trump and Obama tie for most admired men this year

[Bob Juch]

This is a clear indication we have a divide deeper than the Grand Canyon in this country.

[Beebs52]

Grow up.

[Beebs52]

Check out the consecutive years withe hrc. How'd that go?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup% ... woman_poll

[Ritterskoop]

It's not that I have any wish to defend the original post, but I don't think the conclusion is wrong.

It is accurate to say that we are a polarized nation. What was immature about that (if "grow up" means what I think)?

[Beebs52]

It's not that I have any wish to defend the original post, but I don't think the conclusion is wrong.

It is accurate to say that we are a polarized nation. What was immature about that (if "grow up" means what I think)?

Because who gauges anything in their lives or anyone else's by some "poll"?

They mean nothing. We may be polarized but we're always polarized. It's fatuous, specious, disingenuous and any other "us" one wants to use. It's silly.

Do you think I was all excited when Reagan or whomever, women who happened to have high name recognition, were publicized?
Just goofy.

[Beebs52]

Because Bob draws simpleton conclusions at times.

[Bob Juch]

It's not that I have any wish to defend the original post, but I don't think the conclusion is wrong.

It is accurate to say that we are a polarized nation. What was immature about that (if "grow up" means what I think)?

Because who gauges anything in their lives or anyone else's by some "poll"?

They mean nothing. We may be polarized but we're always polarized. It's fatuous, specious, disingenuous and any other "us" one wants to use. It's silly.

Do you think I was all excited when Reagan or whomever, women who happened to have high name recognition, were publicized?
Just goofy.

I disagree with this one: https://www.pollking.com/?should-the-tr ... vestigated

[Ritterskoop]

By any metric, we are more polarized than ever, which would be fine, if some folks weren't nasty about it.

I used to think it was because of the interwebs, where it's easier than before to surround ourselves with peole who reinforce what we think (at least we don't do that on this bored).

But I read a great piece a year or so ago that argued that the moment it started was I think 1996, when cable news networks took root. Because they aren't regulated by the FCC, because we pay for them with cable subscriptions, there is no reason not to have one side all day on the same channel, which any of us can leave on in the background all day, hearing the same view over and over. There are many such networks, and they encourage us to swing even farther to whichever direction we lean. Until we force ourselves to consult many sources, we gut stuck.

I reject most TV news except the programs generated by the local Spectrum office. Because they don't care about ratings, they aren't trying to scare us, and they have local news I can actually listen to. For national and international, I still try to get most coverage from neutral wire services like the BBC and Reuters. Because they have no interest in our clicks, they write American politics in a way I can stand.

There are sources available to us, if we look. It's the basis of a module I do in class on source credibility. The number one rule is, never follow any link presented to you on Facebook or Twitter. Look up the topic on some other feed. Don't reward the bastards with a click.

[jarnon]

They're tied in the popular vote, but Trump wins in the Electoral College.

[Bob Juch]

They're tied in the popular vote, but Trump wins in the Electoral College.

In 2016, 62,984,828 voted for trump, ‭73,684,448‬ voted against him.

[mrkelley23]

By any metric, we are more polarized than ever, which would be fine, if some folks weren't nasty about it.

I used to think it was because of the interwebs, where it's easier than before to surround ourselves with peole who reinforce what we think (at least we don't do that on this bored).

But I read a great piece a year or so ago that argued that the moment it started was I think 1996, when cable news networks took root. Because they aren't regulated by the FCC, because we pay for them with cable subscriptions, there is no reason not to have one side all day on the same channel, which any of us can leave on in the background all day, hearing the same view over and over. There are many such networks, and they encourage us to swing even farther to whichever direction we lean. Until we force ourselves to consult many sources, we gut stuck.

I reject most TV news except the programs generated by the local Spectrum office. Because they don't care about ratings, they aren't trying to scare us, and they have local news I can actually listen to. For national and international, I still try to get most coverage from neutral wire services like the BBC and Reuters. Because they have no interest in our clicks, they write American politics in a way I can stand.

There are sources available to us, if we look. It's the basis of a module I do in class on source credibility. The number one rule is, never follow any link presented to you on Facebook or Twitter. Look up the topic on some other feed. Don't reward the bastards with a click.

I would go back even further, to the elimination of the fairness doctrine in the 1980s. Combine that with the near-simultaneous rise of the 24 hour news cycle, and you have the roots of our current miasma of propaganda.

[Beebs52]

By any metric, we are more polarized than ever, which would be fine, if some folks weren't nasty about it.

I used to think it was because of the interwebs, where it's easier than before to surround ourselves with peole who reinforce what we think (at least we don't do that on this bored).

But I read a great piece a year or so ago that argued that the moment it started was I think 1996, when cable news networks took root. Because they aren't regulated by the FCC, because we pay for them with cable subscriptions, there is no reason not to have one side all day on the same channel, which any of us can leave on in the background all day, hearing the same view over and over. There are many such networks, and they encourage us to swing even farther to whichever direction we lean. Until we force ourselves to consult many sources, we gut stuck.

I reject most TV news except the programs generated by the local Spectrum office. Because they don't care about ratings, they aren't trying to scare us, and they have local news I can actually listen to. For national and international, I still try to get most coverage from neutral wire services like the BBC and Reuters. Because they have no interest in our clicks, they write American politics in a way I can stand.

There are sources available to us, if we look. It's the basis of a module I do in class on source credibility. The number one rule is, never follow any link presented to you on Facebook or Twitter. Look up the topic on some other feed. Don't reward the bastards with a click.

I would go back even further, to the elimination of the fairness doctrine in the 1980s. Combine that with the near-simultaneous rise of the 24 hour news cycle, and you have the roots of our current miasma of propaganda.

I absolutely agree with 99% of both of y'all's points. Bob attributes polarization to Trump solely even if he didn't say it out loud.

[Ritterskoop]

I would agree that Trump was elected in part because of the extremism, but I don't believe he personally caused it, right. He cashed in, and I do understand appeal of someone who is not the same-old, same-old.

[Beebs52]

I would agree that Trump was elected in part because of the extremism, but I don't believe he personally caused it, right. He cashed in, and I do understand appeal of someone who is not the same-old, same-old.

I do love you Skoop. You always surprise.

[Bob Juch]

I would agree that Trump was elected in part because of the extremism, but I don't believe he personally caused it, right. He cashed in, and I do understand appeal of someone who is not the same-old, same-old.

I guess the same could have said about Hitler.

[Beebs52]

I would agree that Trump was elected in part because of the extremism, but I don't believe he personally caused it, right. He cashed in, and I do understand appeal of someone who is not the same-old, same-old.

I guess the same could have said about Hitler.

Happy New Year.