Page 3 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,918
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Aug 2022, 10:09 am

I'm pretty sure there were tech types who sought, through computer hacking, to "defeat Biden at all costs."


User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 18,222
Location: Aux Arcs

16 Aug 2022, 1:13 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
I'd say it's pretty fair to say that based on physical appearance, personality, and headlines of their days that Bill got a lot more blowjobs than donnie.

Bill sired half the kids in Little Rock.

I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi

Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,279
Location: Reading, England

16 Aug 2022, 6:15 pm

TenMinutes wrote:

Okay, the 2016 primary was conspiracy.

I don’t think the Clinton campaign being given an audience question in advance at a single town hall damages the democratic process in a significant way.

90% of the media Americans consume is owned by six corporations. Who do you think runs them? The rank and file?

Corporate media, run for the benefit of the oligarchs who own them, have too much say in the selection of candidates at the primary level. And yes, Trump was given extensive, free coverage because they thought he had no chance.

Honestly? The relationship between a journalist and Rupert Murdoch (assuming they work for a Murdoch outlet) is not straightforward. Murdoch can set the broad direction but he’s not getting involved in the day to day. I think you’re massively over-estimating the power of the American media. You do not live in Russia or China, where dissent is dangerous. You live in a country where it is easy to find criticism of any given politician from almost any viewpoint - centre-right, centre-left, anarchist, libertarian, pro-Russian, Christian, neofascist. In 2019 and early 2020 the media was crawling over itself to declare that Biden’s campaign was dead at every opportunity… and he won anyway.

It’s also worth remembering that both CNN and MSNBC are publicly traded companies with no majority shareholder. This is not inherently good or bad, and in my view has no bearing on the quality of their news, but it is a major wrinkle in the “corporate puppetmaster” stuff.
Y'all see Fox News as the propaganda arm of the Republican party, but MSNBC and CNN are...unbiased?

:? When has anyone ever said that MSNBC is unbiased?

All news outlets have a bias of some kind, just as all people do.

I will even happily push back against your caricature of Fox News, which is a popular one. The opinion side of Fox is awful, Tucker Carlson doesn’t even pretend to be reasonable, but the news side is good. You will recall, for example, that Fox was often the first media outlet to call races for Biden, for example; there are many good journalists at Fox who make sure that the routine stuff on the ticker is good, even if they can’t control the things that come out the mouths of the “talent”.

CNN and even MSNBC also have those unheralded journalists doing good work, but unlike Fox, they at least make gestures at being even-handed (reasonably well in CNN’s case). Rachel Maddow’s views are no secret but she will happily criticise Democrats when they screw up.
Even the parties themselves don't give a damn. The Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive.

Maybe an actual RINO like Bill Weld, but if you asked Schumer if he’d like Sanders to lose Vermont to a Susan Collins type, I’m very confident he’d say no (and mean it). And almost everyone who voted for Biden would have preferred Sanders to Trump.

Sanders can't win because he doesn't have a realistic plan to defeat MSNBC.

Biden won without the support of MSNBC.

Sanders’ real issues were his lack of support with moderates, black voters, Southerners, Cubans, educated voters, and older voters. There is of course considerable overlap between many of those categories (modern-day Southern Democrats tend to be old black moderates), but there’s much more to it than “he lost because Comcast’s shareholders didn’t want him to win”.
In 2020 Barack Obama and Jim Clyburn put their thumbs on the scale for Joe Biden, but it was MSNBC and CNN that made that seem a done deal. Not conspiracy, but definitely not democracy, either.

Reporting the news is absolutely integral to democracy.

Here’s how Reuters covered Clyburn’s endorsement: ... KKCN20K1J0
And Associated Press: ... 20463cbd9b

I couldn’t find a BBC article about it, but two of the three news sources with the best reputations for neutrality all emphasised the importance of the endorsement. That suggests that it was probably just good journalism.


User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,475
Location: Northern California

18 Aug 2022, 2:35 am

Dox47 wrote:
CockneyRebel wrote:
Trump is also more honest and he gets to the point.

You know, a bunch of people are probably about to jump down your throat for calling Trump honest, but in a way that's true, he's so much less polished then most politicians that he's truthful in spite of himself. Every word he says might be a lie, but there is a real feeling of knowing what you're going to get with him, it's frankly quite bizarre.

If only his truest fans actually saw it that way. The thing is, they actually think he tells the truth. There is a whole crowd (including lots of my mothers friends, to my mother's horror) who adores him for "telling it like it is." They truly believe him. Of course, I think there is a whole lot of hearing what they want to hear, instead of what he actually says, going on, but, still ...

Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).