The Near Total Failure of Government in the U.S.

[PureX]

Corporate media is about making money, I think most people understand this.

I don't. I don't think most people have any idea that the news they are being given, and how it's being presented to them, is designed specifically to keep them watching/listening/reading the advertisements. That it is NOT intended to enlighten them about the events of the day, but to entice them to "stay tuned" and to "come back for more" ads. That the real content of their news show is the advertisements. And that everything else they see and hear on that screen or page is designed to get and keep their attention on those advertisements. It's all and only about the ads because that's where the money comes from. It's why that "news network" exists. Not for you, and not for the news ... for the advertisers.

Remember when the talking point of the right was about not having courts that "legislated from the bench?" I sure do. What has always been the case for the right is if it's "their court," it's all good. We're already seeing erosions wrt the sixth amendment, tribal sovereignty, the Miranda rule, and others. But this is the first time I've understood that the Supreme Court is as vulnerable to corruption as the other two branches of government. It was always set aside as that gleaming bastion, and it isn't anymore. And they know it, too.

Sadly, we seem to have reached a point where a great many of us just don't care, anymore. We're exhausted of caring and seeing it just keep getting worse and worse.

 

[Right Divider]

Reason is now out the window.

That is completely hilarious coming from you.

 

[TomO]

Wow, not a single comment!

 

[annabenedetti]

I don't. I don't think most people have any idea that the news they are being given, and how it's being presented to them, is designed specifically to keep them watching/listening/reading the advertisements. That it is NOT intended to enlighten them about the events of the day, but to entice them to "stay tuned" and to "come back for more" ads. That the real content of their news show is the advertisements. And that everything else they see and hear on that screen or page is designed to get and keep their attention on those advertisements. It's all and only about the ads because that's where the money comes from. It's why that "news network" exists. Not for you, and not for the news ... for the advertisers.

I get that, to a point. I just don't know how many people have no idea. I'd like to think that most people have a general idea, if you were to ask them specifically. Did you trust newspapers 40 years ago, when they were supported by both subscribers and advertisers? Are some news sources more trustworthy than others?

These days, most young people don't have cable, so they're not watching cable news anyway. They may be getting their news from the social media which is profiting by their clicks, while the news source itself may not be profiting. Say, TikTok especially right now.

I'm not young, but I also don't have cable. I don't watch cable news, or any shows like 60 Minutes. I don't watch late night shows either, even if they're packaged for streaming platforms, like the Daily Show, Stephen Colbert, any of those. I might see a clip here or there. I read the vast majority of my news, and I choose from a variety of sources. How different am I from the average consumer? I don't know.

Sadly, we seem to have reached a point where a great many of us just don't care, anymore. We're exhausted of caring and seeing it just keep getting worse and worse.

That's the aim of manufactured chaos, and propaganda, to get people to the point where they just don't care anymore because they're too tired from trying to figure out what's true and what's not.

 

[annabenedetti]

Reason is now out the window. And there will be an endless string of these kinds of unreasonable and indefensible decisions. I don't think adding more judges is the solution. I think the court has to be disbanded for it's being incapable of fulfilling it's responsibilities to the poeple in it's current condition. And a new court installed. This time by some method other than politics.

Watch out:

1.​

Supreme Court to take on controversial election-law case​

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case that could dramatically change how federal elections are conducted. At issue is a legal theory that would give state legislatures unfettered authority to set the rules for federal elections, free of supervision by the state courts and state constitutions.​

​

The theory, known as the "independent state legislature theory," stems from the election clause in Article I of the Constitution. It says, "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."​

​

Proponents of the theory argue that that clause gives state legislatures power to regulate federal elections uninhibited by state courts or state constitutions. If a majority of the Supreme Court agrees, that would hamstring state courts, removing judicial oversight of state elections.​

​

"Taken to its extreme, the independent state legislature doctrine could be an earthquake in American election law and fundamentally alter the balance of power within states and provide a pathway to subvert election results," says professor Richard Hasen, an expert on election law from the University of California, Irvine.​

​

2.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542569702546935808

3.​

U.S. Supreme Court backs public money for religious schools​

The U.S. Supreme Court further reduced the separation of church and state in a ruling on Tuesday endorsing more public funding of religious entities as its conservative justices sided with two Christian families who challenged a Maine tuition assistance program that excluded private religious schools.​

 

[ok doser]

I get that, to a point. I just don't know how many people have no idea. I'd like to think that most people have a general idea, if you were to ask them specifically. Did you trust newspapers 40 years ago, when they were supported by both subscribers and advertisers? Are some news sources more trustworthy than others?

These days, most young people don't have cable, so they're not watching cable news anyway. They may be getting their news from the social media which is profiting by their clicks, while the news source itself may not be profiting. Say, TikTok especially right now.

I'm not young, but I also don't have cable. I don't watch cable news, or any shows like 60 Minutes. I don't watch late night shows either, even if they're packaged for streaming platforms, like the Daily Show, Stephen Colbert, any of those. I might see a clip here or there. I read the vast majority of my news, and I choose from a variety of sources. How different am I from the average consumer? I don't know.



That's the aim of manufactured chaos, and propaganda, to get people to the point where they just don't care anymore because they're too tired from trying to figure out what's true and what's not.

I learned at 8 years old that when you point a camera at one thing you're deliberately NOT pointing it at dozens of other things.

Case in point - all this wailing and gnashing of teeth by you and PureXcrement, and not a single thought for the 4500 Indian children who die of starvation every single day

 

[PureX]

I get that, to a point. I just don't know how many people have no idea. I'd like to think that most people have a general idea, if you were to ask them specifically. Did you trust newspapers 40 years ago, when they were supported by both subscribers and advertisers? Are some news sources more trustworthy than others?

These days, most young people don't have cable, so they're not watching cable news anyway. They may be getting their news from the social media which is profiting by their clicks, while the news source itself may not be profiting. Say, TikTok especially right now.

I'm not young, but I also don't have cable. I don't watch cable news, or any shows like 60 Minutes. I don't watch late night shows either, even if they're packaged for streaming platforms, like the Daily Show, Stephen Colbert, any of those. I might see a clip here or there. I read the vast majority of my news, and I choose from a variety of sources. How different am I from the average consumer? I don't know.

Look at the level of intelligence and awareness being displayed, here. No, I don't think most people have a clue about what is driving the "news" they're getting.

That's the aim of manufactured chaos, and propaganda, to get people to the point where they just don't care anymore because they're too tired from trying to figure out what's true and what's not.

And it's working exceptionally well.

 

[ok doser]

Look at the level of intelligence and awareness being displayed, here.

In the posts that you make? It's embarrassing.

No, I don't think

Recognizing the problem is the first step towards addressing it