• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Country Divided

Is the media to blame

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 57.1%

  • No

    Votes: 18 42.9%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
SouthernDemocrat said:
In the United States, which coalition is more diverse, American liberals or American conservatives?
Click to expand...

Diversity (along racial lines of course) goes to liberals, but we must examine why. Whites are the least politically polarized, they went 54/39 Trump.

Blacks went about 90/10 Clinton. Hispanics about 66/28 Clinton: racial political polarization.

Liberals are only "diverse" because they have a substantial portion of white people that vote for them, and whites outnumber blacks in the population significantly. If whites, blacks and Hispanics each made up one third of the population, then conservatives would be the most diverse. Liberals would be the most racially polarized and least diverse.

Indeed, regardless of relative population levels, blacks are the most racially polarized voter.
 
What exactly would the media be to blame for? First off, very few Americans actually watch cable news, and even watch network news (national) as evidenced by the sheer numbers. Secondly, the media reports, and it's up to Americans to decide what to think. Third, most Americans are not that stupid that they/we can't think for themselves. America has been divided by Americans. It's happened before and it will happen again.
 
Rickeroo said:
Diversity (along racial lines of course) goes to liberals, but we must examine why. Whites are the least politically polarized, they went 54/39 Trump.

Blacks went about 90/10 Clinton. Hispanics about 66/28 Clinton: racial political polarization.

Liberals are only "diverse" because they have a substantial portion of white people that vote for them, and whites outnumber blacks in the population significantly. If whites, blacks and Hispanics each made up one third of the population, then conservatives would be the most diverse. Liberals would be the most racially polarized and least diverse.

Indeed, regardless of relative population levels, blacks are the most racially polarized voter.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that reasoning is ridiculous. Anyway you slice it, the Republican Party is extremely homogeneous. It's basically older, white, and evangelical. In a country as diverse as ours is, it's particularly homogeneous as its nearly 90% non-Hispanic White.

Moreover, its not just blacks that vote Democrat. Hispanics vote Democrat and Asians vote Democrat as well. Gays and lesbians vote Democrat. Religious minorities like Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists vote Democrat. This all begs the question as to why that is the case? Simply, its because all these groups do not see the Republican Party, its policies, or its rhetoric as welcoming to them. It's that simple.
 
Dragonfly said:
Which media?

All of it? <-- exactly who is "all of it" ?

Right wing media?

Left wing media?

Foreign media?


Seems to me the "media" that started the run-away freight train of fearmongering insanity was the rabid right-wing media types like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck and that ilk.
Also, let's not forget the NRA as a fearmongering system of democracy that's proven quite effective.


Is the bigger issue that we see now just the advent of 24/7/365 streaming of "events" over TV, and the internet?
Is it more about the "hunger" or "expectations" of the feeding public to get information instantly, even if that means not getting all the "correct" information in that very instance?

Maybe it's not so much the media's fault, and it's all about the "live" access to worldwide information?
Click to expand...

This division is connected the current media business models, and the need to make money and profit, in a large expanding media market, with so many types of media competitors.

If you look at the consumer of media, in the light of human nature, there are a lot of media rubberneckers. These are people who will slow down to look at the accident. People watch the news, for longer periods of time, when something bad is happening. They like to stare at tragedy, hoping to see blood and guts. If there is a hurricane, and lots of destruction, people will stay tuned for hours. This attention span allows merchants to sell more merchandise via different types of ads. There is a recipe for success. If there is no good tragedy, for the rubberneckers, the media found that they could create the impression of destruction, and the rubberneckers will still stop and stare.

The rubbernecker model is being used by most of the media. There is urgency like a bomb about to go off. Consider CNN, constantly giving their left wing rubberneckers, urgency in terms assumed Trump destruction. The analogy is like following a large tanker truck, full of explosives, as it moves though Main Street. The rubberneckers are nervously eating chips, and waiting for something destructive to happen. Fake news found that they could exaggerate or even make up potential accidents, to keep the rubberneckers happy and staring.

Now that the Mueller accident scene is cleared of wrecked cars, most of the rubber necker are moving on. Now the media is creating all new accidents, just waiting to happen. Impeachment would be like a public hanging for the rubberneckers.

Since we are dealing with human nature, and both the left and right have their own rubberneckers, one idea is to have an official rubbernecker lane, on the media highway, so the rubberneckers get what they want and do not block all the lanes. The current business model allows the rubberneckers to block all the media lanes to maximize audience. This is causing the division problem.

Many people are not rubberneckers, and would like to just pass through and get beyond the accident scene to their destination. People should have choices and for this to happen the rubberneckers should not block all the media lanes. The traffic jams, from both sides of the media, makes many people nervous, frustrated, and angry, at the rubberneckers, from the other side, who stop the traffic.
 
Last edited:
rickc said:
How did this happen?

Is the media to blame?

With all the commentary and opinions broadcast in what is so called news today have they created an environment that brings about all these radical extremes?

Or do people seek out news sources that support their own deep seated positions on the issues.

I wonder where our country is headed. We certainly are not addressing the issues that will improve the lives of the majority of Americans.
Click to expand...

I don't think the media is solely to blame. There are other aspects involved. Besides division is quite common in Democratic societies it would be weird if we were unified. our country wasn't even unified in ratifying the Constitution.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

That quite some post, Hay. If only you didn't have 109,000 others that prove you don't believe and practice what you preached in it.
Click to expand...

And with all that at your disposal, you FAIL to cite even one.
 
bomberfox said:
Lol you purposely ignored when i went out of my way to emphasize such differences.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to be. You do a lot of stereotyping for someone emphasising differences.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
Rickeroo said:
Diversity (along racial lines of course) goes to liberals, but we must examine why. Whites are the least politically polarized, they went 54/39 Trump.

Blacks went about 90/10 Clinton. Hispanics about 66/28 Clinton: racial political polarization.

Liberals are only "diverse" because they have a substantial portion of white people that vote for them, and whites outnumber blacks in the population significantly. If whites, blacks and Hispanics each made up one third of the population, then conservatives would be the most diverse. Liberals would be the most racially polarized and least diverse.

Indeed, regardless of relative population levels, blacks are the most racially polarized voter.
Click to expand...

This doesnt account for reasons why. I only see correlative (and unsourced) data.
 
wellwisher said:
This division is connected the current media business models, and the need to make money and profit, in a large expanding media market, with so many types of media competitors.

If you look at the consumer of media, in the light of human nature, there are a lot of media rubberneckers. These are people who will slow down to look at the accident. People watch the news, for longer periods of time, when something bad is happening. They like to stare at tragedy, hoping to see blood and guts. If there is a hurricane, and lots of destruction, people will stay tuned for hours. This attention span allows merchants to sell more merchandise via different types of ads. There is a recipe for success. If there is no good tragedy, for the rubberneckers, the media found that they could create the impression of destruction, and the rubberneckers will still stop and stare.

The rubbernecker model is being used by most of the media. There is urgency like a bomb about to go off. Consider CNN, constantly giving their left wing rubberneckers, urgency in terms assumed Trump destruction. The analogy is like following a large tanker truck, full of explosives, as it moves though Main Street. The rubberneckers are nervously eating chips, and waiting for something destructive to happen. Fake news found that they could exaggerate or even make up potential accidents, to keep the rubberneckers happy and staring.

Now that the Mueller accident scene is cleared of wrecked cars, most of the rubber necker are moving on. Now the media is creating all new accidents, just waiting to happen. Impeachment would be like a public hanging for the rubberneckers.

Since we are dealing with human nature, and both the left and right have their own rubberneckers, one idea is to have an official rubbernecker lane, on the media highway, so the rubberneckers get what they want and do not block all the lanes. The current business model allows the rubberneckers to block all the media lanes to maximize audience. This is causing the division problem.

Many people are not rubberneckers, and would like to just pass through and get beyond the accident scene to their destination. People should have choices and for this to happen the rubberneckers should not block all the media lanes. The traffic jams, from both sides of the media, makes many people nervous, frustrated, and angry, at the rubberneckers, from the other side, who stop the traffic.
Click to expand...

Investigations should definitely be easy peasy in Trump land.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You don't seem to be. You do a lot of stereotyping for someone emphasising differences.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Thomas Sowell versus Candace owens and Jesse lee peterson. It was literally in the first post you started ******** about. Im going to just assume you have nothing to share at this point.
 
bomberfox said:
Thomas Sowell versus Candace owens and Jesse lee peterson. It was literally in the first post you started ******** about. Im going to just assume you have nothing to share at this point.
Click to expand...
Differences don't excise someone from being conservative. As you have been told. I'm going to assume you can't understand English at this point.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
Differences don't excise someone from being conservative. As you have been told. I'm going to assume you can't understand English at this point.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I didnt say they werent conservatives. Learn to read silly.
 
bomberfox said:
I didnt say they werent conservatives. Learn to read silly.
Click to expand...
Yet you imply Sowell is not conservative. I can read just fine, you don't seem to articulate your points very well.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
bomberfox said:
This doesnt account for reasons why. I only see correlative (and unsourced) data.
Click to expand...

Here is the race-based voting pattern, other sources would be similar:

An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters | Pew Research Center

If blacks, whites and hispanics are equally represented in the population, then the ideal diverse party would have a 50/50 vote for Trump and Clinton. Half the hispanics would vote Clinton, half the blacks would vote Trump, etc.

The only reason why liberals appear more diverse is because non-whites are much more politically polarized than whites. Adjusting for population, liberals are the least diverse as they contain far too many non-whites.

Note that I'm using the term "diverse" as a synonym for "racially balanced". When I say diverse, I don't mean "less white people".
 
ocean515 said:
That's not true. I cited all of them. ;):2wave:
Click to expand...

And in pretending that you cited not a one.

You are not unlike the farmer who points out to a field of a thousand haystacks and claims he told you where the piece of straw was located.

It is dishonest in the extreme.
 
Rickeroo said:
Here is the race-based voting pattern, other sources would be similar:

An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters | Pew Research Center

If blacks, whites and hispanics are equally represented in the population, then the ideal diverse party would have a 50/50 vote for Trump and Clinton. Half the hispanics would vote Clinton, half the blacks would vote Trump, etc.

The only reason why liberals appear more diverse is because non-whites are much more politically polarized than whites. Adjusting for population, liberals are the least diverse as they contain far too many non-whites.

Note that I'm using the term "diverse" as a synonym for "racially balanced". When I say diverse, I don't mean "less white people".
Click to expand...

Not really. The reason the republican party isnt as diverse has to do with the southern strategy. Your entire thesis falls apart when you consider that voting patterns among African Americans were more evenly split in the past. The party continues to be a single identity party. I dunno where you got the “less white people” red herring from other than you playing the victim. You simply take a snapshot and assume adding mere numbers would make it 50/50. That is insanity.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
Because your party absolutely trashed any reasonable conservative person of color. Sowell wouldnt be welcomed in Trump’s party, only people who can be fooled into being a front for white supremacy. Face it, your party is a white identity politics party. Candace Owens says nothing of value and gets triggered into throwing an unintelligible hissy fit by a trans woman who isnt even that left wing. Jesse Lee Peterson says he is slow because he is black, and denigrates black people just like the minstrel shows used to do on a daily basis. I know you are but what am i is child’s play. Your time of political relevance will be very short and the world will be better for it.
Click to expand...

I specifically said Sowell would not be welcomed in Trump’s party OpportunityCost. Will you stop lying now or should i get you some hooked on phonics? I said Sowell was a conservative in the post you started ******ing about.
 
bomberfox said:
Not really. The reason the republican party isnt as diverse has to do with the southern strategy. Your entire thesis falls apart when you consider that voting patterns among African Americans were more evenly split in the past. The party continues to be a single identity party. I dunno where you got the “less white people” red herring from.
Click to expand...

The math is indisputable. Assuming equal population of the 3 races in question, the democrat voters would be over-represented more by the proportion of Hispanics and blacks than the republican voters would be over-represented with whites.

Your point would be valid if whites voted republican 90/10 like blacks vote democrat. They do not. According to the numbers, whites are the least politically polarized race, and contribute the most towards the diversity of both parties.
 
Rickeroo said:
The math is indisputable. Assuming equal population of the 3 races in question, the democrat voters would be over-represented more by the proportion of Hispanics and blacks than the republican voters would be over-represented with whites.

Your point would be valid if whites voted republican 90/10 like blacks vote democrat. They do not. According to the numbers, whites are the least politically polarized race, and contribute the most towards the diversity of both parties.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore history, social studies, etc. and pretend the republican party’s problem is a purely mathematical one.
 
bomberfox said:
Only if you ignore history, social studies, etc. and pretend the republican party’s problem is a purely mathematical one.
Click to expand...

This came about because it was said that the democrat party is the most diverse. Rather, they are more disproportionately nonwhite than the republican party is disproportionately white.

Both parties are racially skewed. The democrats are skewed more, and therefore less diverse than the republicans.
 
bomberfox said:
I specifically said Sowell would not be welcomed in Trump’s party OpportunityCost. Will you stop lying now or should i get you some hooked on phonics? I said Sowell was a conservative in the post you started ******ing about.
Click to expand...

Trump's party is Republican, you are mistaken, Sowell would indeed be welcome, on the basis of his economic prowess alone. You are laughable, you have absolutely no insight into the Republican party and believe you can make a pronouncement and it will be taken at face value. That's a lot of arrogance.
 
bomberfox said:
Only if you ignore history, social studies, etc. and pretend the republican party’s problem is a purely mathematical one.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should look up LBJs quotes regarding the war on poverty and what it was really about---buying votes.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Maybe you should look up LBJs quotes regarding the war on poverty and what it was really about---buying votes.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should look up Lee Atwater quote on the southern strategy. It describes dog whistle politics very well. See i can play this game too :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom