the question of why there isn't room for serious a 3rd or 4th party, when you look at the outcome of those primaries?
I would say it is democracy at its finest when you can mobilize marginalized white trash to vote for Trump because of his rhetoric, just as you can mobilize other demographics to vote for candidates just because of their gender or race.

Forgive me, but I thought we voted for our local MPs at by-elections or at a General Election. What the Parliamentary parties then do re. a leader is down to them. I'm not sure I'd call the NDC(?) democratic in briefing against Sanders in favour of HRC during the primaries. I'm not sure democratic equates to needing hundreds of millions in the bank if one is to stand.
Democracy as it is now (here and in the U.S.) is pretty scheiss, but it's better than the alternatives.

by robopz Mon 14 Nov 2016, 6:20 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:Democracy as it is now (here and in the U.S.) is pretty scheiss, but it's better than the alternatives.

by MontysMerkin Tue 15 Nov 2016, 7:58 am

robopz wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Democracy as it is now (here and in the U.S.) is pretty scheiss, but it's better than the alternatives.

But to call it democracy is fallacious. Democracy would be better than the present system.

by super_realist Tue 15 Nov 2016, 8:14 am

MontysMerkin wrote:
robopz wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Democracy as it is now (here and in the U.S.) is pretty scheiss, but it's better than the alternatives.

But to call it democracy is fallacious. Democracy would be better than the present system.

How is it NOT democracy? Your opinion of the candidates has nothing to do with it being democratic or not.

by pedro Tue 15 Nov 2016, 8:30 am

The grapes are just sour super.

by MontysMerkin Tue 15 Nov 2016, 9:39 am

super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:
robopz wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Democracy as it is now (here and in the U.S.) is pretty scheiss, but it's better than the alternatives.

But to call it democracy is fallacious. Democracy would be better than the present system.

How is it NOT democracy? Your opinion of the candidates has nothing to do with it being democratic or not.

Don't give a toss about either to be honest although I think Trump is a better candidate than Clinton tbh and that just shows what I think of the Democrats.
The one with the most votes lost. How is that a democracy?

by super_realist Tue 15 Nov 2016, 9:45 am

Because there is more than one form of democratic system and in America it's decided on the Electoral College system and not First past the post on votes alone.

It's still democratic, it's just not the form of democracy you associate with a referendum for instance.

You could get more votes in Britain too and still lose, as it goes on number of seats won, not votes cast.

Everyone knows the system before they vote, so it's not as if you can lose and cry foul that it's not democratic.

Be interesting to see what Trumps bible thumpers do with abortion in America, they could take it back to the dark ages like Non Irn.

by MontysMerkin Tue 15 Nov 2016, 9:47 am

But it only suits the candidates not the voter, and the voter has no say.
It would be like asking to vote between you and mac, hardly democratic.

by super_realist Tue 15 Nov 2016, 9:51 am

Yes, the voter has as much say as in any other system. Your vote can only ever count as one vote, regardless of what system you are in.

Why do you keep bringing up the candidate? It's got nothing to do with the voters as you don't choose who stands for the party unless you are a member of the party, and that's a completely different voting system not associated with a general election.

by McLaren Tue 15 Nov 2016, 9:54 am

Super

Tell me about it, the Greens got over a million votes but still only got one seat.

which reminds me that we shouldn't get too smug about the level of idiocy in the US, as I think UKIP got 4 million votes in 2015 and over 17 million in #Brexit.

PS, Wouldn't you like to see some form of proportional representation in the UK so that we would at least not have to suffer con vs lab bickering as the only type of politics in our country?

by super_realist Tue 15 Nov 2016, 10:02 am

Mac, there is PR in Scotland for some of the ridiculous amount of MSP seats. How much difference has that made to you?

By the way, a vote for Brexit isn't a vote for UKIP, just as a vote for Scottish Independence wasn't a vote for the SNP.

by MontysMerkin Tue 15 Nov 2016, 10:12 am

McLaren wrote:Super

Tell me about it, the Greens got over a million votes but still only got one seat.

which reminds me that we shouldn't get too smug about the level of idiocy in the US, as I think UKIP got 4 million votes in 2015 and over 17 million in #Brexit.

PS, Wouldn't you like to see some form of proportional representation in the UK so that we would at least not have to suffer con vs lab bickering as the only type of politics in our country?

It's not really about who won and lost - like I say not bothered either way, more that the system these people have got in place is undemocratic.

by McLaren Tue 15 Nov 2016, 10:17 am

Super

To vote for #Brexit in a rational manner you would have to accept you were voting to put in place the main policies of UKIP. A #Brexit vote was therefore pretty much a vote to condone the polices of UKIP.

by super_realist Tue 15 Nov 2016, 10:20 am

It's no different from any other system though Monty, It's no different from Britain and it's Constituencies. It's still democracy, just not as you'd like to see.

Can you name any "democracy" that elects its government on a popular vote? I can't think of a single country that doesn't have "seats" which is effectively the same as the electoral college.

by pedro Tue 15 Nov 2016, 10:26 am

The US is a federation, hence why the electoral college makes sense for them I guess. But if you'd want to change that, you'd probably also need to look at the Senate, which is composed of two representatives from each state, regardless of its size.

With that being said, as far as I know you can vote for whomever you want in the US presidential election, by writing his/her name on the ballot. Don't know if it's a rumor, but as far as I've heard Mickey Mouse has often come in third at US presidential elections. Maybe our US posters can confirm this.

by pedro Tue 15 Nov 2016, 10:29 am

Some countries have two rounds of presidential election, with only the top 2 candidates going through to the second round. Not sure it would makes sense in the final US presidential election, but it sure would make sense in the primaries.

by beninho Tue 15 Nov 2016, 10:58 am

I had the feeling that what Trump said was just bluster, enough to get him noticed at first, and then enough to get him elected. While he may temper down some of his views in office, the appointment of the right wing guy with links to white supremacy is not a good start!

First assassination attempt on trump by end of 2017?

by MontysMerkin Tue 15 Nov 2016, 11:05 am

After seeing how ineffective Obama was, there is nothing to fear from the D.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 15 Nov 2016, 11:16 am

MontysMerkin wrote:After seeing how ineffective Obama was, there is nothing to fear from the D.

Yes, there is. He has both Houses as well although, hopefully, he pissed off enough of them in the Primaries etc that they won't give him an easy ride at all. He can also propose at least one Supreme Court judge as well straight off the bat.
He may well be more moderate than his campaign suggests - is that a good thing? Probably, but the implication of that would be that he flat-out lied about what he'd do if elected and didn't give a damn - about as bad as it gets.

by pedro Tue 15 Nov 2016, 11:18 am

ben, I think he has to please some of his voters by making some symbolic appointments. But I'm quite sure that guy will be the new Karl Rove to the fauxfended, regardless of what he does.

With that being said DT is no ideologist, but he'll have to find a balance between what he promised in the campaign and what makes sense. Already now we've seen him backpaddle on many of the campaign promises, but I'm sure he'll have to deliver on some of the symbolic issues, eg. the wall/fence, something I guess would have a congress majority behind it.

by pedro Tue 15 Nov 2016, 11:28 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
He can also propose at least one Supreme Court judge as well straight off the bat.

Well DT said he wouldn't seek to overturn gay marriage rights. So that leaves abortion and gun control as a far as I can see. And America is already effed up on that.

With that being said it's already effed up in the first place to have politically appointed judges. But I guess that's a left over from the Wild West.

by beninho Tue 15 Nov 2016, 11:38 am

I honestly dont get the gun control thing. A lot of issues I try and look at it both ways, but I do not get the gun issue. Why would you want to open up the possibility for more people to have access to guns. Just because someone can have a gun in Virginia after passing an online test why should he be able to carry it in New York, which has much more stringent tests. And the guy that said if Jews had guns then the holocaust may not have happened, may be getting a big role! Its madness.

by MontysMerkin Tue 15 Nov 2016, 11:43 am

He will just continue the gravy train for those that have. Just like Clinton would have. American politics serves itself and it's 'benefactors' first and foremost, while ignoring the average joe. Again as a democracy it is laughable. By most definitions it should have a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens, which it blatantly doesn't.

by MontysMerkin Tue 15 Nov 2016, 11:45 am

beninho wrote:I honestly dont get the gun control thing. A lot of issues I try and look at it both ways, but I do not get the gun issue. Why would you want to open up the possibility for more people to have access to guns. Just because someone can have a gun in Virginia after passing an online test why should he be able to carry it in New York, which has much more stringent tests. And the guy that said if Jews had guns then the holocaust may not have happened, may be getting a big role! Its madness.

If you were black in america, it would be your only protection against the police....

by super_realist Tue 15 Nov 2016, 11:51 am

by robopz Tue 15 Nov 2016, 9:54 pm

How'd that Parliament debate and petition thingy to ban Trump from ever entering the UK work out?

Anyone still for that? .... Anyone?...... Anyone?....

And will they play a Scottish Open at Trump Aberdeen before or after awarding the 2020 or 2021 Open to Trump Turnberry?

by McLaren Tue 15 Nov 2016, 10:03 pm

robopz wrote:How'd that Parliament debate and petition thingy to ban Trump from ever entering the UK work out?

Anyone still for that? .... Anyone?...... Anyone?....

I would be nice if our Government had been more critical of his stated policies so far. Does he need banned? I think the gesture of banning him would at least make it clear what the world thinks about his extreme right wing policies.

I would rather see Bush's passage to the the Hague eased than Trumps ability to travel the world hindered.

by super_realist Wed 16 Nov 2016, 7:27 am

by pedro Wed 16 Nov 2016, 8:54 am

McLaren wrote:
robopz wrote:How'd that Parliament debate and petition thingy to ban Trump from ever entering the UK work out?

Anyone still for that? .... Anyone?...... Anyone?....

I would be nice if our Government had been more critical of his stated policies so far. Does he need banned? I think the gesture of banning him would at least make it clear what the world thinks about his extreme right wing policies.

Don't think the UK is in a position to criticize Trump for wanting to be isolationistic or secure borders... Whistle

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 16 Nov 2016, 9:19 am

robopz wrote:How'd that Parliament debate and petition thingy to ban Trump from ever entering the UK work out?

Anyone still for that? .... Anyone?...... Anyone?....

And will they play a Scottish Open at Trump Aberdeen before or after awarding the 2020 or 2021 Open to Trump Turnberry?

by kwinigolfer Wed 14 Dec 2016, 11:53 am

Look at Drumpf's cabinet: I hope the rest of the world is watching because this is not "Make America Great Again", it's more like "America seems to be doing pretty nicely under Obama, now we're going to take over the world, possibly in cahoots with Russia and fxck everyone who wants to get in our way".
Western Europe should recognize a Hitler when it sees one, open your eyes.

by McLaren Wed 14 Dec 2016, 12:09 pm

Kwini

I guess this is what we all deserve for disrespecting a certain type of white guy?

by super_realist Wed 14 Dec 2016, 12:14 pm

Has Trump put any women or minorities in his cabinet yet?

by McLaren Wed 14 Dec 2016, 12:19 pm

Maybe in his dungeon.

by Sponsored content