On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:14:45 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
>> entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
>> and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.
>
> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.

That's probably a correct assessment, as there isn't really all that much
discord in American politics. Both parties are pretty much the same, IMHO.

It's MARKETING 101 for oligopolies...
The parties, IMHO, are forced by their similarities to _invent_ a
differentiation platform.

Much like how Apple comes up with bold colors & frames for their iPhones.
It differentiates what is a commodity in reality.

One leans toward the disadvantaged; the other toward the business makers.
One leans toward being a nanny state; the other leans toward free action.
One leans toward religion; the other tries not to lean too close to it.
etc.

Funnily enough, the ONE thing BOTH parties AGREE on is they both make laws
to affect the number of Democratic voters (and not Republican voters).

By that odd statement, I mean that both enact directly focused laws to
change the specific NUMBER of Democrat voters directly, but not the number
of Republican voters directly.

To illustrate that odd-sounding statement, the Democrats will let pretty
much every immigrant vote, and the Democrats will extend the hours of
voting, and the Democrats will add to almost every government form the
option to register to vote and the Democrats will make voting so easy you
can easily obtain a dozen ballots simply by changing the name on them, etc.

At the same time, the Republicans enact contrary laws to reduce the number
of Democrat voters (akin to poll taxes), where they make it less convenient
to vote (e.g., reduced hours, stricter registration requirements, formal
voting procedures, etc.).

Yet NOBODY tries directly to increase/decrease the number of Republican
voters. They do that with their policies and platforms (e.g., guns,
religion, capitalism, etc.) but not DIRECTLY.

I think in the end, you're right that there is in reality very little
difference in the USA between the two parties - and that which exists - it
seems to me, is manufactured purely to have something to differentiate.

Classic marketing.
It's why there is an entire shelf of cereals, all the same, in reality.

On 26-Apr-24 19:28, Ken Blake wrote:

snip
> To illustrate that odd-sounding statement, the Democrats will let pretty
> much every immigrant vote,

I'm sure people on the right wing would agree with that, but is there
reliable evidence that it is true to any significant degree?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 26-Apr-24 2:10, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 01:54:38 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>>>>> To a large percentage of the American people, he is also a grotesque
>>>>> little cunt. Unfortunately that percentage was not high enough four
>>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>> I think perhaps Trump only won because he was contested by Hillary.
>>>> The choice was between who was the least worst grotesque cunt.
>>>
>>> And too many people got it wrong.
>>
>> Trump was then an unknown (as a political figure), so it was hard to
>> challenge him on his track record.
>> Some people seemed to take the approach:
>>
>> "I'm tired of all these politicians - maybe this guy will be different."
>>
>> He was.
>
> Everything said above was correct, except the "too many people" because I
> think Hillary got more "people" but not enough electoral votes, right?
>
> I think the reason the Trump "grotesque little cunt" won was a combination
> of what Snidely & Sam Plusnet wrote which is the Venn overlap of
>
> Snidely:
> (1) Most people vote party affiliations where the country is divided
> roughly in half by city population (Democrats) & rural (Republicans).
>
> Sam Plusnet:
> (2) Hillary was a known grotesque little cunt while Trump was also known
> to be a grotesque little cunt - but he was worse than many had thought.
>
> I don't think in this upcoming election that Biden is as disliked by the
> majority as Hillary was but I think voting will still be down party lines.
>
> Who has the most electoral votes?
> Only the swing states know for sure.

You have snipped deeply, but not well.
You attribute words to me that did not come from my keyboard (from
Occam's, I think).

--
Sam Plusnet

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:21:34 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:

>> To illustrate that odd-sounding statement, the Democrats will let pretty
>> much every immigrant vote,
>
> I'm sure people on the right wing would agree with that, but is there
> reliable evidence that it is true to any significant degree?

I don't do the research but a friend showed me a half dozen ballots, each
with his address, but to made up names, which he's allowed to vote using
the mail-in ballot process which makes it very easy to vote multiple times.

He registered for each as an experiment, as he only votes once.
But I've seen them with my own eyes, so that I can vouch for that veracity.

The rest of the methods to increase Democratic voters, I can't personally
say I've experienced on their own merits, so I leave them up for grabs.

Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com> writes:
> In addition, left wingers tend to exclusively watch MSNBC all day,

Hell, no. That's the stupid demographic. Madcow stupid.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

On 27/04/24 04:14, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:03:01 -0600 Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
> wrote:

>> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly
>> willing to entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that
>> MSNBC is NOT left and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that
>> happens, it's simply a fact.
>
> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.

Heh. I got my first exposure to CNN while channel-surfing in Belgium. It
was so radically different from all the European TV stations that at
first I thought it was a propaganda arm of the US government. Eventually
I discovered that the US government wasn't running it, and it was just
one more extreme-right commercial channel.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Ken Blake explained :
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:06:17 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> You misunderstand my point.
>
> Oops. I'm sorry.
>
>> I accept that MSNBC is left-leaning and that FOX is falling-over right.
>> Those are opinions that I have formed by exposure to MSNBC and FOX.
>
> Oh. OK. We agree. I also agree from my own observations (which are rather
> limited as both make me wretch)

Either a letter is missing or one should be missing ...
"as both make me a wretch" or
"as both make me retch"

> that Fox is further to the right and lower
> down on what is factual news than is MSNBC to the left, and higher up.

[much detail elided as being germane to the argument but not to a minor
point of usage]

/dps

--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:29:03 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 27/04/24 04:14, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:03:01 -0600 Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly
>>> willing to entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that
>>> MSNBC is NOT left and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that
>>> happens, it's simply a fact.
>>
>> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.
>
>Heh. I got my first exposure to CNN while channel-surfing in Belgium. It
>was so radically different from all the European TV stations that at
>first I thought it was a propaganda arm of the US government. Eventually
>I discovered that the US government wasn't running it, and it was just
>one more extreme-right commercial channel.

CNN an "extreme-right" channel? Most Americans would rank CNN as the
most left-leaning channel with MSNBC and NPR following.

This site https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias
puts CNN moving from "Center" to "Leans Left" and "Left" in the period
of 2016 to 2023. I would put it as a dark blue "Left" in 2024.
CNN is the primary channel I watch for news. I'm on the left in most
(but not all) issues, and I sometimes think that CNN is a bit too
leftish.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:56:28 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:21:34 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>>> To illustrate that odd-sounding statement, the Democrats will let pretty
>>> much every immigrant vote,
>>
>> I'm sure people on the right wing would agree with that, but is there
>> reliable evidence that it is true to any significant degree?
>
>I don't do the research but a friend showed me a half dozen ballots, each
>with his address, but to made up names, which he's allowed to vote using
>the mail-in ballot process which makes it very easy to vote multiple times.

"Allowed"? How can you be "allowed" to break a law? You *can* break
any law, but you are not "allowed" to do so.

On 27/04/24 14:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:29:03 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 27/04/24 04:14, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:03:01 -0600 Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm
>>>> perfectly willing to entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite
>>>> showing that MSNBC is NOT left and/or that FOX is NOT right -
>>>> but until that happens, it's simply a fact.
>>>
>>> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.
>>
>> Heh. I got my first exposure to CNN while channel-surfing in
>> Belgium. It was so radically different from all the European TV
>> stations that at first I thought it was a propaganda arm of the US
>> government. Eventually I discovered that the US government wasn't
>> running it, and it was just one more extreme-right commercial
>> channel.
>
> CNN an "extreme-right" channel? Most Americans would rank CNN as
> the most left-leaning channel with MSNBC and NPR following.
>
> This site https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias puts
> CNN moving from "Center" to "Leans Left" and "Left" in the period of
> 2016 to 2023. I would put it as a dark blue "Left" in 2024.
>
> CNN is the primary channel I watch for news. I'm on the left in
> most (but not all) issues, and I sometimes think that CNN is a bit
> too leftish.

It depends on what you're comparing with. Yes, CNN isn't right-leaning
by US standards, but it is if you're comparing it with European TV.

The right wing of Australian politics is roughly comparable with the
left wing of US politics. Biden and Trump couldn't be elected here,
because the parties they would fit into are the extreme ones that get
hardly any votes.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:56:28 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:21:34 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>>> To illustrate that odd-sounding statement, the Democrats will let pretty
>>> much every immigrant vote,
>>
>> I'm sure people on the right wing would agree with that, but is there
>> reliable evidence that it is true to any significant degree?
>
>I don't do the research but a friend showed me a half dozen ballots, each
>with his address, but to made up names, which he's allowed to vote using
>the mail-in ballot process which makes it very easy to vote multiple times.
>
>He registered for each as an experiment, as he only votes once.
>But I've seen them with my own eyes, so that I can vouch for that veracity.

My sister recently sent me a 36 page tract which, I guess,
impressed her about voter fraud. It was all accusations and
suspicions. No "evidence" on any record. Its 78 footnotes
often cited YouTube and Rumble - where I presume the same
people spoke their complaints to a camera.

The document was apparently a summary of separate efforts
made in 6 swing states. Maybe its deficits are the fault of the
summarizer, but his product is all-propaganda and he is an idiot.
(In the Introduction, he says that Fox News committed fraud
<his word> when they called the Arizona race too early for
Biden.)

There was not a piece of evidence as presented in court. There
might have been one accusation made, essentially, under oath,
in the form of a complaint filed with a state congressional committee.
There were assertations made privately, from no one famous.

There was not a single admission by a state official (Republican,
most of them) that any of this body of literature had convinced
any of them that they had been wrong in attesting to a good
election. Or in admitting any of the accusations about bad
handling of ballots, though some of that was believable without
being culpable. How does bad handling of ballots by Republican
officials lead to massive voter fraud by Democrats?

The rare magazine-citations for ills were all for "Gateway Pundit" --
which has such a strong reputation for creating Fake News, that
even conservatives hesitate to cite it. GP makes things up. My
sister had previously sent me something citing them.

Nobody reported an experiment like your friend's, done by officials
or whoever. Since he didn't vote them, you don't know that he
would not have been caught and sent to jail (if he were black) or
fined for voter fraud. He couldn't have gotten them in
Pennsylvania without previously having a bunch of false IDs.
Each state, of course, does things their own way.

Some of those 40+ voter recounts and checks after the election
included voter validations.

Your friend, of course, was confessing to an election crime
without having voted them.

Assuming you are not just testing our credulity.

>
>The rest of the methods to increase Democratic voters, I can't personally
>say I've experienced on their own merits, so I leave them up for grabs.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:21:34 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>On 26-Apr-24 19:28, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>snip
>> To illustrate that odd-sounding statement, the Democrats will let pretty
>> much every immigrant vote,
>
>I'm sure people on the right wing would agree with that, but is there
>reliable evidence that it is true to any significant degree?

I saw a number not long ago. Maybe - 30 illegal immigrant
votes detected,total, in the past 20 years?

--
Rich

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 03:53:37 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>
>For me, a "balanced" news is simply a source I agree with.
>
>For others, MSNBC (which skews left) is a source _they_ agree with, so to
>them, it's also "sensible" and "untainted"; likewise with Fox skewing
>right.
>
>So I guess a "sensible" logical news story is one we each agree with.

'Balanced' has a somewhat peculiar history since Fox used to
have the slogan, 'Fair and balanced'. The general sense of
that to professionals -- including those at Fox, I think -- is that
the ordinary news comes out with facts and educated statements
that favor liberals. Fox provided 'balance' by finding conservative
crackpots who would give the 'other' side. Fox tried to defend
themselves in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation case
by claiming that they were following their general practice of
(only) providing a platform without endorsing the guests. But,
actions like being effusive and complimentary and inviting them
<whomever> undermined that claim, leading to the $787 M
settlement.

On the other hand, aiming for too much 'balance' is the criticism
embodied in "both-hand-ism"-- On the one hand/ On the other
hand -- when applied to news coverage of issues that don't
have two sides that deserve equal attention.

Having an opinion that is generally left or right is 'biassed' but
not inappropriate for opinion articles or shows.

Being UNFAIR in presenting opinions is a matter of concern.
When you present an opinion, how much do you take the
other side into account? But what is surely unfair is lying.

'Taking the other side into account' is something that I see
missing occasionally on MSNBC, but it is pretty damned
endemic from those folks on the Right. Some of them now
claim that sources like the NY Times are 'fake news' -- which
gets to the more serious problem of lying. The Right Wing
Nut Job who points to Main Stream Media as 'fake news' is
usually, himself, a flat liar, evading discussion. Trump has
shown them a formula for dismissing experts.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:28:16 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:14:45 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
>>> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
>>> entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
>>> and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.
>>
>> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.
>
>That's probably a correct assessment, as there isn't really all that much
>discord in American politics. Both parties are pretty much the same, IMHO.
>
>It's MARKETING 101 for oligopolies...
>The parties, IMHO, are forced by their similarities to _invent_ a
>differentiation platform.
>

What has been conventional to say about the two parties for
the last 45 years is becoming inapplicable. Here is the new
differentiation taking place.

Democrats remain a political party interesting in governing,
caring for the health and welfare for all citizens. Republicans
used to take a less-government-is-better approach to the
same ends; but now they are moving to no-government-ever
unless it throws money at rich people. Authoritarian rule is
easier.

Republicans are collapsing into a Trump cult, where
Winning Is Everything. Trump cares very little about policies,
and his wide ignorance reflects that.
Serious policy is replaced by following Trump's whims. Ukraine aid?
Border policy? - vetoed by Trump. (Are they finally showing some
spine? Ukraine aid passed, and I have a small hope.)

In the abstract, 'hieirarchy and inequality' seem to be in
opposition to 'equal treatment and fair play'. But it is simpler
to say: one guy wants to rule for the benefit of himself and
people who flatter him. That's not the old picture of the party.

I said, "... are collapsing into a Trump cult" and I mean that
it is not yet a done-deal. But while it is happening, the
pressure to repeat his lies screws up ordinary considerations
of how the parties differ, or how the media reflect Left and
Trump-Right.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 00:55:32 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com> writes:
>> In addition, left wingers tend to exclusively watch MSNBC all day,
>
>Hell, no. That's the stupid demographic. Madcow stupid.
>

Cable news viewers tend to be old enough that "all day"
might not exaggerate.

CNN continues to have the youngest audience among cable news
networks with a Total Day median age of 67 years, -3 years younger
than MSNBC (70) and Fox News (70) in January. TV Source: The
Nielsen Company. January 2024 (1/1/24-1/28/24).

--
Rich Ulrich

On 27/04/24 15:38, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> The Right Wing Nut Job who points to Main Stream Media as 'fake news'
> is usually, himself, a flat liar, evading discussion. Trump has shown
> them a formula for dismissing experts.

Now and then I have considered the possibility that Trump is not a liar.
I maintain, in fact, that such a decision is not as clear-cut as most
people think.

I've noticed that some narcissistic people can make up a story that's
favourable to their own position, and then -- as far as I can tell --
end up believing their own lies. Except that technically they're not
lies, because they're backed up by genuine, non-faked, belief.

I concede that I'm extrapolating from a minuscule sample, which one
shouldn't do. Still, there is at least some possibility that Trump
genuinely believes his claims.

If so, this could get him past some of his current legal problems. He
can just plead "not guilty" by reason of insanity. But of course he
won't, because such people have an unshakeable belief in their own
sanity. It's all the other people who are out of step.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 2024-04-26 18:14:45 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:03:01 -0600
> Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:05:53 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not "me" who decides what bias a news skews toward but everyone else,
>>>
>>> Of course it's you. You are deciding which of everyone else's
>>> opinions are the correct opinions.
>>
>> I respectfully disagree, and I back it up with supreme sense & logic.
>>
>> The way you think about opinion is not how scientific facts work.
>> Specifically, in this situation, mathematical probability (statistics).
>>
>> 1. One guy says the earth is flat.
>> 2. Everyone else proves it's not.
>>
>> A. You maintain that the earth not being flat is just one guy's opinion.
>> B. I don't.
>>
>> In this case, every news-bias reporting outfit says what I said, and it
>> didn't work the other way around - so it's obviously a fact to all who
>> report on bias (unless you can find a contrary reliable report, of course).
>>
>> When ALL the data lines up, it's no longer merely an opinion.
>> It's fact.
>>
>> Or at least it's a statistical reliability with very high probability of
>> being correct (within the local community's restrictive bounds of their
>> commonly held definition of Left/Right of course).
>>
>> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
>> entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
>> and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.
>
> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.

Even Bernie Sanders, often called left-wing (here, recently?), would
fit in well with a European conservative party.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-04-27 04:26:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:29:03 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 27/04/24 04:14, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:03:01 -0600 Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly
>>>> willing to entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that
>>>> MSNBC is NOT left and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that
>>>> happens, it's simply a fact.
>>>
>>> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.
>>
>> Heh. I got my first exposure to CNN while channel-surfing in Belgium. It
>> was so radically different from all the European TV stations that at
>> first I thought it was a propaganda arm of the US government. Eventually
>> I discovered that the US government wasn't running it, and it was just
>> one more extreme-right commercial channel.
>
>
> CNN an "extreme-right" channel? Most Americans would rank CNN as the
> most left-leaning channel with MSNBC and NPR following.

Yes, that's the problem.
>
> This site https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias
> puts CNN moving from "Center" to "Leans Left" and "Left" in the period
> of 2016 to 2023. I would put it as a dark blue "Left" in 2024.
>
> CNN is the primary channel I watch for news. I'm on the left in most
> (but not all) issues, and I sometimes think that CNN is a bit too
> leftish.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 27/04/24 16:15, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 00:55:32 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com> writes:
>>> In addition, left wingers tend to exclusively watch MSNBC all day,
>>
>> Hell, no. That's the stupid demographic. Madcow stupid.
>>
>
> Cable news viewers tend to be old enough that "all day"
> might not exaggerate.
>
> CNN continues to have the youngest audience among cable news
> networks with a Total Day median age of 67 years, -3 years younger
> than MSNBC (70) and Fox News (70) in January. TV Source: The
> Nielsen Company. January 2024 (1/1/24-1/28/24).

That's older than I expected. There must have been a time when the
median TV-watching age was in the twenties. These days, I guess, young
people no longer read news, they read opinions.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 27/04/24 16:03, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:28:16 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:14:45 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>
>>>> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
>>>> entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
>>>> and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.
>>>
>>> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.
>>
>> That's probably a correct assessment, as there isn't really all that much
>> discord in American politics. Both parties are pretty much the same, IMHO.
>>
>> It's MARKETING 101 for oligopolies...
>> The parties, IMHO, are forced by their similarities to _invent_ a
>> differentiation platform.
>>
>
> What has been conventional to say about the two parties for
> the last 45 years is becoming inapplicable. Here is the new
> differentiation taking place.
>
> Democrats remain a political party interesting in governing,
> caring for the health and welfare for all citizens. Republicans
> used to take a less-government-is-better approach to the
> same ends; but now they are moving to no-government-ever
> unless it throws money at rich people. Authoritarian rule is
> easier.
>
> Republicans are collapsing into a Trump cult, where
> Winning Is Everything. Trump cares very little about policies,
> and his wide ignorance reflects that.
>
> Serious policy is replaced by following Trump's whims. Ukraine aid?
> Border policy? - vetoed by Trump. (Are they finally showing some
> spine? Ukraine aid passed, and I have a small hope.)
>
> In the abstract, 'hieirarchy and inequality' seem to be in
> opposition to 'equal treatment and fair play'. But it is simpler
> to say: one guy wants to rule for the benefit of himself and
> people who flatter him. That's not the old picture of the party.
>
> I said, "... are collapsing into a Trump cult" and I mean that
> it is not yet a done-deal. But while it is happening, the
> pressure to repeat his lies screws up ordinary considerations
> of how the parties differ, or how the media reflect Left and
> Trump-Right.

The way it looks from outside the country is that Trump is out to wreck
the Republican Party. I'm surprised that there's not a group of
Republicans getting together to stop him from doing that.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:14:53 -0700, Snidely wrote:

>> Oh. OK. We agree. I also agree from my own observations (which are rather
>> limited as both make me wretch)
>
> Either a letter is missing or one should be missing ...
> "as both make me a wretch" or
> "as both make me retch"

Wow. Thank you. My mistake.

That's a big one since I had no clue whatsoever. Much appreciated.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wretch
NOUN
1: a miserable person : one who is profoundly unhappy or in great
misfortune
2: a base, despicable, or vile person

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retch
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/retch
VERB
to discharge the contents of the stomach through the mouth

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 00:27:10 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

>>>> To illustrate that odd-sounding statement, the Democrats will let pretty
>>>> much every immigrant vote,
>>>
>>> I'm sure people on the right wing would agree with that, but is there
>>> reliable evidence that it is true to any significant degree?
>>
>>I don't do the research but a friend showed me a half dozen ballots, each
>>with his address, but to made up names, which he's allowed to vote using
>>the mail-in ballot process which makes it very easy to vote multiple times.
>
> "Allowed"? How can you be "allowed" to break a law? You *can* break
> any law, but you are not "allowed" to do so.

That's the whole point!

The "allowed" part is the entirety of the argument that I was making.

Both parties aim _only_ at the number of Democrat voters when they enact or
enforce (or choose NOT to enforce) laws that _directly_ influence the
number of Democrat voters (but not Republican voters).

It's a nuance that you have to understand in order to comprehend what I
have observed and that which I am explaining to you.

Take the ballots.
a. The laws say you can only have one ballot
b. But the blue states make it easy to have many ballots
c. Because they don't enforce the laws (i.e., they "allow" multiple
ballots by making it so easy without the necessary checks)

I've seen it with my own eyes.

The argument for immigration is similar but I can't vouch for it.
a. The laws say non citizens can't vote
b. But the blue states make it easy for non citizens to vote
c. Because they don't enforce the laws (i.e., they "allow" non-citizens
to obtain a mail-in ballot without checking their citizenship).

The argument for immigration is similar in yet another way and this
is well documented in some of the blue states, so it's verified.
a. The laws say people sneaking across the border can't stay
b. But the blue states don't enforce those laws (they publicly say so)
c. Because they don't enforce the laws (i.e., they "allow" people who
sneak across the border to stay, eventually they have babies in
the USA who are citizens and who can legally vote).

The first example I have personally seen with my own eyes.
The second, if you object, I can find cites for that the police will look
the other way in some blue states, and the third just makes logical sense
based on facts but I haven't the experience of seeing it with my own eyes.

In the end analysis, the observation I made which I doubt you've seen
elsewhere, is that both parties _directly_ aim to change the number of
Democrat voters by sly application or misapplication of the laws.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 01:06:28 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> Assuming you are not just testing our credulity.

My credibility is what it is. That's up to you.

You can believe me or not that I don't subscribe to the far right or the
far left - but I have seen things with my own eyes - and I have observed
what the police in some very blue cities (such as LA) say (i.e., they won't
enforce the laws) and I have observed that blue states are constantly
putting "register to vote" checkboxes on completely unrelated forms.

It's from those and other observations that I have remarked that it's odd
that both parties _directly_ try to influence the number of Democrat voters
by their actions (or inactions).

Having said that, you can judge my credibility as you like - but I believe
I am rational and logical in all my statements (but you are welcome to
dispute them as you wish).

What I can tell from your comments though is you have no idea how _easy_ it
is for anyone, even dead people, to register to vote in some blue states,
(particularly those with mail-in ballots).

And you have no idea whatsoever how the police look the other way when
illegal immigrants work in those same blue states (where they live in them
permanently, and as a result, more Democrat voters are born).

I'm not criticising the system by the way.
I'm just observing what it is.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 02:03:58 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> Republicans are collapsing into a Trump cult, where
> Winning Is Everything. Trump cares very little about policies,
> and his wide ignorance reflects that.

Just some friendly advice from a centrist...

While you'll never see me defending Trump, to say "Republicans are
collapsing into a Trump cult" ignores that Republicans have existed before
Trump was born, and Republicans will exist well after he has faded away.

Just as Democrats existed before Biden was born [although maybe it will be
close based on his age. :) and Democrats will still exist well after Biden
fades away - which may be sooner than we think as Kamala will perhaps
become the next president de-jure just as Truman did.]

If we remove Trump from your argument, it makes sense.
The argument is diluted (IMHO) when you insert a flash in the pan Trump.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:29:03 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.
>
> Heh. I got my first exposure to CNN while channel-surfing in Belgium. It
> was so radically different from all the European TV stations that at
> first I thought it was a propaganda arm of the US government. Eventually
> I discovered that the US government wasn't running it, and it was just
> one more extreme-right commercial channel.

Interesting what you say about CNN given CNN skews left in the adfontsmedia
bias charts (akin with MSNBC)...

How I get my world news is simply this one URL...
<https://www.google.com/search?q=world+news>

Then I pick from the results based on my prior experience, where I strive
to avoid any of the biased news sources.

As others said, the "determination" of bias is the issue at hand, where the
media bias charts I've previously listed seem to be American-centric in
that most of the world-wide media doesn't seem to be on those charts.

So I'm on my own...

While I think TVP World (Poland) is biased in terms of World News (even as
I watch it because it fits my pro-Ukraine bias), I consider France 24, DW
News (Germany), BBC (UK) and Reuters to be reasonably clear of great bias.

I won't touch Al Jazeera nor WION though, although Al Jazeera doesn't make
me retch (thanks Snidely) as much as the wretchedly biased WION does.