There's a tremendous amount of normal people who are providing a stable foundation to society. You never hear about them because the media doesn't see any ROI from covering those people.

This is the key.

News covers the outliers, the unexpected, the unusual.

News has always focused on the odd things, the unexpected things. The more dramatic their telling, the bigger scoop they can make, the more eyeballs they get, allowing the paychecks to flow.

You here news reports saying Senator Johnson has this insane idea. You don't hear news reports that the other 99 senators think Senator Johnson is batshit insane.

The news doesn't make money with a headline "99 senators take reasonable action", they make money by running headlines "Senator Johnson demands Idiotic Idea".

I recall a hilarious news clip that sadly I cannot find at the moment which showcased this. The news reporters were talking about flooding affecting a certain part of town. They were going on and on about how rescue efforts were under way, how the rescuers had to bring in kayaks and rescue gear. The news cameras focused on an area covered in water, a kayak with three men in it (wearing helmets and lifejackets) starting to paddle across an area. From the camera angle three houses, and presumably many more, were fully flooded in deep water.

Then unexpectedly a golden retriever ran across the scene to follow the lifejacket-wearing kayakers, the dog barely up to his knees in water. The dog makes it apparent the water is hardly deep enough to make the kayak float, and it could easily be waded by both dog and human. Another person shot a video clip from a different angle, where it was obvious the water was just a small pool around three homes at the lowest part of a neighborhood surrounded by hills. The news cameraman had deliberately chosen a shot along the longest length of water, and could be seen lying on the ground to get his camera as close to the water level as possible.

News is all about making the stories as big as possible to get as many eyeballs and advertisers as possible.

As crazy as candidates from other countries may come, have you ever had a “Deez Nuts” run?



L. Spiro

When I saw that, I thought that the hardcore band was running for prez.

In Sweden, it's a tradition to vote for Donald Duck if you want to abstain from voting.

You know your electoral process is broken when a crustacean can run for president (and actually gets a non-negligible fraction of votes)

I think most people expect this kind of stuff, it merely cements the views we already have about the USA.

Compared to the useless would-be-conservative de-facto-ultra-left government that we have in Germany (which is pulling one insane stunt after the other, not weekly but meanwhile daily, and which is actively working against the interests of its people), Donald Trump sounds like a really good choice. A sane man with good ideas. An altruist.

It's all relative, you know. Compared to the Devil, anyone is a saint.

I’m curious how much respect America is losing in the face of the rest of the world

That would be assuming the U.S. are important enough to factor in daily decisions for other countries.

On the political scene, maybe.

Economically, to a degree.

To most folks here, not really.

The only person I've seen talk about this locally is the TV News channel anchor, and that was nowhere near primetime news either.

I'd say Canada does not give a damn (especially since we're also campaigning for our own Federal elections).

Compared to the useless would-be-conservative de-facto-ultra-left government that we have in Germany

Huh? Your government is not ultra-left.

Well. I was going to get all morally superior. And about two weeks ago, I'd have felt secure in doing so.

But then one of our parties elected an outright "let's side with Russia" commie to run it and now it turns out that the PM... had intimate relations with a pig's head while at university...

See. That's the role of Britain in this "special relationship". To show you that no matter how bad things are over there, it could be worse...

Well As of now Trump just announced his want to end all weapon bans, seems like he just locked in his nomination for the presidency by republicans.

I got excited when I read that, but it turned out not to be true. As a gun collector in the USA, the Houghes ammendment has made it a pain to get any full autos, and many imported guns.

But that's not the case, AFAIK Trump supports the NFA (he supports background checks) and 1986 FOPA.

Although he'd never say it in public, he supports expanded background checks Here's some quotes

He also argues against the expansion of the background check system, saying the current system must first be improved

"I don't agree with expanding background checks, but we should improve (expand) the background checks we already have!"

"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons"

"I oppose gun control but I hate black guns!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#.22Cosmetic.22_features

He pretty much only says political double speak on every issue.

That being said, I don't think the USA's in a bad position, considering Greece just got 7% support for an openly neo nazi party. It's just that our candidates get more intense scrutiny then any other country.

As for what most Americans think, I think it's mostly older voters who feel disenfranchised who would be willing to vote for Trump. If it came down to it, I'd vote for him over either Hillary or Bernie, because at least he'd be more entertaining, and I'm pretty sure they'd all accomplish the same net result of being useless.

The only candidate I'd actually want to win is Rand Paul. The rest are virtually all the same with sligh difference on whether or not they agree on social issues.

For reference I've worked for a democratic senator before, my mother worked as a speech writer for a previous candidate as well, and I used to work the poll booths on election day for the democrats. The party's complete lack of focus on the issues I find important has made me distance myself them (Really, any party) significantly. Also I'd never vote for a dynasty president, whether or it's a clinton or a bush.

Either way, I don't think Bernie or Trump have any chance at actually winning the nomination, because both will be torn apart by their establishments once the big ads start coming out.

It's going to be Bush vs Clinton and I'll probably protest vote Mike Gravel as usual.