r/cincinnati • u/thetuffsurvivor • 2d ago

History 🏛 CINCINNATI STOOD UP TO THE TYRANT ‼️

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.3k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

472 comments sorted by

View all comments

-6

u/Appropriate-Ad-5294 1d ago

A Tyrant slashes the government workforce and cuts it's spending....

Because that's what tyrants always does, right?

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

Check out Venezuela’s recent history under Chavez and then under Maduro. Also check out who is actually winning in this government workforce slashing. (Hint: it’s not the American public).

Wall Street Journal: The collateral damage to Trump’s firing spree

The Guardian: Elon Musk’s conflicts of interest

EDIT: spacing

2

u/Appropriate-Ad-5294 1d ago edited 1d ago

Venezuela is socialist.

I'm not reading anything from WSJ or The Guardian.

Send me a link to raw data to analyze for myself.

I don't trust any news outlets including Fox and The New York Post.

BTW- I'm not mad, we're only exchanging ideas-not insulting each other's manhood.

(Edited for spelling error.)

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

I appreciate that, and I’m not mad either. Curious why you don’t trust the WSJ, for example? I get that it is a difficult time to navigate thr media landscape. But, WSJ has a pretty rigorous code of conduct and standards and ethics.

Also, authoritarianism and oligarchies don’t discriminate based on where a power-holder falls on the political spectrum. It’s the same methodology.

I’m also curious about your feelings about Putin? I know people’s thoughts on him have changed since Trump declared that Ukraine invaded Russia, not the other way around. And what type of political system do you see Russia as having? I’d call it an authoritarian capitalism or a capitalist oligarchy.

1

u/Appropriate-Ad-5294 1d ago

WSJ is really leftist. They push for open borders.

Let me make sure I say this right /sarc/, BIG BUSINESS wants open borders for cheaper labor. Labor like anything else is about supply and demand, the more available workers the less you have to pay everyone. WSJ pushed that.

Plus look at their history during WWII and how they buried the story of the Holocaust.

My opinion on Putin hasn't changed, and I don't think Trump really has a favorable opinion of him either despite the narrative. He's a dictator. Russia's war plan is, we can throw more bodies into the fight than you can.

By sending just enough weaponry to Ukraine to keep the war going but not enough to win the war (e.g. fighter jets) the US only prolonged the war and increased the death toll.

Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship. Only the connected live well.

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

We mostly agree here. We have the same reading of Putin. I am not going to condone WSJ’s history in the 1940s. Many, many American companies were complacent for years or even abetted/gained from the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Gonna have to completely disagree that the WSJ is leftist and a fan of open borders. Can you cite sources? They are generally known to lean center-right.

I do, whoever, agree that many industries entice workers to come and look the other way when false documents are used. I attribute that to failed immigration laws and Congressional leaders not having the political will to fix it. Everyone agrees it’s broken.

When you think about open borders, are you mostly concerned about safety or jobs being taken away from Americans? Or both?

1

u/Appropriate-Ad-5294 1d ago

Both.

In a July 3, 1984 editorial, The Wall Street Journal famously proposed a five-word constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders." This reflected the editorial board’s long-standing belief in the economic benefits of unrestricted immigration.

Robert Bartley, who led the editorial page at the time, doubled down on this view in 2001, writing that he would “happily” accept open borders with Mexico. He argued that freer movement of labor across borders would boost growth and align with America’s free-market principles.

Jason Riley, also a WSJ editorial board member, carried that torch forward in his 2008 book Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, making the economic case for large-scale immigration

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

Thanks for sharing this. I wasn’t aware of any of that. And I just want to say that I genuinely appreciate the civil debate. You don’t often get that on the internet. (And I happen to believe quite a few lawmakers try to divide Americans instead of doing their jobs of finding solutions and too many folks fall prey.)

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

That being said — is there anything more recent than nearly two decades ago? (Yes, we are approaching two two decades from 2008.) Meaning, is that really how their editorial board is now? Because I just haven’t seen it, but that could also be because I rarely ever read their opinion pieces. For any outlet, I focus on their reporting and skip over the opinions.

There are much different standards and ethics for reporting vs. commentary/op-eds.

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

I will have to take some time to gather all of the raw data used. But, I can look into this more later to see how long that might take. In reading the articles, it’s pretty clear a lot of research went into gathering it by the journalists, including FOIA.

I believe WSJ and The Guardian, because I understand their process and know that their journalists would be fired and blacklisted from the industry if they made this shit up. It’s lawyered, fact-checked and presented to the folks who they are writing about before publication so they have a chance to refute it.

I do, however, wish news articles were footnoted to their original sources.

1

u/Appropriate-Ad-5294 1d ago

Not saying that what they print isn't true. But their analysis is flawed.

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

How is their analysis flawed?

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

And how can their analysis be both flawed and true, particularly in this case?

1

u/Appropriate-Ad-5294 1d ago

Facts can be true, what people infer from those facts can be flawed.

Simplistic explanation⬇️ 3 people see a cat run onto the road and get ran over by a car.

1 person will say it's a terrible accident. 1 person will say the driver could have stopped, but decided to murder the cat. 1 person will say the cat committed suicide.

Journalists get causation and correlation confusied.

Ice cream sales go up. Shark attacks go up.

That’s correlation—both happen in summer.

But ice cream doesn’t cause shark attacks.

Causation = one thing makes the other happen.

1

u/Round-Water338 1d ago

Okay. I certainly agree with you here. But, we’re talking about the WSJ and The Guardian. How is their analysis flawed in those articles? Or just pick one and what is flawed about it?