Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Anung Un Rama]

You're ducking because I made a point (illustrating a fatal flaw at the heart of your thinking), and you responded with nothing but personal attacks and demands that I comment on a stupid video.

"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)."


The only thing you revealed is your own bias and hypocrisy. Your stating that Fox News isn't real news/ media and that the people watching it (Fox is the most watched cable news program in the country for the last 3 years?) must be morons to watch it, but simultaneously arguing that if these same morons can't see through the propaganda then nobody can? I'm not saying it should be obvious to anybody, I'm saying it should be obvious to anybody who isn't a fucking retard. Now, you claim to see bias in Fox News, but seem to be pretending that it doesn't exist in "real media". Your entire post is a tribute to your own hypocrisy. Its like watching a pig roll around in its own filth.

 

[Amerikuracana]

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).

You're just totally wrong, and babbling. You did, however, explain why you're not seeing what's in front of your face. You're fox news fan of 10 years ago who doesn't see the bias because they don't want to. I saw, and see, fox bias when it's there; the same as I see it anywhere else.

I've never seen you this wrong before, actually. But again, you're entitled to your opinion, and have a great day.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I am definitely in the percentage of people who make enough money to ask Sanders how he can continuously use the system to lower his rate while appealing that should not happen.

How can you be in that position and not recognize that a guy who vote against a resolution to lower his tax rate isn't using the system to lower his tax rate?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

How can you be in that position and not recognize that a guy who vote against a resolution to lower his tax rate isn't using the system to lower his tax rate?

He is using the system to lower his tax rate...how he is he not? Even outside the wealth of his book, how did he get his effective rate on a 6 Figure salary down to 13%.

Are you say Bernie doesn't use accountants to get his payable rates lower?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

To be fair the host did say something when they mocked his hair. They weren't ok with the comment and made it known. These are real people on TV they aren't robots they can't control every word that comes out of their guest mouth.

So you feel that the host was without bias toward Sanders and that was a fair segment?
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders - "why are these guys so alike" Erin Burnet

And Burnet didn't show Sanders full answer to that book question. I haven't seen that full video, but I've seen him answer similar questions and he admits that yeah, its great for as Senator who ran for POTUS to have a best selling book, but not everybody is a Senator who ran for POTUS, so because that worked for me doesn't mean capitalism works for everybody.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

He is using the system to lower his tax rate...how he is he not? Even outside the wealth of his book, how did he get his effective rate on a 6 Figure salary down to 13%.

Are you say Bernie doesn't use accountants to get his payable rates lower?

26%

 

[Jack V Savage]

The only thing you revealed is your own bias and hypocrisy. Your stating that Fox News isn't real news/ media and that the people watching it (Fox is the most watched cable news program in the country for the last 3 years?) must be morons to watch it, but simultaneously arguing that if these same morons can't see through the propaganda then nobody can?

First, there's no bias or hypocrisy there (??). Second, I'm stating that it's effective because people believe that it's real. Likewise, I would assume that if you believed that the MSM has a liberal bias, it would only be effective if people aren't aware of that. However, that contradicts your line of argumentation here, which starts and ends with an appeal to the obviousness of your position. So either it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained or defended OR it's not obvious and it does need to be explained or defended if you expect anyone else to agree. Seems to me that you switch between the two whenever it's convenient.

I'm not saying it should be obvious to anybody, I'm saying it should be obvious to anybody who isn't a fucking retard. Now, you claim to see bias in Fox News, but seem to be pretending that it doesn't exist in "real media". Your entire post is a tribute to your own hypocrisy. Its like watching a pig roll around in its own filth.

Well, no. Are you denying that it's possible, even in theory, for one outlet to have a particular bias and for other outlets to not have equivalent biases? Seems that if you accept that it is possible, your charge of hypocrisy is refuted.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

26%

I said beyond the wealth of the book, when he was making 6 figures.... His tax return showed 13.5% (2014). Didn't use an accountant for that?

Also, Cnn has him at 1 on their power rankings. Hardly a consistent agenda against him

 

[Jack V Savage]

So now, my take on the video is that it is not enough by itself to prove anything because it's just one segment on a 24-hour network, but it does *illustrate* the kind of center-right economic leaning of the network.

In general, my view of MSM bias (which doesn't involve dark rooms or plotting) is that they are deeply cynical about politics and dislike insiders/like outsiders (in terms of branding, which doesn't always reflect reality), they share the average leaning of big-city professionals (center right or economics, not religious though not hostile to religion, cosmopolitan), they are very aware of the "liberal media CT" and are extremely deferential to Republicans as a result (working the refs works), and anyone newly generating excitement tends to go through a fluff-->examination-->criticism cycle. On foreign policy, they tend to be deferential to whoever is in power. They're consistently and stupidly anti-deficits at all times (as deficits are seen as objectively bad). They tend to both-sides all controversial issues.

None of that is contradicted by the vid, though, again, one clip isn't sufficient to make any kind of argument and shouldn't move anyone's needle.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I said beyond the wealth of the book, when he was making 6 figures.... His tax return showed 13.5%. Didn't use an accountant for that?

So your argument is that he used an an accountant and is therefore a hypocrite. Gotcha.

Sanders reported an adjusted gross income of nearly $561,293 and paid $145,840, a 26% effective rate, in 2018, the documents show. In 2016 and 2017, Sanders reported earning $1.06 million and $1.13 million in adjusted gross income and paid at a 35% and 30% effective rate, respectively.

The effective rates and income both represent substantial increases from 2014, which was the last year of tax returns publicly released by the candidate, when he earned $205,271 and paid a 13.4% effective rate. Sanders has said in interviews that his recent increase in income is due to the success of his books: 2016's "Our Revolution," which came out after Donald Trump took the presidency and earned a spot on the Times' bestseller list and 2018's "Where We Go from Here: Two Years in the Resistance."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/san...evealing-millionaire-status/story?id=62406147
​

I haven't investigated his deductions, have you?

Also, Cnn has him at 1 on their power rankings. Hardly a consistent agenda against him

Well, they can't exactly ignore the truth completely either.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

So your argument is that he used an an accountant and is therefore a hypocrite. Gotcha.

Sanders reported an adjusted gross income of nearly $561,293 and paid $145,840, a 26% effective rate, in 2018, the documents show. In 2016 and 2017, Sanders reported earning $1.06 million and $1.13 million in adjusted gross income and paid at a 35% and 30% effective rate, respectively.

The effective rates and income both represent substantial increases from 2014, which was the last year of tax returns publicly released by the candidate, when he earned $205,271 and paid a 13.4% effective rate. Sanders has said in interviews that his recent increase in income is due to the success of his books: 2016's "Our Revolution," which came out after Donald Trump took the presidency and earned a spot on the Times' bestseller list and 2018's "Where We Go from Here: Two Years in the Resistance."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/san...evealing-millionaire-status/story?id=62406147
​

I haven't investigated his deductions, have you?

Well, they can't exactly ignore the truth completely either.

Biden is polling higher which would give then ample reason to give him the number one spot.

Hypocrite is a strong word, I would say he uses the system he supposedly wants to get rid of to increase his wealth. He is also stingey with his donations. He's a typical american rich guy.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

First, there's no bias or hypocrisy there (??). Second, I'm stating that it's effective because people believe that it's real.

What do they believe is real? Should they not believe it? Is it not real?

Likewise, I would assume that if you believed that the MSM has a liberal bias, it would only be effective if people aren't aware of that. However, that contradicts your line of argumentation here, which starts and ends with an appeal to the obviousness of your position. So either it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained or defended OR it's not obvious and it does need to be explained or defended if you expect anyone else to agree. Seems to me that you switch between the two whenever it's convenient.

I think Bernie is one of the few true liberals covered by the media and the MSM is against him, so its safe to say that I don't think the MSM has a liberal bias. You keep conflating the DNC with being liberal, so I can see who you might get that idea. The MSM does seem to have a pro-Democrat bias (Fox being the most glaring exception).

Not everybody watches the news as closely as everybody else. How many people still believe Iraq had WMDs?

That was obvious propaganda to me. How about you?

In a Public Mind poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University released Wednesday, more than half of Republicans — 51 percent — and half of those who watch Fox News — 52 percent — say that they believe it to be “definitely true” or “probably true” that American forces found an active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq.​

Thirty-two percent of Democrats, 46 percent of independents, 41 percent of people who reported to watch CNN and 14 percent of MSNBC viewers answered similarly.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016​

Well, no. Are you denying that it's possible, even in theory, for one outlet to have a particular bias and for other outlets to not have equivalent biases? Seems that if you accept that it is possible, your charge of hypocrisy is refuted.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds actually and this weak attempt to deflect from it is sad.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Biden is polling higher which would give then ample reason to give him the number one spot.

Hypocrite is a strong word, I would say he uses the system he supposedly wants to get rid of to increase his wealth. He is also stingey with his donations. He's a typical american rich guy.

72 yo man makes $200K -- typical American rich guy
77 year old man runs on platform that will reduce his take home pay -- typical American rich guy
In 2014, Sanders was worth about $800K, the average net worth for a Senator is $3.2M, Sanders = typical rich American.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

72 yo man makes $200K -- typical American rich guy
77 year old man runs on platform that will reduce his take home pay -- typical American rich guy
In 2014, Sanders was worth about $800K, the average net worth for a Senator is $3.2M, Sanders = typical rich American.

Sanders using accountants to increase net income while not really being near as charitable as his counter parts....typical american rich guy

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Sanders using accountants to increase net income while not really being near as charitable as his counter parts....typical american rich guy

ok buddy

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

ok buddy

Either way you want to view it, it wasn't a set up question by CNN. I'd be happy to watch the rest of the in person interview they posted.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Either way you want to view it, it wasn't a set up question by CNN. I'd be happy to watch the rest of the in person interview they posted.

It wasn't the question, it was the segment. It was a hit piece. Plain as day.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What do they believe is real? Should they not believe it? Is it not real?

Slanted media. I'm saying that it's not effective unless viewers aren't aware that they're seeing slanted media. Surely you agree with that, right?

I think Bernie is one of the few true liberals covered by the media and the MSM is against him, so its safe to say that I don't think the MSM has a liberal bias. You keep conflating the DNC with being liberal, so I can see who you might get that idea. The MSM does seem to have a pro-Democrat bias (Fox being the most glaring exception).

I haven't said anything about the DNC. Are you thinking of someone else? The notion that the media has a pro-Democratic bias is ridiculous. How typical do you think that clip you posted is?

Not everybody watches the news as closely as everybody else. How many people still believe Iraq had WMDs?

OK, so how do people who don't watch as closely as you know that your CT is correct?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds actually and this weak attempt to deflect from it is sad.

What do you think is hypocritical in my position?

 

[HereticBD]

What's your opinion on it? Do you think that a video of a right-leaning host attacking one of the Democratic frontrunners for being liberal proves that CNN has a pro-liberal, pro-Democratic bias?

I believe they have a left leaning bias(and so does anyone with eyes and ears), but these are the Democratic Primaries, and they're going to pick their favorite. Bernie certainly isn't it, and they will bury him the worst, like they did in that segment. Their boy is Biden, whom they're currently fawning over at this very moment. Now, if Bernie happens to win the nomination(not bloody likely), they'll fawn all over him as the hero to take down Trump.

But, uhh, what did you think of the video? It's fairly clear that you're just dodging the question. I'm an outsider to this little spat, and you still deflect. I don't know who you think you're fooling. I don't know what's so hard about admitting that it was a hit piece.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I believe they have a left leaning bias(and so does anyone with eyes and ears), but these are the Democratic Primaries, and they're going to pick their favorite. Bernie certainly isn't it, and they will bury him the worst, like they did in that segment. Their boy is Biden, whom they're currently fawning over at this very moment. Now, if Bernie happens to win the nomination(not bloody likely), they'll fawn all over him as the hero to take down Trump.

But, uhh, what did you think of the video? It's fairly clear that you're just dodging the question. I'm an outsider to this little spat, and you still deflect. I don't know who you think you're fooling.

??? I posted thoughts on the video in 1810, after Anung responded to my points, like I said I would.