There is no liberal media. Only a corporate media and they in the tank for Hillary.
They will spin any news to make Bernie look insignificant.
They will spin any news to make Bernie look insignificant.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
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.
I don't know, have you read this thread? A lot of the time the Democratic side of the primaries is ignored as a foregone conclusion, other times Bernie supporters are reminded that they're being wishful thinkers or stupid for thinking the thought that he might have more than a 0% chance, and then there's the percentage of the time when people are jumping on the cheap talking points the media are putting up to discredit his campaign, such as the recent bigging up of him "choking" in that New York paper interview (forget the name of the paper), the overstated Bernie Bro's nonsense (which mirrors Clinton's "Obama boys narrative in 2008) and the stuff about him being done because of his rhetorical questioning of Clinton's being qualified.
Meanwhile, nobody thinks it's a big deal that Hillary implies that Bernie's a sexist, that David Brock straight up says Bernie doesn't seem to give a shit about black lives, and now her trying to put Sandy Hook at Vermont's doorstep.
This is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of what actually motivates the US media to cover a story. They don't care about you or I think should be covered, they care only about ratings and the only way to do that is to generate controversy which in turn draws in maximum viewers, and by logical extension, maximum ad revenues. This is precisely why Trump has blanketed their broadcasts over the past 8 months - he is a ratings extravaganza. Despite the ridiculous amount of coverage he receives, I don't think anyone believes the media are pro-Trump....They are fundamentally obsessed with covering things that make them money. This is also why they have in recent days been wumming up the Bernie v Hillary spat - more ratings. There is no conspiracy about any of the candidates - there is no pro-Trump, anti-Bernie, pro-Hillary etc.
whoosh
Hillary was an utterly ineffective lawmaker and her years in the Senate were an absolute waste. This proves it.
In fairness, her 8 years were spent under Dubya, where nothing she sponsored had much chance of being passed by Dubya
You implying that I'm missing something?
lol... I know full-well what generally motives the media. They don't sell papers, they sell advertising, they target different markets with different papers, etc etc.
I think the media assumes that giving Trump coverage is the same as giving a man enough rope to hang himself. A lot of players, both in politics and the media, have fundamentally misunderstood the dynamics of this race, which is why Bernie and Trump were both dismissed out of hand right from the get go. Anyway, I think it'd be naive to think that papers don't also make sure they're stacked with employees who have the right worldview, which would allow them to go after certain political figures, and gloss over the cracks of the facade of others. Feel free to disagree on this point, but I'm under no illusion about what generally motivates media.
@Nikhil post. I'm sure someone will link an article that tells us just how important those pieces of legislation REALLY were.Yeah, I've read the thread. Are you seriously suggesting Hillary doesn't get a feck ton of abuse in here? Because if you are, you certainly haven't read the thread. This isn't reddit, Bernie can get criticised too.
The beauty of the triumph of the free market. Maybe we should base a whole ideology/philosophy on it.
Weren't you recently criticizing Bernie because he wouldn't get enough done due to Republican obstructionism? Hillary gets a pass?
But in a deadlocked congress, Bernie sponsored the Veteran's cost of living adjustment Act and passed it within four months. He was acknowledged all around for it.
I never suggested that... but the odd person going "I fecking hate Hillary" does not make up the majority of the posts in here.
Bernie has his critics on reddit too, matey... just so you know.
Btw, there's no terrible campaign against Hillary here, it mirrors a strong sentiment among the US electorate. There's plenty of people biting the bullet and voting for Hillary, thinking her the sole valid option to stem the Republican tide, and a lot of those people also deem her untrustworthy, or worse.
Just making sure.
You need someone who actually believes in working for others, not someone who sees how the wind is blowing and making a calculated vote.
lol... picturing a congress of rastas
would be a cool place....
16.5m for amazon is practically nothing. Bezos is worth himself more than 3000 times that.
Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.
That's a wonderful image.
Cultural appropriation has gone too far now.
Sorry bud, the idea Bernie gets it worse in here than Hillary does is flat out laughable. If you can't take three or four posters playing devil's advocate against Bernie in opposition to his usual circle jerk, then god help you if he ever got to the general.
Yes I'm sure that is the only exchange involving Bezos and Clinton. Feel free to close your eyes to the rampant corruption in the US political system, I will not.
lol... picturing a congress of rastas
Edited.
You misunderstand me, friend, I don't think he gets it worse, it's just that some of the Hillary and MSM talking points that get parroted here get my goat a bit. I'm not saying that I feel like some minority being bashed in the head, just having issues with certain statements in this thread that I feel misrepresent reality severely. It's like being in a CE thread about UFOs or something with KingEric. Even if most people are bashing him and his views, just reading his take on things makes me go:
If he makes it to the general, I'll be dandy
Those 3 laws... Renamed a highway, renamed a post office, released funds to set up a historical site.
Also when he was the chair of the Senate VA committee 13 bills got passed into law in one year, when previously they only got 8 in the previous 20 years passed.
This Rolling Stone article talks about how New York Times wrote a some what flattering article on how effective he is getting his policies through. Whilst also talking about how NYT then edited the article for a negative spin.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315
Fair enough. Bear in mind though that the other side often thinks the same
You misunderstand me, friend, I don't think he gets it worse, it's just that some of the Hillary and MSM talking points that get parroted here get my goat a bit. I'm not saying that I feel like some minority being bashed in the head, just having issues with certain statements in this thread that I feel misrepresent reality severely. It's like being in a CE thread about UFOs or something with KingEric. Even if most people are bashing him and his views, just reading his take on things makes me go:
If he makes it to the general, I'll be dandy
Yeah, he built the largest e-commerce company in the world, which is a computer engineering and logistics challenge, but I'm sure he worries all day about how he can tip the election. How surprised would you be to know that in the financial community we don't talk about lobbying, elections and legislation all day? But rather product innovation, competition, market share, cost-cutting, mergers, expansion.
Also, guys like Bezos are not the status quo, he broke the status quo. Nearly every historically large retailer in the US is struggling these days and the single largest reason for that is Amazon. From a legislation perspective he just needed government not to step in to somehow protect brick & mortar retail.
Fair enough. Bear in mind though that the other side often thinks the same
I'm well aware, which is why I'm really careful to not get personal in how I argue
or at least try to be.You implying that I'm missing something?
lol... I know full-well what generally motives the media. They don't sell papers, they sell advertising, they target different markets with different papers, etc etc.
I think the media assumes that giving Trump coverage is the same as giving a man enough rope to hang himself. A lot of players, both in politics and the media, have fundamentally misunderstood the dynamics of this race, which is why Bernie and Trump were both dismissed out of hand right from the get go. Anyway, I think it'd be naive to think that papers don't also make sure they're stacked with employees who have the right worldview, which would allow them to go after certain political figures, and gloss over the cracks of the facade of others. Feel free to disagree on this point, but I'm under no illusion about what generally motivates media.
They were dismissed from the beginning because they are both fringe candidates of the Ralph Nader, Ron Paul ilk. If you agree that they are motivated by generating ad revenue through controversy, then its hard to blame them for not covering Sanders, Clinton, or Kasich policy speeches.
You're trying to convince me that elites aren't attempting to sway the outcome of the election and haven't been doing so since the advent of the class system? I'm not really sure how to respond...
Well that's great then. I'm sure he could've used his time in the GOP congress to pass some sort of firearm legislation that reflects his oddly nebulous views on guns.
As opposed to the State controlling everything ? Its been tried.
VICTORY speech. I forget which outlet, but one of them went for a Trump speech instead of covering Bernie's speech after the sweep of Utah, Idaho and Hawaii. No Republican races that day, another talk from Trump about how great he is and how great the US will be under him... to me that's an odd priority to make, and it would not have been made if Hillary sweeped them, they'd hang on her every word. Hypothetical as feck, but do you really not think that's the case?
And you can be motivated by several things, y'know.
Bernie is significantly to the left of Hillary in US political terms, so of course he would be completely shut down as President under a GOP Congress. Despite the history the GOP have with loathing the Clintons, Hillary's policy positions are far more centrist and palatable to reasonable Republicans, to where they could actually cooperate with one another. That obviously won't happen under Sanders, who wants to fundamentally reconfigure the US from a Capitalist to a Social Democratic state.
They will always cover Trump first because he draws eyeballs. He sucks up the entire media cycle to where Hillary and Bernie struggle for more than 20% of the cycle. The only way to raise that number is to create a faux handbags such as the recent "He/She is not qualified to be President" nonsense.
And yet he has accomplished more during his time as a senator. I'm not buying it.
He may not get everything done that he has promised but the false threat of him not getting anything done as POTUS does not change my opinion that he is a much better candidate than Hillary.
the key to elections I thought was what benefited the majority? Bernie's policies of health care and education and minimum wage of $15.00 would have the general support of people from both parties.
To elect someone who supposedly has a greater chance of passing legislation which does not benefit the majority is pointless.
simply true.
It's not a false threat - he would literally not get anything done outside of executive orders. "The Bern" is just a politician, not some sort of magical super hero who will convince the Republicans to agree to his policies. They will literally spend his entire 4 years term rejecting everything he proposes in order to make him look like a failure, then leverage that during the midterms and the next Gen election.
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
I often wonder how many here actually read these much talked about documents.
My overall impression trawling through them in the early months of the scandal is that she's surrounded by sycophants who are at pains to flatter her at every turn, and she herself is very mindful of public opinion, you can even say craving to be loved, and so they engage in a very elaborate PR operation. However, it also paints a very different picture of the conniving witch she's portrayed as by the right or even some of the folks here. A woman of few words in her correspondence with a tightly packed schedule, spend her free time watching tv shows or sleeping. I genuinely can't understand the hate from the left for this woman.
I often wonder how many here actually read these much talked about documents.
My overall impression trawling through them in the early months of the scandal is that she's surrounded by sycophants who are at pains to flatter her at every turn, and she herself is very mindful of public opinion, you can even say craving to be loved, and so they engage in a very elaborate PR operation. However, it also paints a very different picture of the conniving witch she's portrayed as by the right or even some of the folks here. A woman of few words in her correspondence with a tightly packed schedule, spend her free time watching tv shows or sleeping. I genuinely can't understand the hate from the left for this woman.
- Status