Ukrainian War: Prelude to Worse?

[Mktavish]

Ok that was rash of me ... but lets be frank ... dictatorships wouldnt exist if we could get cool air blowing on our balls atleast half the time.

I gota tell ya it has done wonders for me !

 

Its a southern thing .)

[Oblivionaddicted]

Like I already explained countless times, there would not be any dictatorship (like Russia for example) if the politicians had everything to lose and nothing to win trampling people's rights.

 

This goal requires:

-the same financing for all the parties

-the prohibition of any cumulation of powers

-preventing the psychopaths from usurping any form of power

-an automatic suspension for any leader whose honesty is in jeopardy

-medias independent from all the other powers

-an independent justice applying equitable penalties automated on the facts rather than on the power ratios

 

In this system people would decide and the state would obey and the imperialist criminals would have much more difficulties reaching their unavowable ambitions.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Oblivionaddicted

[HeyYou]

-an automatic suspension for any leader whose honesty is in jeopardy

 

As there is no such thing as an 'honest politician', this right here makes it impossible to achieve your goals.

 

According to theory, we already have an 'independent media'. However, they have their agenda as well, and their own bias to go with it.

 

I agree the campaign finance reform is most certainly the first step in taking back control of our government.

[ScytheBearer]

-an automatic suspension for any leader whose honesty is in jeopardy

 

As there is no such thing as an 'honest politician', this right here makes it impossible to achieve your goals.

 

According to theory, we already have an 'independent media'. However, they have their agenda as well, and their own bias to go with it.

 

I agree the campaign finance reform is most certainly the first step in taking back control of our government.

 

 

The funny thing is, I suspect the perceived bias in the media doesn't exist, but instead, the bias is in the viewer/listener/reader. The current situation with the "media" is therefore simple. People cannot agree on what the facts are, what the truth is, and where reality and delusion separate. So working with distinct sets of "truth, facts and reality" people gravitate to the media outlet which reinforces their biases and people distrust any media outlet which contradicts their biases. Unable to face their own biases, people label any media outlet as biased if that media outlet doesn't pander to the individuals set of "truth, facts and reality".

 

On another note, term limits would help limit the collection of excessive power to an individual or group.

Edited April 27, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[Oblivionaddicted]

-an automatic suspension for any leader whose honesty is in jeopardy

 

As there is no such thing as an 'honest politician', this right here makes it impossible to achieve your goals.

 

According to theory, we already have an 'independent media'. However, they have their agenda as well, and their own bias to go with it.

 

I agree the campaign finance reform is most certainly the first step in taking back control of our government.

We would have more honest or at least less contemptible politicians if they had more to lose than to win trampling our rights, this is for sure.

 

And how can you define the medias as independent when the state and the CEO's can fire the journalists or do worse when they expose any inconvenient truth?

 

[Mktavish]

-an automatic suspension for any leader whose honesty is in jeopardy

 

As there is no such thing as an 'honest politician', this right here makes it impossible to achieve your goals.

 

According to theory, we already have an 'independent media'. However, they have their agenda as well, and their own bias to go with it.

 

I agree the campaign finance reform is most certainly the first step in taking back control of our government.

 

Yes the biggest problem is people agreeing with any amount of stability. One day 2 people could be best buddies ... agreements laid out like red carpets.

But eventually I guess that gets sickening for anybody , or just plain boring ? Then in come the disagreements , just to spice it up , or maybe inherent in the DNA ?

Next day ... People are hitting the ignore/block buttons ... cuz they feel they need software to do the job of being human for them .

Err at least that is my theory why we have ended up with the browser software of today :geek:

[Mktavish]

 

We would have more honest or at least less contemptible politicians if / h?

 

 

 

If you could force people to be honest ... would you ?

[Mktavish]

[HeyYou]

 

-an automatic suspension for any leader whose honesty is in jeopardy

 

As there is no such thing as an 'honest politician', this right here makes it impossible to achieve your goals.

 

According to theory, we already have an 'independent media'. However, they have their agenda as well, and their own bias to go with it.

 

I agree the campaign finance reform is most certainly the first step in taking back control of our government.

 

 

The funny thing is, I suspect the perceived bias in the media doesn't exist, but instead, the bias is in the viewer/listener/reader. The current situation with the "media" is therefore simple. People cannot agree on what the facts are, what the truth is, and where reality and delusion separate. So working with distinct sets of "truth, facts and reality" people gravitate to the media outlet which reinforces their biases and people distrust any media outlet which contradicts their biases. Unable to face their own biases, people label any media outlet as biased if that media outlet doesn't pander to the individuals set of "truth, facts and reality".

On another note, term limits would help limit the collection of excessive power to an individual or group.

 

But isn't a 'disagreement over what the facts are' a version of bias? Watch CNN for a bit, then watch Fox news coverage of the same topics. The stories can be dramatically different....... (who really won in 2020? :)) Each side has their preferred version, just as the folks watching them do. I remember the days when 'reporters', and 'journalists', reported what the actual facts were, and left it to the viewers/readers to decide if it was good, bad, or indifferent.... Today, the media is actively trying to lead the viewers/readers down the garden path...... Trying to find a story that DOESN'T have a slant to it, or is 'selectively' reported, is getting to be a real exercise in frustration.

 

Yep, term limits would definitely be a plus. I had a list of things that I detailed in another thread, that I thought really needed to happen, to see the american people take back control of their government. Pretty sure it was during one of the presidential election cycles. Don't recall which one though. (hell, it may have been when Obama was still running. :D ) Of course, none of the points I made are very likely to happen, as the only folks that could implement the changes, are the very same people that benefit most from NOT changing them.

 

Citizens United was my personal favorite item that I though needed to be changed immediately. :) I will believe a corporation 'is people too', about the time one gets arrested, and tossed in prison......

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

-an automatic suspension for any leader whose honesty is in jeopardy

 

As there is no such thing as an 'honest politician', this right here makes it impossible to achieve your goals.

 

According to theory, we already have an 'independent media'. However, they have their agenda as well, and their own bias to go with it.

 

I agree the campaign finance reform is most certainly the first step in taking back control of our government.

 

 

The funny thing is, I suspect the perceived bias in the media doesn't exist, but instead, the bias is in the viewer/listener/reader. The current situation with the "media" is therefore simple. People cannot agree on what the facts are, what the truth is, and where reality and delusion separate. So working with distinct sets of "truth, facts and reality" people gravitate to the media outlet which reinforces their biases and people distrust any media outlet which contradicts their biases. Unable to face their own biases, people label any media outlet as biased if that media outlet doesn't pander to the individuals set of "truth, facts and reality".

On another note, term limits would help limit the collection of excessive power to an individual or group.

 

But isn't a 'disagreement over what the facts are' a version of bias? Watch CNN for a bit, then watch Fox news coverage of the same topics. The stories can be dramatically different....... (who really won in 2020? :smile:) Each side has their preferred version, just as the folks watching them do. I remember the days when 'reporters', and 'journalists', reported what the actual facts were, and left it to the viewers/readers to decide if it was good, bad, or indifferent.... Today, the media is actively trying to lead the viewers/readers down the garden path...... Trying to find a story that DOESN'T have a slant to it, or is 'selectively' reported, is getting to be a real exercise in frustration.

 

Yep, term limits would definitely be a plus. I had a list of things that I detailed in another thread, that I thought really needed to happen, to see the american people take back control of their government. Pretty sure it was during one of the presidential election cycles. Don't recall which one though. (hell, it may have been when Obama was still running. :D ) Of course, none of the points I made are very likely to happen, as the only folks that could implement the changes, are the very same people that benefit most from NOT changing them.

 

Citizens United was my personal favorite item that I though needed to be changed immediately. :smile: I will believe a corporation 'is people too', about the time one gets arrested, and tossed in prison......

 

 

 

Chicken, or egg? Do broadcasters tailor their content to their audience, or does the audience watch the outlet which supports their ideology? Is the agenda in the news source, or in the audience. Or are broadcaster and audience in a mutually reinforcing and emotionally fulfilling embrace? Me, I think the audience came first, and the broadcasters tailored their content to the audience which sold the most advertising.

 

The issue of facts is quite simple. People can make crap up about a person or group, publish on "social media" and if enough people believe it, it becomes a fact. Democrats eat babies, and Republicans have sexual intercourse with children. Neither is true, but enough people believe the lies so the lies become facts. Same with the election. A whole host of false narratives have been posited by any number of true believers, and none of them are true. But enough people believe the false narratives that the lie has become truth.

 

So, closing the loop on the "The Media", when does "reporting" become "propaganda"? When does "teaching" become "indoctrination"? You get to decide for yourself where those bars are set.

 

Personally, I avoid broadcast news, I go with print news sources. Local, and foreign. If you want to see what America looks like to the rest of the world (and get some unbiased facts), read the editorial content in foreign news sources. BBC, (British), Reuters (German) and CBC (Canadian) are good foreign news sources which report American news and events from a completely different point of view. Also, reading foreign news sources will give one a good understanding of the impact America's foolishness has on the world as a whole.

 

Another point in favor of print media, they are unfettered by "time for story" limits. So print news sources take the time to dig into and report more information on any given story. No sound bites. No quips about "those people over there". Just the facts, just the truth, unhindered by bias and agenda. Well, except for the bias and agenda of the reader. Which brings us back to "the days when 'reporters', and 'journalists', reported what the actual facts were, and left it to the viewers/readers to decide if it was good, bad, or indifferent....". Americans used to be literate, and got their news from somewhere other than a talking head. (Now you see my bias against broadcast journalism. :whistling: )

 

Edit: As further evidence that people flock to sources which support their biases and agenda, look at the changing face of Twitter following Musk's proposed "relaxing of censorship rules". But, to your point on the biased media, I give you this.

 

 

 

Any way, back to the war in Ukraine. Russia has escalated by once again threatening Nuclear weapons (third time), and cutting off the supply of gas to several EU nations.

 

Now remember that Putin is "smart" and doesn't want a theater or world war.

Edited April 30, 2022 by ScytheBearer