bias bias bias ;)

I'm just having a good laugh. — Agustino

You're doing a lot of things, but philosophy isn't one of them.



I haven't done an analysis, but it would be hardly surprising if Trump got treated worse by the media than Hillary. He has railed against them from the beginning as being corrupt, disgusting, the lowest of the low etc. And he's been using that line deliberately to set himself up as the anti-media candidate because he knows this appeals to his anti-establishment base. He's got a lot of mileage out of it so far (it helped propel him to the Republican nomination because ironically the media lapped it all up and gave him way more coverage than the other candidates) but you can't have it both ways. You can't be against the media and then expect them to be on your side. So, I don't see anything unfair about it. He runs on being the enemy of the media, and some (though not all) of them happily accept their role. Also, naturally enough, large media companies (excepting for obvious reasons Fox News) will tend to prefer the stability of the known (Clinton) to the unknown (Trump) and this may filter through to their coverage. But really it's not the media that condemns Trump but his own words and actions.

You're doing a lot of things, but philosophy isn't one of them. — Baden

No amongst having a good laugh I'm actually also doing philosophy. Just that you get stuck up on "Crooked" and not on anything else.

But really it's not the media that condemns Trump but his own words and actions. — Baden

Again giving excuses for them. The media should be unbiased. The real truth is that they do have a bias to progressivism. And Trump unmasks this. Exactly as I've been saying all along. People think the media is free when it's really not - it's in the binds of progressives. But because of Trump we can all see that - the mask goes off.

Have you heard of WikiLeaks? It's there in black-and-white. The Podesta leaks show media collusion with the Clinton campaign to an extraordinary level. Some of it might even be criminal.

Ah, proved you wrong again. :P — Sapientia

Just like Clinton would do anything to get elected, it seems you'd do anything to prove me wrong >:O - see, maybe I wasn't far off when I said progressives are all the same ;)

The latest revelations about Hillary training homeless, mentally ill, and assorted thugs, to start riots at Trump rallies (they claim Chicago as a major success), renders "Crooked Hillary" quite appropriate.

By the way, have you read about this in the media? — tom

If you have a reliable source for this, do share. But I'm not claiming the media is not biased towards Hillary anyway. I'm claiming it doesn't matter to me for the reasons outlined above. I judge Trump (as I do Hillary) on his own words and actions not what talking heads say about him.

Again giving excuses for them. The media should be unbiased. The real truth is that they do have a bias to progressivism. And Trump unmasks this. Exactly as I've been saying all along. People think the media is free when it's really not - it's in the binds of progressives. — Agustino

This is a big problem for democracy. It has already been revealed that the DNC is corrupt; Bernie didn't stand a chance. But with Wall St. the Media, the FBI in Clinton's pocket (i.e. Soros's pocket), democracy has no chance.

If Trump had caused the riots in Chicago with paid agitators, it would be over for him.

Here's the expose which the Media is ignoring. If it were Trump, he'd be arrested by now.

Did I say it was? Both should be condemned. That's what I've said. — Agustino

And what you've said is still wrong. They're not comparable in that way. There is nothing condemnable about dressing that way. The problem is entirely one-sided, and of your own perception, attitude, judgement, prejudices, weak will, and so on, and of others like you.

Do you for some odd reason think I would be surprised by this?



Of course the media are biased in lots of different ways. They are businesses selling products. Particularly in the U.S. I'm all for greater control and oversight but you won't find many conservatives supporting that call.

Of course the media are biased in lots of different ways. They are businesses selling products. Particularly in the U.S. I'm all for greater control and oversight but you won't find many conservatives supporting that call. — Baden

And the Clintons have amassed a $300million fortune by selling a product called "US government policy".

What's your point, tom? Do I have to explain yet again to a conservative that I'm not here to defend the Clintons?

Trump took a lot of flack for wanting to build a wall:

Agree 100%. I'm not at all sympathetic towards Trump and am thoroughly enjoying the beating his psyche must be taking through these non-stop (and deserved) attacks on his character. Actually I take that back: I heard him talking recently (maybe it was even that Bill O'Reilly interview Agustino posted earlier?) about how proud he is of the fact that he's been attacked by the media more than any other presidential candidate in US history. Or something like that. There's apparently nothing Trump can't appropriate into the service of his already massive ego. It's really astounding that anyone could be so deluded and incapable of honest personal assessment. Scary may be a more apt description.

I thought that guy in the video looked familiar: known liar and fraud James Edward O'Keefe III. Please give us a break with this, and find some real sources. We've already seen O'Keefe's "exposes," and they're heaping piles of bullshit. (And right-wingers complain about Hillary being deceitful?)

No amongst having a good laugh I'm actually also doing philosophy. Just that you get stuck up on "Crooked" and not on anything else.

Again giving excuses for them. The media should be unbiased. The real truth is that they do have a bias to progressivism. And Trump unmasks this. Exactly as I've been saying all along. People think the media is free when it's really not - it's in the binds of progressives. But because of Trump we can all see that - the mask goes off — Agustino

But again your post proves me right. I made a collection of arguments about how Trump used his anti-media persona to his advantage and was actually advantaged initially by it (getting much more coverage than other candidates); and I then went on to state that current biases against him (if there any) would be unsurprising in the context of his attitude. But you respond not with any kind of rebuttal or analysis or even acknowledgement of my arguments, but rather the unsupported assertion that I am giving excuses for the media followed by more unsupported assertions about how the media is in the binds of progressives. Where is the philosophy that you keep contending you are doing in your response above? Show it to me.

It's all corroborated by the WikiLeaks release of the Podesta emails. And it seems that Scott Foval was fired within hour of the video release.

Just quote the relevant parts of the relevant emails then.

So what? It doesn't mean that O'Keefe isn't a liar, or that the videos were presented in an honest manner. The Obama administration fired Shirley Sherrod on the basis of Andrew Breitbart's (God rest his soul) fraudulent video without realizing what a lying scumbag Breitbart was, and how he'd deliberately shown the videos out of context. Sometimes people get tossed under the bus in the name of maintaining a good image.

As opposed to Trump, who got rich by a grant from his rich daddy (money which he's largely squandered due to his being terrible at what he does), and stiffing contractors and construction workers, and then filing for bankruptcy multiple times in order to run from his fiduciary obligations. (Let's not forget the occasional bulldozing of people's homes in order to build his garish properties.)

This is probably why he now earns a living by whoring out his name to fraudulent "universities," steaks, bottled water, and whatever else he thinks his reality show fans will scarf up.

What's your point, tom? Do I have to explain yet again to a conservative that I'm not here to defend the Clintons? — Baden

Why wouldn't one defend the Clintons? A person needn't be perfect in order to defend them (and God knows the Clintons aren't perfect). Bill and Hillary have spent decades in public service, with Hillary fighting for the rights of women and the poor, trying to extend healthcare to the uninsured, and the Clinton Foundation has worked for years on solving problems facing the global poor and fighting disease. That work is admirable, and I would say they've done more good than harm.

The vast bulk of the allegations thrown against them are bullshit, which is why the right must constantly invent fake scandals in order to attack Hillary (e.g. Benghazi, Whitewater, her "laughing at a rape victim"...the list goes on).

I have reasons why I wouldn't, but I don't want to side-track this discussion into a debate about the Clintons. That's the strategy of Trump supporters who want to detract from their man's failings. If someone wants to start a discussion on the Clintons, I'll probably join in and give my reasons there.

No I'm in the right-wing which says that men should inform themselves and be on top of the facts themselves. I'm part of the right-wing which distrusts authority and bowing down your head to them. I'm part of the right-wing which says that your own head is good enough to think through these issues and you don't need some higher up to tell you what to do.

Then don't care about it. You have to make your own decision - I just told you what I think based on my knowledge. — Agustino

The methodology you have endorsed above doesn't discriminate enough, and, as a result, it is more prone to error than the one that I am endorsing, which is not the same as your misrepresentation of it.

Yes, people (not just men) should inform themselves and be on top of the facts, but not to the extent that they disregard important evidence merely because it is from an authority, due to some irrational distrust of authorities. Nor should they discount it on the basis that it hasn't been gathered by themselves individually, but instead involved a team of researchers.

We don't live in some ideal world where romantic notions that your own head is good enough to think through these issues is born out by the facts. The harsh reality is that the way in which vast swaths of the electorate will vote will have been based in no small part on emotion, fallacy, and the lies they've fallen for.

Indeed, I don't care about your impression enough to misplace it above stronger evidence, and I would advise others not to similarly misplace it. But I do care enough to object to it. It's not so much about what you know about such and such, but what you knowingly disregard or overemphasise. I won't condone cherry picking and willful ignorance on a philosophy forum of all places. These are fallacies to be avoided, not virtues to romanticise.

There is nothing condemnable about dressing that way. — Sapientia

No but there is certainly something condemnable about dressing that way in order to have power and dominate over men. There's a difference there.

I'm all for greater control and oversight but you won't find many conservatives supporting that call. — Baden

Maybe because you would use it to shut down conservative outposts?

Well, I appreciate your confidence in my abilities but my power does not quite extend so far.

No, but there is certainly something condemnable about dressing that way in order to have power and dominate over men. There's a difference there. — Agustino

No, there isn't, because in reality, it isn't this sinister-sounding thing that you're making it out to be. There is nothing wrong with either men or women using items of clothing, cosmetics, toiletries, and such, to make themselves more attractive to potential sexual partners - which, by the way, needn't be a member of the opposite sex.

The overarching problem here is, again, in part, due to your whole conception of morality and your own presumed authority, or as spokesperson for some presumed higher authority. You will no doubt frame this as something other than personal disapproval. In your mind, you are a knight defending morality.

What is sinister is the unspoken implications of your comment. Like that these men you talk about as if they're victims aren't themselves to blame.

Just like Clinton would do anything to get elected, it seems you'd do anything to prove me wrong >:O - see, maybe I wasn't far off when I said progressives are all the same ;) — Agustino

I'm not really doing anything. You just keep shooting yourself in the foot by making unwarranted assumptions about your interlocutors. Perhaps erring on the side of caution wouldn't go amiss? :-x

Why wouldn't one defend the Clintons? A person needn't be perfect in order to defend them (and God knows the Clintons aren't perfect). Bill and Hillary have spent decades in public service, with Hillary fighting for the rights of women and the poor, trying to extend healthcare to the uninsured, and the Clinton Foundation has worked for years on solving problems facing the global poor and fighting disease. That work is admirable, and I would say they've done more good than harm. — Arkady

Rights of women, are you freakin kidding me?

Both Clinton and Trump are against Obama Care as it currently stands. Both want to reform it. Trump was to only Republican candidate for universal healthcare provision.

As for the Clinton foundation, have you been living under a rock?

http://www.latintimes.com/clinton-foundation-what-happened-39-billion-were-supposed-go-haiti-401841

I'm beginning to find it hilarious how Agustino's posts generally boil down to " ;) " every time.