I noticed it years ago with Obama. The news would always complain about how Obama didn't come out and say something, or say something stronger. Sometimes they would complain about him not calling out or deriding some foreign leader when it would obviously cause diplomatic problems, perhaps even war.
I don't think our president should shit talk other leaders. I don't think he should pound his chest and yell at someone because they did something against America.
I can do that...because I'm not the president.
I want a level headed diplomat for president.
The news is of course doing the same with Trump, wanting him to call out Saudi Arabia and Russia. Well, if there was collusion with Russia, he's not going to do that...or maybe he would have a greater chance of doing it...I dunno...but I'm not sure if he should.
I can't get the president I want...but at the very least I don't want him/her shit talking other world leaders every time they're accused of something.
All sorts of countries do all sorts of shit. Including us. Countries spy and interfere with elections. It happens. We have to try to ensure they don't interfere with our elections...but I'm not sure if we should start a war if they do. We should work with them to get them to not do shit against us, at the same time as they do similar shit against our allies and enemies and occasionally funnel us the info. Like it or not, this is the world we live in.
I don't want a politician banging his chest and flinging shit at other politicians. If I wanted to see that, I'd go to the zoo and see some fucking monkeys.
WHY does the news always complain about how the president doesn't do this shit? This is clearly manipulation of their viewers. They want them to want a president that puts on political theatre. And they wonder why we got a reality star...
Image used under fair use. (source)
Thank you for being here for me, so I can be here for you.
Enjoy your day and stay creative!
Botty loves you. <3
Because the more conflict you have, the more drama you have and drama interests people.
Maybe. I think a lot of people want their politicians to literally be actors. Which, I dunno, I guess that could be a possibility for some theoretical government...but you still have to have people doing real work, getting diplomacy done.
First of all, would you go out and buy a book with no conflict in it? Of course not.
I really think that it's all about the drama that brings people to their TVs, their newspapers, their websites. The more drama -- the more excitement. The more people come out and read their newspapers, the higher the ratings on TV and the higher the readership for everything else.
For some, it's a neverending soap opera.
Actors? I don't know about that. Actors in the US are typically treated like royalty (unfortunately) so there's a case to be made, but I think even the best actor would fall apart on the international diplomatic stage.
| WHY does the news always complain about how the president doesn't do this shit? This is | | |clearly manipulation of their viewers.
It's about money. It's always about money. Not that this is a bad thing, but in this case, you see the news media on all sides pick up the day's drama and use it to gather people in. Everyone puts their own personal political spin on things and people go check it out.
I dunno...I read War and Peace once. I dunno if that had any conflict in it, because it was so boring that I could barely get through it.
I'm sure I've read plenty of books without conflict in them. Most of them were on computers. :P
But you make a good point. People do like conflict and drama.
I guess it would likely be a whole new class of actors. In a way, a lot of politicians are actors. But they're more of the class, like skit comedy actors, that have to act and react on their feet, with possibly little to no prep time. Some are really good at this.
For example, many politicians are actually good friends with people that we think they're in conflict with daily, because we only see what they put on TV. We only see them arguing about various political issues, not when they go and have drinks together at the end of the day, and laugh and joke about various things.
|I dunno...I read War and Peace once. I dunno if that had any conflict in it, |because it was so boring that I could barely get through it.
|
|I'm sure I've read plenty of books without conflict in them. Most of them were |on computers. :P
Simply because you don't know what the conflict is in a book doesn't mean it has no conflict :) But I congratulate you on getting through that monster. I read Atlas Shrugged once... parts of it were interesting but Rand made it more about explaining her philosophy than leaving it to the reader to figure out.
But I'm betting you didn't choose to read War and Peace, did you? Was that for a class or something like that?
We do only see what is on the television or on the Internet or in a newspaper -- but it's not the politicians who decide on what gets on tv. Not many people sit down and watch C-SPAN on a regular basis.
I think that we -- meaning all people -- need to acknowledge that our news is skewed by perception and bias and we need to learn to watch the news with that in mind. Critical thinking is something that should be taught at every level of education because, you know what? I don't think it is right now and we're merely putting out sheep for the machine to keep going.
Sadly no, it was my choice. It was horrible. So long and boring. At the end I had no idea what it was about, because it was so long and boring. Like one of those movies where at the end you have no idea what you just watched and can't say anything really about it, because it's like it was just a long drone.
Yeah...you're right.
One thing I've been hoping for a while with the internet is that we'll get a lot more choice in who we watch and what we get for the news. It's a little better than it was. Now I can watch news from multiple sources one after the other and skip the stories I don't want to hear about, but it's still a bit hard, because they don't want people to be able to watch every story from the day instantly on YouTube or wherever, because the advertising isn't there fully yet, so they don't get as much.
People have been brainwashed to seek this drama over years of programming through mainstream media. It's all a big circus to distract from the battle taking place within the state the same way Rome used their amenities to distract their citizens. Now it seems like there's been an overdose of drama in our politics and the children of the lie lose control of their mind as soon as it's brought up in any fashion. Notice the immediate emotional response when you bring up an argument opposing the mainstream media's narrative. It's heartbreaking to see...
Bread and circuses, man. Bread and circuses.
You got a 18.50% upvote from @ocdb courtesy of @geekpowered!