Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Happy Man]

You’re pushing a ridiculous media CT that Hillary was torpedoed by hostile MSM — like something out of a communist party manifesto, attempting to blame some shitty mass media conspiracy against your Chosen Party Candidate — while simultaneously expressing disbelief that people might think MSM and Trump are generally hostile towards each other, as though the latter is some crazy conspiracy theory only believed by enemies of the People.

And there’s no cognitive dissonance here for you. The former is just objective fact, after all, while the latter is lunatic falsity. Somehow the possibility that you are just a true-believer party hack never enters the equation, because my god, what then, what if god is dead?

He also may be the best troll on sherdog.

So I never take him seriously and have nothing to say to him.

 

[Sketch]

We know you don't like anyone left of center, so no one cares what you think is an embarrassment.

Sorry, your on the side of losers. I'll stick to the winning side.

Have fun in 2020 with zero possible candidates to run that have a chance.

 

[spamking]

I'm not clear on what you're asking.

You posted that you felt her IT security issues were minor . . . and that the MSM was constantly throwing that up in her face or pushing that particular story in a negative manner.

Many felt it wasn't addressed enough or glossed over as some truly minor mistake . . . mishandling of information should never be looked up as minor without an actual investigation by a professional information system security forensics specialist.

I was just asking about that particular issue requiring the appropriate MSM coverage . . .

 

[kpt018]

Sorry, your on the side of losers. I'll stick to the winning side.

Have fun in 2020 with zero possible candidates to run that have a chance.

Probably the dumbest take in the thread. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Sketch]

It's just nuts that anyone believes this. No major-party candidate has been more hated by the MSM than Clinton in my lifetime. Gore's the only one who was close.

Hahahahahah

 

[Sketch]

Probably the dumbest take in the thread. Thanks for sharing.

Bernie the Scam artist
Sleepy creepy Joe
Pocahontas

Good luck.

 

[waiguoren]

the rhetorical and ideological fetishism of "this is what the founders intended" is vapid, lazy, and amateurish imo.

No "fetishism" here, and the beauty is that we don't have to speculate on this point. The framers created the 10th Amendment and left there for all of us to read. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, and if the framers intended the federal government to have the authority to meddle in states' election systems, they could have granted that authority in Article I.

it's never been used remotely consistently or honestly

I think that Clarence Thomas has been pretty consistent---at least much more so than any other modern Supreme Court justice. I think Gorsuch has potential to surpass him. People like Sotomayor pretty obviously tailor their legal reasoning to reach the conclusion they desire. I agree with you that Scalia was not a consistent textualist-originalist. However, Scalia was great at promoting textualist-originalism to the masses through speeches and other events.

neo-federalists beliefs that (a) the founders were brilliant if not omnipotent enough to foresee the incredible technological, economic, and international issues, objects, and entities, and yet were also (b) obtuse and downright stupid enough to doom the country to bloat, failure, and eventually collapse on the basis of rigid faux-ideology.

Will all due respect, I think this is a misrepresentation. A textualist-originalist need not believe that the framers were "brilliant", only that they created a logically consistent Constitution and supporting documents that allow us to understand what the Constitution says and what it does not say.

What is your evidence that the country would be "doomed to failure" in the case that the Constitution were actually followed?

You write of rigidity. The Constitution has a built-in mechanism for change, i.e., the amendment process. Do you believe this process is insufficient to keep the Constitution modern? If so, is your opinion that creative consequentialist jurisprudence is a good remedy?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

just objectively looking at it, it's going to be rough
Kamala can't win
Warren can't win
Biden absolutely can't win
Bernie has a shot, but he also has zero balls and literally doesn't comb his hair
Gabbard's support is strong vocally, but likely not at the ballot
Beto couldn't even win his Congress seat, he's out
Mayor Pete maybe, but he has already has mass scandals on the low

Gavin Newsome should have went for it instead of Cali Governor, that guy could win i'm telling you scandals and all (banged his boy's wife, right?). He might even be able to snag some centrist/right wing votes b/c he was married that Kimberly Gilyfoyle chick from Fox News. He has way more charm and mic presence than anyone on the national scene. Look at every election since at least Reagan: WITHOUT FAIL THE MOST CHARASMATIC PERSON WINS THE PRESIDENCY EVERY TIME. Arguably it's been that way since Nixon/JFK and the first televised debates in 1960, although i'm not so sure about the Opponents of Carter and Ford

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

This is where everyone disagrees with Jack, and he calls them all crazy.

Meh, I agree with you but I’m not going to pile on. The comments are funny tho.

 

[spamking]

Make America Great Again . . . . Again. <Lmaoo>

- the original tweet got deleted

Here is a similar one . . .

 

[Jack V Savage]

You’re pushing a ridiculous media CT that Hillary was torpedoed by hostile MSM — like something out of a communist party manifesto, attempting to blame some shitty mass media conspiracy against your Chosen Party Candidate — while simultaneously expressing disbelief that people might think MSM and Trump are generally hostile towards each other, as though the latter is some crazy conspiracy theory only believed by enemies of the People.

If you think that I'm pushing any CT or any kind of coordination, you're egregiously misunderstanding what I'm saying.

And there’s no cognitive dissonance here for you. The former is just objective fact, after all, while the latter is lunatic falsity. Somehow the possibility that you are just a true-believer party hack never enters the equation, because my god, what then, what if god is dead?

This sounds like projection. Surely the CT/GOP narrative can't be wrong, and anyone who questions it is just a "true-believer party hack," because my God, what then, what if God is dead? At some point, you'll run out of excuses not to think about the narrative you've been fed and be forced to confront reality.

 

[kpt018]

Bernie the Scam artist
Sleepy creepy Joe
Pocahontas

Good luck.

Again, you're a partisan hack that is really into nicknames. There is zero reason anyone should take your posting seriously.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You posted that you felt her IT security issues were minor . . . and that the MSM was constantly throwing that up in her face or pushing that particular story in a negative manner.

Many felt it wasn't addressed enough or glossed over as some truly minor mistake . . . mishandling of information should never be looked up as minor without an actual investigation be a professional information system security forensics specialist.

I was just asking about that particular issue requiring the appropriate MSM coverage . . .

Appropriate coverage is one thing, covering it more than all policy issues combined is another.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Yes, but also in general, the media love candidates who brand themselves as outsiders and hate "insider" candidates. Trump fits that, though his obvious corruption and dishonesty played against it. McCain illustrates the problem with that because he was an extreme insider but effectively branded himself as an outsider and got fawning coverage from the media for most of his career. Obama got great coverage in 2008 but slid over time (as he became less able to brand himself that way).

Maybe. But I think the driving force behind all of it is really the viewers, and the media is just giving them what they think the viewers want. Americans generally have a strong distrust for government, so it would make sense for the media put the spotlight on "outsider" candidates, or stories like Hilary's leaked emails... purely from a ratings standpoint.
Either way someone like Trump is ratings gold from viewers that both oppose and support him, so covering him as much as possible was a no-brainer.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Maybe. But I think the driving force behind all of it is really the viewers, and the media is just giving them what they think the viewers want.

That certainly plays into it, but it's not that simple. Journalists aren't thinking about it in those terms, and for the most part, they genuinely share that distrust you refer to.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's nuts that anybody believes this.

You don't think Hillary got a push from the media.. There were psa ads with famous people begging people to vote for Hillary. CNN was a propaganda MACHINE for her, and the people that make up the network are obviously vast majority establishment dems.

Famous people campaigning isn't what we're talking about (the MSM is). Your claim about CNN is ridiculous, of course.

I honestly can't believe you can post so well, so often, and be that blind or even delusional about something 80% of the country would say is common sense.

About two-thirds of the public thinks that the MSM is biased, and there's probably a pretty even split among those on which way it's biased. The fact that you perceive 80% of America to be strongly accepting of your position here suggests to me that you're getting a very skewed picture of reality from whatever your sources of information are.

It's also apparent from reading what people who believe media CTs think in detail that a lot of them have trouble distinguishing opinion content from reporting.

I'd also ask you what percentage of the population you think would perceive media bias if none existed. Just hypothetically, say there's no bias, how many people would think there is? I'd guess about the same percentage as believe it in the real world.

 

[Sketch]

Again, you're a partisan hack that is really into nicknames. There is zero reason anyone should take your posting seriously.

Don't lose your temper now.

 

[luckyshot]

95% of the people I associate with are liberal professionals, including MSM types. Commonality is hardly the issue... the issue is a seemingly impenetrable inability to engage in—or even vocalize—any critical thought.

It’s not hard of course to learn the inane mantras of political rectitude and intone them, as we build our social order in a harmonious accord. Particularly when you are a professional. But there are people who think this shambling group affirmation is a process of articulating truth. It never fails to astonish me. It’s like I’m sitting in a communist party meeting, and then after we do our chants it turns out that some people actually believe it—it’s not just a ritual. They think that this is how the world actually works. Like when you pray to St. Anthony, they think there is really this guy in a metaphysical reality who is hearing them and listening.

This always fascinates me about human beings ... the desire and ability to believe in the most ridiculous things imaginable. Believing the media wasn’t more hostile towards Trump than Hillary isn’t quite Ancient Aliens territory, but it’s close.

There is a lot wrong with this post.

1. Not all critical thinking is good. Conspiracy theories are critical thinking. We, as a nation, do not so much suffer from lack of critical thought-- in some ways we have way too much of it-- as we suffer from lack of quality of critical thought. Or even the ability to discern that there is such a thing as degree of quality within critical thought.

2. Experts and elites do have a bias: towards expert and elite opinions. That's not a bad thing. Experts and elites are not always right, but they are right far more frequently than Joe Schmo.

3. It was not a bias of the media to say that Hillary had vastly more experience and expertise than Trump. It was a naked statement of fact.

The media was in a classic double bind with Trump-- the "fair" thing to do, from the sense of objective reporting of reality, was to pillory him for his absolute lack of credentials and awareness... but then they would be seen as "unfair," in the sense of treating the candidates equally.

So, what they did to remedy this-- in order to be "fair" in the second sense-- was to focus just as much on Hillary's alleged "corruption" (ie. mishandling e-mails) as they did on Trump's glaring lack of experience and competency & 40+ year verified history of fraud, conmanship, and corruption.

Cliffs: The media did Trump a great service by allowing the narrative to exist that Hillary's flaws as a potential leader were in any was commensurate with his. They did this as a corrective to their own self-perceived "bias."

 

[kpt018]

There is a lot wrong with this post.

1. Not all critical thinking is good. Conspiracy theories are critical thinking. We, as a nation, do not so much suffer from lack of amount of critical thought-- in some ways we have way too much. We suffer from lack of quality of critical thought. Or even the ability to discern that there is such a thing as degree of quality within critical thought.

2. Experts and elites do have a bias: towards expert and elite opinions. That's not a bad thing. Experts and elites are not always right, but they are right far more frequently than Joe Schmo.

3. It was not a bias of the media to say that Hillary had vastly more experience and expertise than Trump. It was a naked statement of fact.

The media was in a classic double bind with Trump-- the "fair" thing to do, from the sense of objective reporting of reality, was to pillory him for his absolute lack of credentials and awareness... but then they would be seen as "unfair," in the sense of treating the candidates equally.

So, what they did to remedy this-- in order to be "fair" in the second sense-- was to focus just as much on Hillary's alleged "corruption" (ie. mishandling e-mails) as they did on Trump's glaring lack of experience and competency & 40+ year verified history of fraud, conmanship, and corruption.

Cliffs: The media did Trump a great service by allowing the narrative to exist that Hillary's flaws as a potential leader were in any was commensurate with his. They did this as a corrective to their own "bias."

Great post (I especially like the distinction you made in #1). I'd like to add to #2 and state that not only are experts right more often than laymen in many fields they simply have knowledge and expertise that is only acquired through the process of becoming an expert. A random off the street has zero percent odds of completing a successful heart transplant, splitting the atom, etc.. With regards to the media - we have a real life experiment to illustrate the differences between quality journalism performed by professionals and professional media outlets and assholes with social media accounts. The media is far from perfect but they are so much better than the fake laymen journalists/pundits.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There is a lot wrong with this post.

1. Not all critical thinking is good. Conspiracy theories are critical thinking. We, as a nation, do not so much suffer from lack of critical thought-- in some ways we have way too much. We suffer from lack of quality of critical thought. Or even the ability to discern that there is such a thing as degree of quality within critical thought.

Cliffs: The media did Trump a great service by allowing the narrative to exist that Hillary's flaws as a potential leader were in any was commensurate with his. They did this as a corrective to their own "bias."

1. I think that when people's models kind of clash, we should be looking to make predictions (including about what we can find by looking at the past) that would diverge. And we should have an idea of what kind of observation would change our minds. But for issues where that's hard, you tend to get the kind of thing that Zank was doing. "Well, I can't prove it, but it's just obvious and you're a partisan if you don't accept my narrative!"

And yes, I think you've listed another major factor.