Itâs a waste of time correcting you, as in your head you can never be wrong, but you are simply incorrect here.
The Democratic party are increasingly out of touch with reality in the US, and with their traditional working class voters. If they were at all connected with reality they would have run a different candidate in 2016 and won the election. As if that wasnât bad enough they are now heading down the socialist rabbit hole which ensures they will lose the midterms in 2018. They are such a shambles of a party with no leadership, the Democratic Socialist party is starting to set the agenda.
A mantra of âNo borders, no profits, no prisonsâ is going to resonate really well with American voters
Most commentators in Ireland predicted a narrow Bush win, because that was what the opinion polls had been saying for months. But sure imagine away what youâd like to think people were saying, like a manager of a victorious GAA team who were favourites going into a match, claiming that âeverybody wrote us offâ, ânobody gave us a chanceâ.
You must have missed every single one of the endless pieces from all over the US across UK and Irish media trying to find out why Trump was attracting support since he declared his candidacy in 2015, both in print and broadcast media.
For an angle that has supposedly not been covered, it has attracted an frankly incredible amount of attention.
But playing the victim and twisting reality even when it comes to basic factual analyses of what media has been covering is only to be expected from somebody who supported Trump, and who is incapable of any other tactic than to make themselves part of a culture of imagined victimhood over every subject imaginable.
As long as it fits into your âracistâ, âanti Semiticâ (which you described Trump voters as) and rednecks itâs fine by you.
I couldnât be arsed talking to you on this anymore, you have nfi about the United States but drone on about it constantly. Go out there and see the world a little and stop living in your little hut of despair, gobbling up the media.
Many of them are anti-semites and Trump has unashamedly dog whistled at them at every opportunity.
Again, a basic rejection of objective reality on your part.
I think youâll agree that debating with somebody who rejects objective reality is futile.
You should know, because like all Trump supporters and hardcore Brexiteers, youâve decided to make rejection of objective reality your primary modus operandi on this forum.
It must be desperately confusing for you trying to juggle your support of Trump with your opposition to Brexit, like a pick ânâ mix version of objective reality.
Correct, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated the incumbent Joe Crowley in a primary. If it was going to happen, it was always going to happen in NYC or CA. If the Democratic Socialists get a foothold they will split the party and ensure Republicans are in power for the next decade. There is simply no support and outright disdain for socialism in the US, except among the college age young (I understand that can be up to 30 in some quarters), and they donât vote.
Thereâs no support because it has been repeatedly beat out of the US⌠And Iâm not on about full blown socialism necessarily, we know that doesnât work, but anything pertaining to be workers rights/trade unionism/welfare. Successive governments using the FBI/police/army smashed anything that might help the average working man. America is built on greed and a get ahead at any cost mentality with the blood of natives and African slaves and the exploitation of immigrants⌠Of course itâs against socialism.
The Democratic party, in its recent history at least, has been about working people, unions, etc, and have been in power more often than Republicans. There has always been a battle between moderates and progressives within the party, but this new âmovementâ is more left leaning than anything seen before. Itâs precisely because of moving further left that Democrats lose elections, as Americans by and large are conservative and centrist.
Anyway itâs a discussion for another day and for the US thread.
A decent point, in context, although it is a poor reflection when a minimum journalistic requirement (good letters page) comes to seem an asset. There is plenty wrong with The Irish Times but not really in the terms broached here.
You are missing the point because the sat nav on all your hobby horses is set to the same destination: Santa Self Satisfaction. I was not defending Irish journalism per se or tout court. I was merely making the point that saying The Irish Times is a liberalism âecho chamberâ â for anyone who considers empirical evidence important â is self evidently ridiculous.
Making this (self evident) point in no way exculpates poor journalism. Poor journalism is poor journalismm, whatever the byline, whatever the masthead. I am well aware how poor Irish journalism is in several regards. But the idea that liberalism de jure causes poor journalism is a nonsense.
Except that is nonsense as you well know, it is akin to saying Fox News is Fair and Balanced.
There is no doubt that the ITâs editorial line is just that. That is reflected in the coverage of issues - in what is promoted on the front page and what is pushed as top stories on the website. That is actually the important bit in pushing any story.
John Waters, Kevin Myers, Breda OâBrien - these people are not The Irish Times staff. There is a massive difference between themselves and the likes of Fintan OâToole. They were/are people brought in for column space. Fintan OâToole is the old hat of the IT. The guy turned to edit their big projects like their book on the last century, the go to guy to for the thought piece on the topic of the day (pushed on the front page and website) and someone who was quite close to the editorâs chair at one stage (he was a just a bit too Irish Times to get the appointment). As the Waters affair showed (another eejit btw), there is a world of difference from writing a column for the IT and being on the inside.
Look, there is no point in a discussing anything of substance with you, because you are too blinkered and incurious due to your own hobby horses (small state, Brexit, welfare moms, Trump as a necessary bitter pill, the nastiness deep down of everyone but right wingers). Like all people of your perspective, you have no sense of proportion. As I have repeatedly said, there are plenty of valid criticisms to be made about The Irish Times. But the idea that The Irish Times is an any way equivalent in its bearings to Fox News et al is so overstated and skewed a perspective as to fall beneath worthwhile discussion.
You answered me before, then answered some more and then ran away.
I am not saying that the IT is at Fox News levels. I am merely pointing out the ridiculousness of saying that hosting a few âotherâ types of columnists means that the place cannot still have a liberal bias.
As a reader of it for as long as i remember, I believe they do. They are basically the Labour Party. I donât have a problem with that but as a publication they have gone massively downhill imo. I donât agree with The Phoenix and they print an awful lot of tattle but I do admire how they hunt for stories, for example. I donât see that with the IT. I see a paper prepared to run with the cause of the day, which is invariably whatever group/charity is having a moan.
A sense of proportion is the key to any worthwhile discussion. The iniquities of Una Mullally, whatever they might be, are not equivalent to the iniquities of Katie Hopkins. And simply repeating the word ânonsenseâ does not a coherent argument make.
You are a reducer, a leveller, a âpox on all housesâ merchant. But not really, in fact. You are happy with any amount of demonstrable lies about Brexit on the basis that the cause justifies the means â and hey, winners write the rules.
All this stuff is boring and predictable beyond belief.
By the way, Kevin Myers and John Waters were staff journalists. Not that this point is a knockdown argument, either way, but the sheer obtuseness demonstrates your way with fact.
I get the dynamic. You feel â although you could not articulate the dynamic in compelling terms â the post-World War II social consensus (EEC, British Welfare State, feminism, Civil Rights, and so forth) dominated for so long that a little bit of fast and loose with facts and truths is only a finger on the other side of the scales. Like all emotional right wingers, you emote far more than than you reason. Hence the boring nature of your many non arguments, which are no more than expressions of your personality in the aspect of venting.
Now, do not be boring me any longer. I have far better things to be doing with my time than educating you.
