Hillary Clinton Establishment Machine Is Alive And Well And Killing Progressives

[Jack V Savage]

Said only by someone who didn't actually pay attention to the MSM during the election cycle.

Well, that's obviously false, but even if it were true, you still have studies that confirm the point to deal with.

 

[HereticBD]

Well, that's obviously false, but even if it were true, you still have studies that confirm the point to deal with.

Jack, nobody but Fox News covered Hillary's E-mail scandal as heavily as any negative story on Trump, like the Khan family comments, or Pussygate. I grant you that Fox News is a big entity in the MSM world, but you're clearly not talking about FOX News, and are yet again, trying to paint this imaginary picture that CNN was pro-Trump during the election cycle. It's comical at this point.

You're only sticking to your guns, because you can't claim to have never said CNN was pro-Trump, like you were doing before someone found the quote where you did in fact state that.

Troll on though. Its amusing.

 

[KantoTerror]

Mark me down as someone saying Kamela Harris will win the Democratic nomination in 2020. She is a woman and black, that's all it really takes for liberals.

You simply stated....she's got "what it takes"....

 

[MicroBrew]

Did you think the DNC was going to reform itself or something?

All of the actions and words of Hillary, Obama, the msm, and party leaders has indicated that they are doubling down on their corruption, their strategies, arguments, and swamp like behavior.

So they are emulating Trump and the GOP then.

 

[KantoTerror]

Hillary's only positive life accomplishment is sabotaging the presidential bid of a man who called Venezuela a model for future economies in 2011

 

[KantoTerror]

So they are emulating Trump and the GOP then.

They saw the blueprint for success...

 

[Deleted member 457759]

They're really pushing the gender angle. fuuuck.

Go away Hillary I don't give a fuck if you're a women, women aren't smarter, women aren't more even tempered.

Fuck this feminist shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack, nobody but Fox News covered Hillary's E-mail scandal as heavily as any negative story on Trump, like the Khan family comments, or Pussygate.

Incorrect. That was by far the most-covered issue in the entire campaign by the MSM.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...linton-email-coverage/?utm_term=.584b3337d177

Your assertion is objectively, provably false.

You're only sticking to your guns, because you can't claim to have never said CNN was pro-Trump, like you were doing before someone found the quote where you did in fact state that.

Troll on though. Its amusing.

Nah, you're making that up. Again, look at the studies. You can't defend your position with anything but insults because the evidence on this is very clear.

 

[Quipling]

Oh and Pelosi and Feinstein have been doing a bang up job during their tenure in office.

"What the Democrats don't want you to know: Party lost more than 1,030 seats in state legislatures, governor's mansions and Congress during Barack Obama's presidency, Pelosi time as leader of democrats in Congress."

That pelosi and feinstein have lost ground is bad, but mostly irrelevant to the question of whether Harris is progressive.

Wake me up when Harris talks about attacking drug costs and college education.

Kamala Harris made her name attacking drug costs as California Attorney-General - it was her first big case. And she continued doing so through her tenure, and has continued doing so as a senator. Jesus.

On college costs:
Free tuition proposal while running for office
Once in office, she cosponsored a bill on college costs with Sanders

Jesus fucking christ. You're criticizing her for being insufficiently progressive on issues when you haven't even looked up her actual positions on those issues. Of course it's impossible for the DNC to nominate anyone insufficiently progressive for you, because you don't actually bother learning who is and who isn't progressive. Like, these were major points during her candidacy, and you're complaining she hasn't talked about them. That would be like complaining that Sanders hasn't complained enough about millionaires and billionaires, because you've never heard any of his speeches.

 

[HereticBD]

Incorrect. That was by far the most-covered issue in the entire campaign by the MSM.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...linton-email-coverage/?utm_term=.584b3337d177

Your assertion is objectively, provably false.

Vaguely sourced and worded, bullshit study, cited by Liberal rag.

Get real.

Nah, you're making that up. Again, look at the studies. You can't defend your position with anything but insults because the evidence on this is very clear.

No Jack. Anyone and everyone familiar with the network, believes that your assertion that CNN is, or was pro-Trump at any time during the election cycle, is objectively false, and bordering on sheer lunacy. Did they give him a lot of coverage? Yes. Was their agenda a positive one, in an effort to get him into the White House? Fuck no.

Troll on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Vaguely sourced, bullshit study, cited by Liberal rag.

Get real.

I see. Every study on the issue (really, look them all up) show that the email story was by far the most covered issue in the entire campaign. It's not a discussion about competing interpretations of the evidence; it's a discussion between people who look at the evidence and people who refuse to. If you have anything to support your view that the MSM didn't cover the email story more than any other issue by a large margin, please post it.

 

[HereticBD]

I see. Every study on the issue (really, look them all up) show that the email story was by far the most covered issue in the entire campaign. It's not a discussion about competing interpretations of the evidence; it's a discussion between people who look at the evidence and people who refuse to.

It's bullshit. They essentially claim that since the server/e-mail story had a longer history, it was covered more intensely. That's misleading. They also used vague sources like "online" to back up their stats. I imagine they added any and all tweets to their "study", to help tip the scales.

The study you cited is complete horseshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's bullshit. They essentially claim that since the server/e-mail story had a longer history, it was covered more intensely. That's misleading. They also used vague sources like "online" to back up their stats. I imagine they added any and all tweets to their "study", to help tip the scales.

The study you cited is complete horseshit.

I think you know that your position (that the email story wasn't by far the most-covered issue by the MSM in the campaign?) is very obviously false and are trying to quibble to avoid admitting it because you don't like the implication. Typically, when one is in the position of denying that all evidence means what it appears to mean, that's the approach people take. If you have the evidence on your side, you try to emphasize it.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Clinton was by far the more logical choice for anti-establishment voters. The actual impact of elections is policy changes. But candidates with less-popular policy platforms try to make them personal. It's not like poor Rust Belt types were dying for tax cuts for millionaire investors. They were led to believe Clinton was the candidate who would do all the stuff that Trump is actually trying to do.



Oh, that's absolutely true. Note that by far the biggest issue in the eyes of the MSM was Clinton not following State Department IT protocols. That was presented by the media as not only equivalent to Trump's history of money laundering, running various scams, history of constant lies, etc., but as actually a far *bigger* ethical (?) issue. CNN had people on its shows as "experts" whose only credential was a willingness to shamelessly lie on behalf of Trump. They had someone who legally couldn't say anything bad about Trump on. They aired raw, live footage of his rallies. I think people who don't really know much about the media don't appreciate how unusual the Lewandowski hiring and the rally airing were. Obviously the big media companies are businesses and weren't doing that stuff out of a deliberate attempt to influence the election (that is not the slightest concern of the MSM), but it's equally obvious that the impact was very slanted coverage.

I think i am just going to agree to disagree on the idea that there was incidental bias favouring trump from the MSM.
From my PoV, their loud, obnoxious and sometimes wildly CT-sounding bias against him helped him, but not because they presented anything resembling positivity toward trump.

As far as Clinton being the logical anti-establishment choice..
She pandered to establishment interests, had the sitting president, the vice president and a former president campaigning on her behalf, and she ran on populist social issues that had already been rammed down not just America's, but the world's throat for 8 years already. She looked like nothing if not a sequal to the Obama administration. On foreign policy, she sold herself as an establishment warmonger with her vitriol toward russia and her persistent desire to create a no-fly zone over syria and upend the assad regime.
It did not help her that when she ran against obama in the previous primaries he was the anti-establishment candidate. An image that he failed at rubbing off on her because, of course, 8 years into an administration tends to wear through the anti-estsblishment image.

Even if we accept that she was the more anti-estsblishment candidate (which you make a fair case for) that only makes her the "logical" choice if one assumed that she was honestly presenting herself. A tough job for any politician, doubly so for one that:
A) has been in the public eye for as long as she has;
B) has been wracked with as many scandals as she has;
C) makes as little effort to speak to the anti-establishment voter as she did (pretty sure she was insulting and belittling to the voters you claim she was the logical choice for); and
D) shits all over the actual anti-establishment candidate she ran agsinst in the primaries.

She didn't really do much to communicate anything other than a handful of empty slogans and her bitchings about trump.
You can only really claim her to be the logical anti-establishment choice if she had lucidly presented herself as such to her potential voters.
Her comparative disinterest in campaigning, lack of a cohesive message, and all around strategic incompetence kind of disqualified her as a logical choice for anything other than "first female president" - a pretty weak position.

 

[bobgeese]

I see. Every study on the issue (really, look them all up) show that the email story was by far the most covered issue in the entire campaign. It's not a discussion about competing interpretations of the evidence; it's a discussion between people who look at the evidence and people who refuse to. If you have anything to support your view that the MSM didn't cover the email story more than any other issue by a large margin, please post it.

Could that possibly be the case because every week they were trying a new angle/smear/story to destroy the teflon Don?

And failed btw.

Meanwhile Hillary had an incredibly damaging story in the headlines, because she deserved to have it in the headlines. She fucked up. It was news for over a year, how could it not be the most covered?

The fact that any 2 week Donald story even comes close to the coverage of a bombshell national security story, complete with edge of the seat Comey announcements, etc. really displays how weak your argument is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As far as Clinton being the logical anti-establishment choice..
She pandered to establishment interests, had the sitting president, the vice president and a former president campaigning on her behalf, and she ran on populist social issues that had already been rammed down not just America's, but the world's throat for 8 years already. She looked like nothing if not a sequal to the Obama administration.

I'm not getting this at all. We already discussed the gap between policy (what I'm referring to exclusively in this discussion) and other (like who supports whom). Establishment interests as I see it are favoring owners over workers (in terms of things like shifting tax burden from capital to labor income, cutting taxes on large inheritances, reduced labor-protection regs, including MW, etc.), favoring business interests over environmental and consumer interests, preferring that the gov't spend money on stuff like the military than on social welfare, and other stuff like that. Seems very clear to me that Clinton was not pandering to people with those interests, while Trump was (not so much in his marketing, but his platform was clearly extremely pro-establishment).

On foreign policy, she sold herself as an establishment warmonger

I think maybe you're confusing how Republicans were selling her with her own self-presentation? Certainly, she was not pushing for war with Goddamned Russia.

Even if we accept that she was the more anti-estsblishment candidate (which you make a fair case for) that only makes her the "logical" choice if one assumed that she was honestly presenting herself. A tough job for any politician, doubly so for one that:
A) has been in the public eye for as long as she has;
B) has been wracked with as many scandals as she has;
C) makes as little effort to speak to the anti-establishment voter as she did (pretty sure she was insulting and belittling to the voters you claim she was the logical choice for); and
D) shits all over the actual anti-establishment candidate she ran agsinst in the primaries.

Nothing in the platform was far removed from her previously expressed views. She's always been a left-leaning Democrat. Also, none of the scandals have actually held water, have they? It was a political strategy to just throw a bunch of stuff out there that individually didn't hold up in the hopes that voters would think, "well, even if this stuff is all false, where there's smoke, there's fire." And I disagree strongly with C. I again suspect that you've probably know more of her from what her political opponents say than from how her actual campaign was presented. That goes to the media issue I was talking about (though obviously it applies even more so if you're talking about the non-MS M).

She didn't really do much to communicate anything other than a handful of empty slogans and her bitchings about trump.
You can only really claim her to be the logical anti-establishment choice if she had lucidly presented herself as such to her potential voters.

There's something to this (though I wouldn't phrase it that way). I've said before that I think the focus on the ways Trump was uniquely bad (temperament, ethics, intellect, experience) rather than the ways he was typically bad (the pro-establishment stuff that all Republicans these days favor) was a mistake. I get the desire to emphasize that the guy was not a normal candidate. I think both McCain and Romney were decent guys, and smart, capable, and experienced, but they lost because they were rightly seen as promoting policies that previously failed to deliver on promises and appeared to be pursued primarily because they led to upward redistribution of wealth with no real general-good case. Trump was promoting the same types of policies but wasn't the caliber of man of either McCain or Romney. Going forward, I hope the lesson is that the policies are what really matter.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Could that possibly be the case because every week they were trying a new angle/smear/story to destroy the teflon Don?

And failed btw.

The notion that the MSM was trying to "destroy" Trump is unworthy of serious discussion. But it is true that Trump had so many misdeeds coming up that it was impossible for people to focus on any one individually, while Clinton had one pretty irrelevant issue that they were able to focus on.

 

[bobgeese]

The notion that the MSM was trying to "destroy" Trump is unworthy of serious discussion. But it is true that Trump had so many misdeeds coming up that it was impossible for people to focus on any one individually, while Clinton had one pretty irrelevant issue that they were able to focus on.

Frankly, you're uninformed or willfully ignorant. The very first primary debate, the first question was directly meant to sink Trump. And he held down his position.

The amusing thing is how many folks ended up backtracking on that pledge when Trump won.

The fact is, both parties tried to destroy him, that's why he won.

 

[PEB]

 

[Gunny]

As a US manufacturer who backs UHC because it's sound economic policy, I didn't like the way either of them talk about it. Not Harris because she sounds like the typical squish who will fold the second it's politically viable to do so and not Warren because she expresses it in a naggy moralizing tone that unnecessarily alienates people who might otherwise be persuaded to see the light of day.