Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[spamking]

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

Obviously that line is different for each outlet . . . and viewer.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, we all see the same things, we're just honest with ourselves and in our posting about what is obvious and you keep trying to spin things in favor of the DNC establishment.

No dude. I got the information with my eyes. I recognized fox news bias for years, didn't watch because of it, then saw the same thing on CNN. I'm not subscribing to any group notion, or coming up with any "theory." It was obvious, I saw it, and that's it.

In both cases, the whole game wouldn't work if everyone were seeing through it as you guys claim to be able to. I don't think you're appreciating how much your own views contradict themselves. People lament the influence of Fox, for example, because they believe that most Fox News viewers really believe that they're seeing real news--that is, that it's not so obvious to them. If people who watch Fox know that they're watching dishonest distortions of the news, it loses its impact, and it's nothing for anyone to worry about. And I think at most times, that's your take on the real media. It's biased against you, and it's bad because people who watch or read it don't know that. But when it comes time to defend your nutty positions, you have to revert to insisting that it's actually obvious to anyone who isn't a shill or whatever because you can't actually provide any *reason* for believing that what you're saying is true. Your only option is to try to exert social pressure (smear people who are thinking for themselves).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Obviously that line is different for each outlet . . . and viewer.

Not really. Is there any real argument that one candidate having not been careful enough with information security in the past (with no comparison to the practices of the other candidate) is the most impactful issue in a presidential campaign? That seems totally indefensible from an objective perspective.

 

[Zankou]

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



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.

I’ll give you this, you are definitely going against the dominant narrative by trying to argue that Gore and Hillary were both bulleted by an unjust MSM collectivity that favored their opponents. It’s an astounding hypothesis, so bravo in that respect.

And I’m not averse to seeing some sort of analysis that would support the idea that MSM ... contrary to what one might think from reading the papers or watching cable tv ...is pushing for Trump. I’d be intrigued by seeing some empirical support for that. But so far all I’ve see is argumentation that essentially consists of insisting that what appears to be a ceaseless barrage of anti trump articles and broadcasts, as I run on the treadmill and watch CNN at the gym, should actually in some convoluted way be understood as negative to the Dems because the entirety of MSM did not rigorously follow Dem Party preferred dogma in lockstep on every issue.

If you are interested, for example, Pew is one of the less terrible and biased empirical firms on such issues.

https://www.journalism.org/2017/10/02/covering-president-trump-in-a-polarized-media-environment/

As far as alleged mass media favoring of Trump over Hillary, the one study I saw constantly trumpeted on that subject was from Patterson, but its coverage disgracefully failed to mention the crucial points: during the general election, Trump was certainly covered much more negatively than Clinton, even per Patterson. When you include the primaries, both are almost identical, but here’s the kicker... they both sit almost exactly at the statistical norm if you look at negativity coverage over the past elections. The one striking deviation you see is that in the general election media coverage Hillary sticks near the norm, and Trump nose dives relative to his primary coverage.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/?platform=hootsuite

All of which was ignored by the ‘but mah Russians’ crowd, which insisted that mass media had all gotten together and conspired to bullet The Chosen One while exalting Trump for unknown reasons probably relating to their shadowy masters.

 

[oldshadow]

So creepy joe is in the mix now.

This should be fun to see his creepy shit brought out.

 

[andnowweknow]

So creepy joe is in the mix now.

This should be fun to see his creepy shit brought out.

People are saying Donald Trump tried to fuck Ivanka.

 

[TrumpSupporter]

im rooting for uncle joe. seems like a cool guy

 

[oldshadow]

People are saying Trump tried to fuck Ivanka.

It will be fun to see what people say about creepy Joe.

The pictures already are there

 

[Jack V Savage]

I’ll give you this, you are definitely going against the dominant narrative by trying to argue that Gore and Hillary were both bulleted by an unjust MSM collectivity that favored their opponents. It’s an astounding hypothesis, so bravo in that respect.

Not really. I think you're just in a bubble.

And I’m not averse to seeing some sort of analysis that would support the idea that MSM ... contrary to what one might think from reading the papers or watching cable tv ...is pushing for Trump. I’d be intrigued by seeing some empirical support for that. But so far all I’ve see is argumentation that essentially consists of insisting that what appears to be a ceaseless barrage of anti trump articles and broadcasts, as I run on the treadmill and watch CNN at the gym, should actually in some convoluted way be understood as negative to the Dems because the entirety of MSM did not rigorously follow Dem Party preferred dogma in lockstep on every issue.

See, "pushing for Trump" is already a clearly incorrect restatement of the argument. As is your last statement.

If you're interested in actually understanding competing claims and trying to figure which is right, you should stop intentionally misrepresenting one set of them.

All of which was ignored by the ‘but mah Russians’ crowd, which insisted that mass media had all gotten together and conspired to bullet The Chosen One while exalting Trump for unknown reasons probably relating to their shadowy masters.

Again, if this is what you really think the argument is, you're very, very wrong. I don't see how you could think that if you're actually reading, though.

And the Russia story is another good example of horrible news judgment by the MSM. A hostile foreign power illegally steals private communications with the intention of swaying a presidential race, and to the MSM, the big story is ... the gossip they uncovered in that theft. WTF? That incredibly bad judgment was clear in real time, too.

I'll take a look at the links. Ed: Read the last one already. Seems fatal to your CT.

 

[TrumpSupporter]

can we at least have a crazy wagon on hand to take away the indian queen?

 

[TrumpSupporter]

Not really. I think you're just in a bubble.



See, "pushing for Trump" is already a clearly incorrect restatement of the argument. As is your last statement.

If you're interested in actually understanding competing claims and trying to figure which is right, you should stop intentionally misrepresenting one set of them.



Again, if this is what you really think the argument is, you're very, very wrong. I don't see how you could think that if you're actually reading, though.

And the Russia story is another good example of horrible news judgment by the MSM. A hostile foreign power illegally steals private communications with the intention of swaying a presidential race, and to the MSM, the big story is ... the gossip they uncovered in that theft. WTF? That incredibly bad judgment was clear in real time, too.

I'll take a look at the links.

who unbanned you, the mods i contacted told me they cant do that

 

[andnowweknow]

It will be fun to see what people say about creepy Joe.

The pictures already are there

People are saying...that's all I'm saying.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

In both cases, the whole game wouldn't work if everyone were seeing through it as you guys claim to be able to. I don't think you're appreciating how much your own views contradict themselves. People lament the influence of Fox, for example, because they believe that most Fox News viewers really believe that they're seeing real news--that is, that it's not so obvious to them. If people who watch Fox know that they're watching dishonest distortions of the news, it loses its impact, and it's nothing for anyone to worry about. And I think at most times, that's your take on the real media. It's biased against you, and it's bad because people who watch or read it don't know that. But when it comes time to defend your nutty positions, you have to revert to insisting that it's actually obvious to anyone who isn't a shill or whatever because you can't actually provide any *reason* for believing that what you're saying is true. Your only option is to try to exert social pressure (smear people who are thinking for themselves).

No. Thats just more spinning. Propaganda is easy to spot if you're not blinded by one party or one news channel.
Did you watch that CNN piece on Sanders that I posted?

 

[Jack V Savage]

No. Thats just more spinning. Propaganda is easy to spot if you're not blinded by one party or one news channel.
Did you watch that CNN piece on Sanders that I posted?

It doesn't seem like you're addressing the point. The "spinning" allegation is just a way to avoid doing that, isn't it?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It doesn't seem like you're addressing the point. The "spinning" allegation is just a way to avoid doing that, isn't it?

There is no point, you're just deflecting what any nonpartisan hack can see as CT and internal bias.

Comments on the CNN piece?

 

[Jack V Savage]

There is no point, you're just deflecting what any nonpartisan hack can see as CT and internal bias.

Comments on the CNN piece?

OK, so you're not going to respond to what I say with anything but personal attacks. Don't know why you'd expect me to bother with you, then.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

OK, so you're not going to respond to what I say with anything but personal attacks. Don't know why you'd expect me to bother with you, then.

I posted that video in response to a post of yours about an hour ago? You haven't responded. Dodging?

Correction; I posted that video almost 3 hours ago.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

delete

 

[method115]

Frankly, we've never faced a moment quite like this. And while that's technically true about every "moment" we face, there is a sense that this moment is special. The energy that elected Donald Trump - the energy of dissatisfaction and pessimism - is the same energy driving the populism on the left. It's time to break free of the negativity that has engulfed our politics. Bernie Sanders makes good honest criticisms of the power structure and iniquities inherent to the system, but his message lacks the optimism that will lift us free of our inertia.

Yea this guy sounds like a real winner:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...outh-bend-indiana-turnaround-city/3165477002/

 

[Anung Un Rama]

@Jack V Savage you're not going to respond to the CNN video? Very telling.