2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red-Jeff said:
Experience in elected office=number of years in elected office?
Click to expand...

Except when referring to Hillary's experience, no one ever said it pertains only to elected office. The graphic misleadingly force that point. And even in elected office, there are different degrees of infos, political connection, strategic importance afforded to different offices. Sec State is 4th in line for the Presidency, there are perks of the job a Senator or Congressman don't have access to.

And I don't think that graphic dispel anything about the fundamental criticisms level at Bernie, that 1) he was and is an ineffective lawmaker and 2) he lacks foreign policy credentials.
 
Raoul said:
I like Bernie but am not interested in his work as Mayor of Burlington, just as i wasn't remotely interested in Obama's community organizing. At this point, its really all about ideas and attitude that will connect with people.
Click to expand...

I agree. My point was to end the bullshit argument that Hillary is more experienced within the political sphere, it just isn't true.
 
Obama wasn't very experienced and has done alright. So long as you are principled and surround yourself with good people then it doesn't really matter what your experience level is.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Hmmm another negative article from the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos. Did you know Jeff Bezos is also CEO of Amazon and Amazon was awarded a 16.5 million dollar contract with the state department the last year Hillary was sec of state? I'm sure there is no conflict of interest there and that article is completely factual.
Click to expand...

The post is a liberal paper just as the NY Times is. They probably have journalists on staff who actually challenge Sanders' views.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Hmmm another negative article from the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos. Did you know Jeff Bezos is also CEO of Amazon and Amazon was awarded a 16.5 million dollar contract with the state department the last year Hillary was sec of state? I'm sure there is no conflict of interest there and that article is completely factual.
Click to expand...

The author is a university professor and infrequent columnist for WaPo. A quick Google search show that he's written about 5 articles for them in the last 6 years. Are you saying he was hired by them to do a hit job on Sanders?

The cult of personality surrounding the man is becoming absurd.
 
Raoul said:
The post is a liberal paper just as the NY Times is. They probably have journalists on staff who actually challenge Sanders' views.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right but that doesn't mean the journalists aren't influenced by the fact that their boss is very obviously a Clinton supporter and has made quite a bit of money with her help. Just because the paper is liberal doesn't mean they are above the influence of money.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The author is a university professor and infrequent columnist for WaPo. A quick Google search show that he's written about 5 articles for them in the last 6 years. Are you saying he was hired by them to do a hit job on Sanders?

The cult of personality surrounding the man is becoming absurd.
Click to expand...

No I'm saying the ridiculous number of negative articles regarding Sanders that come out of the Washington Post and the fact that the papers owner makes a bunch of money from his connection with Hillary is correlated. I'm sure you think CNN has given fair coverage to Bernie as well :lol:
 
Red-Jeff said:
If you read my (very short) post and proceeding posts you would realize that I was just posting that as a rebuttal to the continual and inaccurate denigration of Bernie's experience.
Click to expand...
It equates a year as a mayor to a year as Secretary of State ffs.

Might have to start calling him Mr Manager now.
 
Red-Jeff said:
I'm sure you're right but that doesn't mean the journalists aren't influenced by the fact that their boss is very obviously a Clinton supporter and has made quite a bit of money with her help. Just because the paper is liberal doesn't mean they are above the influence of money.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine as a WaPo reporter. They are generally the best daily newspaper journalists in the US, and certainly not even remotely interested in parroting Bezos' views. Sanders' ideas, which are quite extreme given the current system, certainly warrant more intense scrutiny than they have received so far.
 
Raoul said:
A friend of mine is a WaPo reporter. They are generally the best daily newspaper journalists in the US, and certainly not even remotely interested in parroting Bezos' views. Sanders' ideas, which are quite extreme given the current system, certainly warrant more intense scrutiny than they have received so far.
Click to expand...

I just have trouble believing that there is no influence exerted upon these journalists to toe the line. Just look at Fox for an extreme example.

Maybe I'm wrong, and of course there will be exceptions, but when looking at the current political system it is very easy to be suspicious of the relationships between the politicians, elites, and elite-owned media outlets.
 
Red-Jeff said:
No I'm saying the ridiculous number of negative articles regarding Sanders that come out of the Washington Post and the fact that the papers owner makes a bunch of money from his connection with Hillary is correlated. I'm sure you think CNN has given fair coverage to Bernie as well :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually, they do. He'll never get the same amount of coverage Trump or Hillary does, but they've covered him plenty. They even got Cenk Uyghur to talk in one segment.

This mythical media shut out narrative conveniently ignores the fact that most candidates this cycle gasped for air because of Trump. Corporate media covers what will give them most profit.
 
Red-Jeff said:
I just have trouble believing that there is no influence exerted upon these journalists to toe the line. Just look at Fox for an extreme example.

Maybe I'm wrong, and of course there will be exceptions, but when looking at the current political system it is very easy to be suspicious of the relationships between the politicians, elites, and elite-owned media outlets.
Click to expand...

Fox is a completely different situation than the usual liberal press. At Fox, everything conforms to Ailes' narratives, which has been anti-Obama, generally anti-Hillary and pro-mainstream GOP. At that point, the various shows just build content around that. The liberal press are much more traditional in that they scrutinize politicians with a lot more balance.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Actually, they do. He'll never get the same amount of coverage Trump or Hillary does, but they've covered him plenty. They even got Cenk Uyghur to talk in one segment.

This mythical media shut out narrative conveniently ignores the fact that most candidates this cycle gasped for air because of Trump. Corporate media covers what will give them most profit.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely fallacious, the disparity of coverage between Bernie and Hillary on CNN has been glaringly obvious. If you can't see that I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this conversation. I can deal with differing opinions but anyone that is saying the two democratic hopefuls have received the same coverage can't be reasoned with.
 
Raoul said:
Fox is a completely different situation than the usual liberal press. At Fox, everything conforms to Ailes' narratives, which has been anti-Obama, generally anti-Hillary and pro-mainstream GOP. At that point, the various shows just build content around that. The liberal press are much more traditional in that they scrutinize politicians with a lot more balance.
Click to expand...

I did say an extreme example, the party machinery (including media outlets) are pushing Hillary and it is obvious.
 
Red-Jeff said:
So Bernie doesn't have quite a bit of experience regarding policy making and implementation?
Click to expand...
He does! That's the stupid thing about that graphic, it turns the fair argument of "Bernie has plenty of experience as a legislator and elected, much liked politician" into something absurd that equates a mayoralty to Secretary of State. That's the main problem I have with Bernie fandom, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING he does has to be put into competition with Hillary in which he's shown to not just beat her, but beat her massively. They can't just leave it as diffusing a potential negative when people say he doesn't have the experience by pointing out that he has plenty, it has to be turned into "he has twice as much experience as her!".
 
Ubik said:
He does! That's the stupid thing about that graphic, it turns the fair argument of "Bernie has plenty of experience as a legislator and elected, much liked politician" into something absurd that equates a mayoralty to Secretary of State. That's the main problem I have with Bernie fandom, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING he does has to be put into competition with Hillary in which he's shown to not just beat her, but beat her massively. They can't just leave it as diffusing a potential negative when people say he doesn't have the experience by pointing out that he has plenty, it has to be turned into "he has twice as much experience as her!".
Click to expand...

That really is not a Bernie v Hillary thing though, that is pretty much any election in the US.
 
Ubik said:
He does! That's the stupid thing about that graphic, it turns the fair argument of "Bernie has plenty of experience as a legislator and elected, much liked politician" into something absurd that equates a mayoralty to Secretary of State. That's the main problem I have with Bernie fandom, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING he does has to be put into competition with Hillary in which he's shown to not just beat her, but beat her massively. They can't just leave it as diffusing a potential negative when people say he doesn't have the experience by pointing out that he has plenty, it has to be turned into "he has twice as much experience as her!".
Click to expand...

Well the Democratic nomination is kind of a competition so it makes sense to make comparisons between the two.
 
Red-Jeff said:
That's absolutely fallacious, the disparity of coverage between Bernie and Hillary on CNN has been glaringly obvious. If you can't see that I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this conversation. I can deal with differing opinions but anyone that is saying the two democratic hopefuls have received the same coverage can't be reasoned with.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. He didn't received the same amount of coverage, but he has received a fair amount of coverage.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lar-candidate-mentioned-on-television/402451/

You look into that and tell me he was intentionally shut out by MSM, but feel free if you want to stay in your echo chamber.
 
Red-Jeff said:
I'm sure you're right but that doesn't mean the journalists aren't influenced by the fact that their boss is very obviously a Clinton supporter and has made quite a bit of money with her help. Just because the paper is liberal doesn't mean they are above the influence of money.
Click to expand...

Yeah there would be absolutely nothing new at all about a newspaper being more "loyal" to one politician than another. Been going on probably since newspapers have been around.

Remember the one year our Congresswoman was up for re-election. Our local paper is very sided to the Democrats and as such they gave her their endorsement. Fair enough, until you read the actual editorial that should in theory outline all the positives about her and why we should keep voting for her. Instead it was a piece about how really she had failed in a number of ways, her opponent (a Republican) had all these positives about him, but well they said she has been our Congresswoman for a number of years and had built up a good level of seniority in the House (oddly that was one of the ways she failed according to the paper is she did not do enough with her influence in the House) so let's keep her. I mean WTF, you basically spend 10 paragraphs talking about why she doesn't do a good job, how her opponent has a shitload of positives about him, but hey let's keep her.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
Good comparisons are fine.
Click to expand...

You have seen the unrelenting criticisms of Bernie's experience haven't you? That's what prompted me to post that, not some misguided ideal that his time as mayor would ensure he is the best president in the history of the universe :lol:
 
Red-Jeff said:
Yes we get it, everyone that doesn't agree with you is in an echo chamber.
Click to expand...

And anyone who disagree with the Sanders folks is by default a Clinton shill, a Republican, a sell out :lol:.

When the so-called progressive movement shit on even John Lewis and Elizabeth Warren, something has gone seriously off track.
 
Raoul said:
Fox is a completely different situation than the usual liberal press. At Fox, everything conforms to Ailes' narratives, which has been anti-Obama, generally anti-Hillary and pro-mainstream GOP. At that point, the various shows just build content around that. The liberal press are much more traditional in that they scrutinize politicians with a lot more balance.
Click to expand...


You mean like Judith Miller's Iraq war reporting for the NYT?
 
Last edited:
InfiniteBoredom said:
And anyone who disagree with the Sanders folks is by default a Clinton shill, a Republican, a sell out :lol:.

When the so-called progressive movement shit on even John Lewis and Elizabeth Warren, something has gone seriously off track.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I respect the opinion of others and realize they form it based upon their experiences - not my experiences. Who am I to tell them that their opinion is not legitimate? I will argue and critisize but I have enough respect to avoid telling them that they only consider opinions that are similar to their own.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Yes we get it, everyone that doesn't agree with you is in an echo chamber.

Guess who the owner of The Atlantic has donated to?
Click to expand...

It's odd that you dismiss that article and the one from the WaPo. Both are based on easily auditable statistics. If you see a flaw in the statistics, you can make that argument. But these simple statistics don't change just because the proprieter donated to someone.
 
lynchie said:
It's odd that you dismiss that article and the one from the WaPo. Both are based on easily auditable statistics. If you see a flaw in the statistics, you can make that argument. But these simple statistics don't change just because the proprieter donated to someone.
Click to expand...

If you check the different groupings of mentions (30 days, 15 days, 7 days) rather than just the 100 days, you'll see that it's only recently that his numbers have started becoming comparable. Prior to christmas, he was trailing fecking Biden in coverage. And then there's the matter of WHAT kind of coverage he's getting.

WaPo is a good example. 16 negative articles in 16 hrs, at one point. Can't say I've seen anything comparable with regards to other candidates (Trump might get close, but he feeds off coverage, any coverage, and says ridiculous disgusting shit just to get press).

I second RJ... if people really can bring themselves to believe that there's not been a concerted effort to ignore Sanders, or to ratchet up negative coverage, then they're in an echo chamber.

Sanders sweeps three states on a day when only Dems are voting, and yet his speech doesn't get coverage, or if it does it gets muted with talking heads pivoting to less pressing matters of the Republican race, the bias on display is absolutely breath-taking.

This thread is doing my head in.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Not at all, I respect the opinion of others and realize they form it based upon their experiences - not my experiences. Who am I to tell them that their opinion is not legitimate? I will argue and critisize but I have enough respect to avoid telling them that they only consider opinions that are similar to their own.
Click to expand...

Take the link I sent to you then, overall he received the 3rd most amount of coverage behind Trump and Clinton, and more than any other candidates on both sides in the race. In the last 30 days, he received 82% of her coverage, and the last 15 days have been nigh identical. You can argue that they often portray him in a negative light but Clinton received plenty of 'sky is falling' coverage after Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan. The media's priority is ratings and they will sensationalize, creating narratives and push a certain slant to improve their ratings. The notion that they fear his message so wouldn't cover him is frankly conspiracy nonsense.

If you take offense to my comment, I apologize sincerely, however, I've seen the norm in this thread of late that the Sanders folks are increasingly becoming resistant to basic things like facts, delegates maths etc..., and I've been called a Clinton shill not just once for pointing out those things, and they increasingly turn to alternative form of media like TYT, USuncut etc... which frankly by their bias and low skill journalism create a very suffocating dialogue. I despise that sort of misinformation and the hero worship many of them (not just in this place) are exercising, so I'll keep pushing out against it.

There's a poll done a few weeks ago surveying the public opinion on the amount of coverage each candidate receives. I can't for the life of me find it right now but about 70% feel that Sanders is covered either too much or sufficiently. I'll post the link once I find it. Point being, this media shut out stuff is more fiction than fact.
 
Eriku said:
If you check the different groupings of mentions (30 days, 15 days, 7 days) rather than just the 100 days, you'll see that it's only recently that his numbers have started becoming comparable. Prior to christmas, he was trailing fecking Biden in coverage. And then there's the matter of WHAT kind of coverage he's getting.

WaPo is a good example. 16 negative articles in 16 hrs, at one point. Can't say I've seen anything comparable with regards to other candidates (Trump might get close, but he feeds off coverage, any coverage, and says ridiculous disgusting shit just to get press).

I second RJ... if people really can bring themselves to believe that there's not been a concerted effort to ignore Sanders, or to ratchet up negative coverage, then they're in an echo chamber.

Sanders sweeps three states on a day when only Dems are voting, and yet his speech doesn't get coverage, or if it does it gets muted with talking heads pivoting to less pressing matters of the Republican race, the bias on display is absolutely breath-taking.

This thread is doing my head in.
Click to expand...
:lol: I'd say Sanders fans outnumber people that prefer Hillary by about 4-1 in this thread, conservative estimate. Some that occasionally pop in just to restate how much they hate Hillary.
 
JustAFan said:
Yeah there would be absolutely nothing new at all about a newspaper being more "loyal" to one politician than another. Been going on probably since newspapers have been around.

Remember the one year our Congresswoman was up for re-election. Our local paper is very sided to the Democrats and as such they gave her their endorsement. Fair enough, until you read the actual editorial that should in theory outline all the positives about her and why we should keep voting for her. Instead it was a piece about how really she had failed in a number of ways, her opponent (a Republican) had all these positives about him, but well they said she has been our Congresswoman for a number of years and had built up a good level of seniority in the House (oddly that was one of the ways she failed according to the paper is she did not do enough with her influence in the House) so let's keep her. I mean WTF, you basically spend 10 paragraphs talking about why she doesn't do a good job, how her opponent has a shitload of positives about him, but hey let's keep her.
Click to expand...

It's a bit unfortunate that it is just done this way, I get that everyone has an opinion but it seems like journalistic integrity is often lacking with regards to politics. You're personal opinion should have no influence on how you cover candidates and issues, objectivity needs to be paramount.

Obviously doesn't apply to opinion pieces but so often opinion is presented as objective assessment in our media coverage.
 
Red-Jeff said:
I don't think it's that rare but that's just based on my perception.
Click to expand...

If you were talking about the Washington Times then I may agree. I don't think you'll find a single conservative who looks at the Washington Post and thinks of it as a neutral source of journalism. It is a liberal leaning newspaper.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Hmmm another negative article from the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos. Did you know Jeff Bezos is also CEO of Amazon and Amazon was awarded a 16.5 million dollar contract with the state department the last year Hillary was sec of state? I'm sure there is no conflict of interest there and that article is completely factual.
Click to expand...

16.5m dollars? Amazon made 107 billion dollars in sales last year. That makes the contract 0.015% of revenues. Amazon Web Services is the leading provider in the cloud computing and related services in the world, that the State Department, other government agencies (the mfing CIA too) and hundreds of businesses hire them is not some evil masterplan, but just the world going about its business.

The WaPo favors Hillary? You should probably look at the editor and journalists, more than the billionaire owner running one of the largest companies in world and more to worry about.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
16.5m dollars? Amazon made 107 billion dollars in sales last year. That makes the contract 0.015% of revenues. Amazon Web Services is the leading provider in the cloud computing and related services in the world, that the State Department, other government agencies (the mfing CIA too) and hundreds of businesses hire them is not some evil masterplan, but just the world going about its business.

The WaPo favors Hillary? You should probably look at the editor and journalists, more than the billionaire owner running one of the largest companies in world and more to worry about.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure billionaires have better things to worry about than using media outlets they own and connections they have with politicians to influence policy and public perception. Not like that would make it easier for them to continue making money and keep the status quo intact that has been of great benefit to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.