Post election prediction

[sapator]

No pain no gain

[FunkyDexter]

First of Cyprus is and independent state so Greece asking UK to leave is not valid. Cyprus must ask.

I didn't know that, I always just assumed it was part of Greece. I don't think that changes the underlying logic though.

Secondly I'm not sure UK is helping the economy or anything. What I know from US bases through reports is that everything is free for the soldiers on the bases. Food gas etc. If they have the need to go out and party then OK but I don't think Cyprus economy will be helped by 500-1000 people (just a rough estimate, I haven't looked)
Thirdly I doubt UK can help military or get involved in anything. Greece has much more military power if anything is to happen with Turkey as we spend Billions and Billions those year to opt with Turkey.
So I'm not sure what UK is doing there, probably forgotten as the Japanese soldiers found defending Japan in strange islands after the war.
The strange thing is US not having a base over there but that would be probably because if so it must "choose a side" so it remains neutral.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but you seem to be framing the existence of a military base as an aggressive act, like it's forced upon the Cypriotes. That's not correct though. The Cypriot government want it there because it brings them benefits. I gave you some examples which you disagree with but then I'm going to flip the question back onto you: Why do you think the Cypriot government hasn't asked for it to be removed?

This is true of the vast majority of military bases around the world. They're wanted by the government of the host country. Unwanted military bases really only exist in hot conflict zones - the rest are all welcomed.

Of course, this does get murky when the legitimacy of the government of the host country is questionable. E.g. was the government of Afghanistan post the coalition invasion legitimate? I would argue yes because it was democratically elected and those elections certainly appeared to be free and fair but I also accept that others may differ as that democratic system was essentially "installed" by an external power "the coalition". There's a debate to be had there but my opinion is that the Green Zone was legitimate because it existed to safeguard a democratically elected government and therefore the people of that democratic nation.

[sapator]

There is absolutely. I repeat, ABSOLUTELY no reason for the base to be there.
They will not help on a conflict. Best bet they would go out on the porch and watch the fireworks or they will pack up and go home.
It's not a hostile or friendly question. Another country is putting a base on another country soil , maybe it had some matter in the past and I believe the base is there because (but haven't checked) there was a 3 or 4 part deal on Cyprus after the invasion. So UK was a guaranteer member so it had the base.
So ( again haven't checked) since that treaty is still ongoing UK has the right on the Base. Of course it does not provide anything as I've said but I think it's just forgotten there. Maybe people passing by and someone take notice and said "Hey what's that?! Tea on the porch?"
Why they do not ask? Apart from the treaty based on Greek traitorial governments. Cyprus is independent, sure, must ask, sure but on the long run it has no significant military power and any thread will be treated by Greek military. So as long as we have chicken slift traitors they will not dare to ask Cyprus do anything... Well, maybe sign some treaty with Turkey against they own best interest. That is possible.

[FunkyDexter]

There is absolutely. I repeat, ABSOLUTELY no reason for the base to be there

So why haven't the Cypriot Government asked for it to be removed?

[sapator]

I've explained certain scenarios above.

[sapator]

Biden commutes roughly 1,500 sentences and pardons 39 people in biggest single-day act of clemency

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-com...100028647.html

Just curious.
Is this "legal"? Meaning on the last month to legislate ?
Also did it happen in the past?

[FunkyDexter]

I've explained certain scenarios above.

You really haven't. At least, not any way I can understand so it may just be a language thing.

You asked up thread why that base was there. I told you where it came from historically and we both seem to agree that the historic reasons don't really apply anymore. I also gave you some reasons why it would continue to be there. You don't like those reasons but you haven't provided any of your own.

If the British Government didn't want it there they would remove it. If the Cypriot government didn't want it there they would ask for it to be removed. Neither of those things has happened. We can apply basic logic to those predicates to conclude that both the UK and the Cypriot governments still want it to be there.

Lets flip the question on its head> Given that both the Cypriot and British Governments want it to be there, why wouldn't it be there?

[FunkyDexter]

Is this "legal"?

Yes. I'm not so sure it's moral but that's a different question.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Biden commutes roughly 1,500 sentences and pardons 39 people in biggest single-day act of clemency

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-com...100028647.html

Just curious.
Is this "legal"? Meaning on the last month to legislate ?
Also did it happen in the past?

Yes, it's completely legal. Whether it is right or not is in the eye of the beholder, but the President was explicitly given the power to pardon as a check against the judicial branch. This doesn't give them something 'extra', it just gives them back something that was taken away. I think that's why it has no limit of it's own.

Did it happen in the past? Well, if it's the 'largest in history', then the answer is no, of course, at least not to that scale. Whether or not it IS the largest in history, I am not even interested in looking (that sounds totally tedious).

[wes4dbt]

Biden commutes roughly 1,500 sentences and pardons 39 people in biggest single-day act of clemency

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-com...100028647.html

Just curious.
Is this "legal"? Meaning on the last month to legislate ?
Also did it happen in the past?

That is a lot of people. It's an interesting situation. The vast majority weren't in prison and hadn't been in a long time.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-par...c2776fd73f3cc8

The US has a really high incarceration rate. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...0incarceration.

We sort of went crazy in to 80's and 90's passing laws that required extremely long sentences for drug charges. They thought that would solve our countries drug problems. It didn't.

The fact Biden did this in his last month is the norm. It's just the number that's unusual.

[sapator]

Kimberly Guilfoyle Is Trump’s Latest Nominee Who Was Accused of Sexual Misconduct.

Kimberly Guilfoyle, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be America’s envoy to Greece.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kimberly-...124606533.html

The right woman in the right country.

[wes4dbt]

Kimberly Guilfoyle Is Trump’s Latest Nominee Who Was Accused of Sexual Misconduct.

Kimberly Guilfoyle, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be America’s envoy to Greece.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kimberly-...124606533.html

The right woman in the right country.

Birds of a feather. Trump has appointed a whole flock of these type of people.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sexual-abusers

[FunkyDexter]

Was it Guilfoyle who shot their dog or was that someone else? I'll be honest, a lot of these faces have started to blend into one for me.

[sapator]

Birds of a feather. Trump has appointed a whole flock of these type of people.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sexual-abusers

I usually do not give attention to articles starting with

Trump’s White House is filling with alleged

and

As the far right celebrates a win for their gender

But that was a hilarious bloat of BS.
That below was marvelous, just could not stop giggle.

"Elon Musk, whom Trump has tapped for the made-up position of “efficiency czar”, reportedly exposed his ***** to a SpaceX flight attendant in 2016 and offered to buy her a horse in exchange for sex."

Lol Imagine the scene, no just image in it. Guardian writers must immediate get a job as Hollywood script writers.

But, you know...It's over. Let them have their funny for a few days.

[wes4dbt]

I usually do not give attention to articles starting with

Trump’s White House is filling with alleged

and

As the far right celebrates a win for their gender

But that was a hilarious bloat of BS.
That below was marvelous, just could not stop giggle.

"Elon Musk, whom Trump has tapped for the made-up position of “efficiency czar”, reportedly exposed his ***** to a SpaceX flight attendant in 2016 and offered to buy her a horse in exchange for sex."

Lol Imagine the scene, no just image in it. Guardian writers must immediate get a job as Hollywood script writers.

But, you know...It's over. Let them have their funny for a few days.

It's not a Guardian story,

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/20/11003...ight-attendant
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...sexual-assault
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mus...et-2022-05-20/

It was reported by all the news agencies.

I have no idea if what she alleges is true but Space X did pay her $250,000 that included a non disclosure agreement.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Good to see how he hasn't even entered the Whitehouse yet and he is already going back on his word

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...y?id=116763207
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ces-1235202052

[dilettante]

UK has its own row to hoe:

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/thi...me-2024-08-24/

[FunkyDexter]

We do indeed. A combination of Brexit and Tory Austerity has left this country on it's backside. I'm not sure you've appreciated yet that Trump's isolationism is pretty much a carbon copy of the 14 year omni-shambles that put us here. Good luck.

[dilettante]

I'm not sure it's isolationism as much as not carrying everyone else on our backs.

It's been an awful long time since the US started bribing the world not to create another Hitler or start another world war. We're just looking at the final stages of phasing out Bretton Woods 2 and the global policing of trade for all.

Even Canadians are getting sick of their "leaders" now:



The tantrums at the threat of the free candy being taken away are pretty sickening.

Merry Christmas

[Shaggy Hiker]

Or, at least among the 40 million Canadians, there are at least some that are willing to make a video about an opinion they have. Even for Canada, that is only somewhat unusual.

[dilettante]

https://thelogic.co/news/trump-trudeau-abacus-poll/

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Mar-a-Lago dinner with president-elect Donald Trump and the Liberals’ sales-tax holiday aren’t convincing Canadians of his ability to handle the economy, according to a new The Logic poll conducted this past week by Abacus Data.

Since Nov. 23, Abacus found, the proportion of respondents who trust Trudeau most on economic issues has risen from 18 per cent to 19 per cent. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre gained four points, from 37 per cent to 41 per cent.

The NDP’s Jagmeet Singh is static at 13 per cent on that question, and other leaders are in single digits.

It sure doesn't sound like a few scattered Canadians.

[dilettante]

Calm, polite hand-wringing.

[Shaggy Hiker]

https://thelogic.co/news/trump-trudeau-abacus-poll/


It sure doesn't sound like a few scattered Canadians.

Oh, it's not. Trudeau is going to lose the next election unless something very significant changes. He has a competent opponent and is getting a bit long in the tooth for an elected politician. Not in actual age terms, but just that he's been around long enough that bad decisions have accumulated. It's the cruft of politics.

The point I was trying to make is that an opinion video is really horrible evidence of anything, especially these days. A view that was a 1/1000 minority opinion would have just been the local nutter for most of existence. Every town had one. If the town was big enough to have two, then they usually avoided each other, or that was my experience (though there was a hilarious case in my home town where two nutters interacted in an amusing way).

These days, anybody can find their tribe. Anybody can make a video to call out to their tribe. They don't have to meet in person, either, so the rough parts don't abrade so thoroughly. One thing that means is that videos are largely worthless for opinion pieces. They are a flag for people to rally under, and nothing more than that. There is no way to know how many people rally to each flag. Views are worthless, and subscriptions don't exist. That means opinion videos are just a field of flags, each staking out some position with some unknown number of followers in their camp.

[dilettante]

I guess I miss your point.

You don't seriously mean that people should disregard everything that isn't endorsed with the stamp of corporate media? Or even more narrowly, corporate media that meet some standard designed to exclude other corporate outlets?

That attitude smacks of Flat Earthers. I can't imagine how else they can espouse their worldview with a straight face. Ok, bad example. I'm pretty sure they and the "Apollo was faked" and "Biden is in command of his faculties" crowd are just trolling.

Those two are from a newspaper in Winnipeg, not just some guys in a basement. They don't sound like rabid political agenda pushers.


I don't know. Confidence in network and cable news is at an all time low. MSNBC and siblings have a dubious future and now CNN may be up for sale as well. ABC/Disney just lost a lawsuit for slanderous fabrication.

Are these really the prophets you want to follow? Do you revere the gourd or the shoe?

[wes4dbt]

I guess I miss your point.

You don't seriously mean that people should disregard everything that isn't endorsed with the stamp of corporate media? Or even more narrowly, corporate media that meet some standard designed to exclude other corporate outlets?

That attitude smacks of Flat Earthers. I can't imagine how else they can espouse their worldview with a straight face. Ok, bad example. I'm pretty sure they and the "Apollo was faked" and "Biden is in command of his faculties" crowd are just trolling.

Those two are from a newspaper in Winnipeg, not just some guys in a basement. They don't sound like rabid political agenda pushers.


I don't know. Confidence in network and cable news is at an all time low. MSNBC and siblings have a dubious future and now CNN may be up for sale as well. ABC/Disney just lost a lawsuit for slanderous fabrication.

Are these really the prophets you want to follow? Do you revere the gourd or the shoe?

Your not paying attention or your purposefully just making a bunch of noise so you don't have to hear what SH said.

He didn't say anything about where you should get your news. Maybe try reading it again. Or at least try and understand what this one line means.

That means opinion videos are just a field of flags, each staking out some position with some unknown number of followers in their camp.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't know. Confidence in network and cable news is at an all time low. MSNBC and siblings have a dubious future and now CNN may be up for sale as well. ABC/Disney just lost a lawsuit for slanderous fabrication.

Are these really the prophets you want to follow? Do you revere the gourd or the shoe?

By now, you should probably be aware that I don't even own a TV, let alone watch any kind of network or cable news. You have suggested a few times that such is the only alternative to, "youtube opinion piece videos". That is not the case. For one thing, I read. Even in news organizations, opinion pieces are...distinct. The fairness doctrine was dispensed with by Reagan, allowing one-sided partisan broadcasts, but most broadcast news (and plenty of YouTube videos) are thinly disguised advertising. And yet, even without the fairness doctrine, opinion pieces are expected to be partisan, one way or the other, and are generally stated to be so.

Also, I just noticed that you got in a different video that I had not seen (hadn't even looked at it). I was responding to the earlier post, not to that video. It may well be that the new video was not as cherry picked/edited as others. I don't watch news videos, either. The videos I watch are about, funny cats, funny signs, practical jokes, history, and engineering...plus some sports recaps.

[wes4dbt]

For one thing, I read. Even in news organizations, opinion pieces are...distinct.

I prefer to read the news. I visit multiple news sites, I even visit Fox news once in a while when I've read something that I feel has the smell of bias for the dems.

It seems fairly common that people believe opinion pieces are news or reflect the vast majority of society.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There's some bias about how people expect the majority to think the way they do. I don't remember what the name is, and don't feel like looking it up. Of course, you folks don't feel like looking it up, either.

[TysonLPrice]

There's some bias about how people expect the majority to think the way they do. I don't remember what the name is, and don't feel like looking it up. Of course, you folks don't feel like looking it up, either.

Maybe you are tired from tracking trout...

Confirmation biases are effects in information processing. They differ from what is sometimes called the behavioral confirmation effect, commonly known as self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a person's expectations influence their own behavior, bringing about the expected result.

[dilettante]

I never imagined I'd consider using X, but you've sent me looking and the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.

[FunkyDexter]

the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.

The consensus on X maybe...

I prefer to read the news.

I'm curious, do you think your printed media is more or less partisan than your TV media? And how does it compare to other streams (e.g. on line podcasts, radio etc)? Over here we generally accept that our printed media is highly partisan but our TV media is generally expected to be neutral. Particularly the BBC which has political neutrality enshrined in its charter but our other channels (e.g. ITV, Channel 4 and Sky) are also very neutral. Sky is part of the Murdoch empire so you'd expect it to have a right wing slant if anything but it really doesn't which I put down the Neutrality expectation we have over here (I've caught some articles from Sky in other countries, particularly Australia, and the right wing bias is easily detectable over there).

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't know whether your printed media (I read the Economist, which is British) is more or less biased than TV, but it IS differently biased. TV is a visual medium that has to tell visual stories. That distorts both what news they report on and how they report on it. That isn't a left/right bias, that's a format bias. One aspect of this is that they have to be terribly shallow, or else they have to have a person sitting and speaking. Some concepts simply aren't visual, or could be except that nobody can get the necessary video, while others are terribly complicated to explain even moderately well through visual means. A simple example would be that demonstrating addition in a video takes a pretty long time to get across a very simple concept. Meanwhile, video really shines at showing division, and showing multiplication is usually censored.

Okay, that veered into humor, but you get the idea: TV has to show things that can be conveyed on TV, and it usually has to be shallow. Writing can explore subjects in much greater depth, can convey complex subjects, can cover subjects more cheaply, and can make terrific puns, all of which I appreciate.

[wes4dbt]

I'm curious, do you think your printed media is more or less partisan than your TV media? And how does it compare to other streams (e.g. on line podcasts, radio etc)?

The main reason is I find it more relaxing and more in depth. I can absorb it at my own pace. I can't speak to the second part because I don't listen to podcasts or radio news.

That said, I do think it's easier to see a larger cross section of news sources online.

[wes4dbt]

I never imagined I'd consider using X, but you've sent me looking and the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.

I'm curious what information lead you to that conclusion.

I've never been on X so out of curiosity I Googled "What is the primary global trusted news source". This article seems to cover the subject,

https://today.yougov.com/politics/ar...mericans-trust

Despite many Americans saying they consume news from social media, more believe it is untrustworthy than trustworthy, though YouTube and Linkedin are regarded slightly better than others. The least trusted social media platforms are TikTok, Facebook, and Snapchat. Truth Social — Donald Trump's platform — is the most polarizing, with Republicans being far more likely to trust it than Democrats. Among Republicans, Truth Social is the most trusted platform, but among Democrats, it is the least trusted. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to trust most other social media platforms, with the exception of X (previously Twitter). This marks a shift from last year's survey, which found greater trust in Twitter among Democrats than Republicans. In the past year, Democrats' trust in news from Truth Social and TikTok also has fallen.

I looked at several reviews and none of them had X anywhere near being the most trusted news source.

[Shaggy Hiker]

How can YouTube be more trusted? It seems to me that it is a host for a bunch of videos. The videos can be trusted or not trusted, but is YouTube itself even a trustable object?

[wes4dbt]

How can YouTube be more trusted? It seems to me that it is a host for a bunch of videos. The videos can be trusted or not trusted, but is YouTube itself even a trustable object?

I have no idea. About the only thing I use YouTube for is to find videos on how to fix something. lol

My GUESS is that it's trusted because people can usually find a video that tells them what they want to hear.

[Niya]

the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.

I agree and I highly recommend it. I spend time there when I want to know what is happening in the wider world without leftist corporate filtering. Unlike rubbish like CNN, which tries to tell you the "correct" opinions on worldly events, X gives it to you raw and unfiltered while encouraging you to think for yourself and form your own opinions.

[wes4dbt]

the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source.

I agree and I highly recommend it. I spend time there when I want to know what is happening in the wider world without leftist corporate filtering. Unlike rubbish like CNN, which tries to tell you the "correct" opinions on worldly events, X gives it to you raw and unfiltered while encouraging you to think for yourself and form your own opinions.

But that statement isn't about whether X is a good/bad place to go for news. It's a claim that "the consensus is that X is now the primary global trusted news source".

Since I haven't been able to find anything that comes close to supporting that claim, and you say you agree, then I'll ask you the same question I asked Dil, "what information lead you to that conclusion".

[Niya]

Oh there is one more huge thing I forgot to mention about X and it is perhaps the most important thing: X shows you everything and I mean everything. You will find out about things happening in the world that corporate media will NEVER EVER show you because it will undermine their own propaganda.

If I were to guess, I would say that corporate media houses like CNN, BBC, MSNBC etc only show you about 10% of what is happening in the world while also adding their own spin on it to influence your thinking.

[Niya]

then I'll ask you the same question I asked Dil, "what information lead you to that conclusion".

It's real simple, X is where all the normal people are. The corporate media ecosystem is filled with far left lunatics and this is a minor demographic.