Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4

[Sano]

lmfao

Jarring AF. A roommate once intentionally woke me up by blasting that shit, I must've shot at least four feet up in the air. Fucking cunt, I wanted to kill him.



It's already started.

Ah, now I think I might know who you are. Naked dudes are definitely a clue.

 

[MVelsor]

Ah, now I think I might know who you are. Naked dudes are definitely a clue.

Heh, not visibly.

The problem is that people create threads about 12-year-old boy bands and ascribe culture. I find that egregiously misrepresentative and will correct it. The best bet would be to not start stupid shit threads.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

What are the trends? What I see is that people get an idea in their head and then add some confirmation bias, and we have a full-blown hysteria.

The latest one:

https://fair.org/home/the-big-loser-in-the-iowa-debate-cnns-reputation/

 

[Jack V Savage]

The latest one:

https://fair.org/home/the-big-loser-in-the-iowa-debate-cnns-reputation/

That's not a trend. It's just one thing. People who support any candidate can find individual examples of things in the media that they believe are unfair to their preferred candidate. If you want to make a case that there's a systematic bias, you need systematic data (and that's just a starting point). What we more often see is people insisting that the bias against their candidate is obvious and then resorting to personal attacks to try to either compel agreement or at least scare non-participants in the discussion away from expressing their own doubts about the truth of the assertions.

I understand that actually building a data-based case that would convince someone who doesn't agree that the assertion is self-evidently true is difficult, but I also haven't seen a plausible logical explanation for why it would be true, which should be much easier.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I understand that actually building a data-based case that would convince someone who doesn't agree that the assertion is self-evidently true is difficult, but I also haven't seen a plausible logical explanation for why it would be true, which should be much easier.

You really can't find a logical explanation? So you don't think class interests exist?

I think it's perfectly clear and logical that yes, class interests do exist, the MSM are largely owned and controlled by mega corporations, so the most progressive presidential candidate in over 100 years isn't going to be their favorite.

No, they're not "out to destroy him," not on "a campaign of hate," or whatever. They just subtly favor candidates that aren't going to challenge their class privilege and wealth as much.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You really can't find a logical explanation? So you don't think class interests exist?

I think it's perfectly clear and logical that yes, class interests do exist, the MSM are largely owned and controlled by mega corporations, so the most progressive presidential candidate in over 100 years isn't going to be their favorite.

No, they're not "out to destroy him," not on "a campaign of hate," or whatever. They just subtly favor candidates that aren't going to challenge their class privilege and wealth as much.

If the claim is just that the MSM generally operates from a different set of assumptions than the left, sure. I agree with that. And a kind of dogmatic bothsidesism is essential to the MSM business model, which effectively biases them toward whoever is more extreme (and thus to the right these days). And they are in business to get eyeballs so outrageousness gets covered. My experience has been that Bernie fans don't just say that media bias incidentally happens to hurt Bernie but that the media is specifically biased against him, with accusations that coverage is deliberately skewed to hurt him also being pretty common.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

If the claim is just that the MSM generally operates from a different set of assumptions than the left, sure. I agree with that. And a kind of dogmatic bothsidesism is essential to the MSM business model, which effectively biases them toward whoever is more extreme (and thus to the right these days). And they are in business to get eyeballs so outrageousness gets covered. My experience has been that Bernie fans don't just say that media bias incidentally happens to hurt Bernie but that the media is specifically biased against him, with accusations that coverage is deliberately skewed to hurt him also being pretty common.

As far as I've been paying attention to presidential elections (probably since 2000), I've always heard candidates' supporters complaining about the MSM being biased against their guy/gal. Kerry, Dubya, McCain, Paul, Obama, Trump, Bernie it doesn't matter.

And they all have bits and pieces of evidence that partly backs up their accusations. However, I think the most compelling argument is looking at which candidate will challenge the MSM's power and privilege the most. And there's a very good argument that Bernie is the one that's the biggest threat to this (regardless of whether he'll actually be able to enact these things).

 

[Jack V Savage]

As far as I've been paying attention to presidential elections (probably since 2000), I've always heard candidates' supporters complaining about the MSM being biased against their guy/gal. Kerry, Dubya, McCain, Paul, Obama, Trump, Bernie it doesn't matter.

And they all have bits and pieces of evidence that partly backs up their accusations. However, I think the most compelling argument is looking at which candidate will challenge the MSM's power and privilege the most. And there's a very good argument that Bernie is the one that's the biggest threat to this (regardless of whether he'll actually be able to enact these things).

I don't think it plausibly works like:

MSM calculate Bernie is the biggest threat to their power and privilege ---> MSM decides to slant coverage against Bernie

If you're saying that Bernie's thinking is most alien, I would likely disagree with that. Probably a sincerely religious candidate would be more alien. And in terms of coverage, a lot of it just comes down to how the candidates relate to the press. McCain and Obama were both very good at being available and nice to reporters and got positive coverage as a result. Hillary was bad at that and got negative coverage as a result. Bernie has been pretty good there, though he's getting worse.

 

[tatanos]

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I don't think it plausibly works like:

MSM calculate Bernie is the biggest threat to their power and privilege ---> MSM decides to slant coverage against Bernie

If you're saying that Bernie's thinking is most alien, I would likely disagree with that. Probably a sincerely religious candidate would be more alien. And in terms of coverage, a lot of it just comes down to how the candidates relate to the press. McCain and Obama were both very good at being available and nice to reporters and got positive coverage as a result. Hillary was bad at that and got negative coverage as a result. Bernie has been pretty good there, though he's getting worse.

Not just the most alien ideas, the ones most challenging to established economic power. A religious fundamentalist candidate would likely leave corporate power alone and focus on social issues.

Obviously we live in a democracy and the MSM consists of thousands of different people so it's not going to be uniform, but it makes complete sense for them to generally react negatively. Bernie has the most radically redistributive proposals-and this time has a real shot at winning- so it'd actually be illogical to treat him like all the others.

 

[Trotsky]

The kids are alright.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

As far as I've been paying attention to presidential elections (probably since 2000), I've always heard candidates' supporters complaining about the MSM being biased against their guy/gal. Kerry, Dubya, McCain, Paul, Obama, Trump, Bernie it doesn't matter.

And they all have bits and pieces of evidence that partly backs up their accusations. However, I think the most compelling argument is looking at which candidate will challenge the MSM's power and privilege the most. And there's a very good argument that Bernie is the one that's the biggest threat to this (regardless of whether he'll actually be able to enact these things).

Manufacturing consent has a data based case to prove the obvious; msm defends their own interests. It’s so compelling the right (or so called “centre”) have resorted to pretending the book doesn’t even exist and recoil at the very mention of it.

You can download it free on PDF drive and I doubt the authors would give a shit.

 

[Trotsky]

In the early 2000s, when the private Venezuelan media was calling for Chavez's assassination, covering him as a Nazi, and covering for a capitalist coup, claims that they were biased against Chavez were absurd because there was no coherent explanation of why an industry owned and staffed by wealthy people would be biased against someone who wants to raise their taxes, diminish their political power, and expropriate their shit.

 

[xcvbn]

 

[Fawlty]

I think Trump has gotten people used to the idea of an overwhelmingly powerful executive branch. News flash, you can't just rub some Bernie on it. Shit will take time. A really long time, probably, since the senate picture gets worse as the small states bully the big ones in that chamber, and the judges are being stacked up against us. We should rub some Bernie on it, but that isn't nearly enough.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

 

[Fawlty]

View attachment 713977

Best results by uploading somewhere like imgur. Sherdog uploads are broken.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Best results by uploading somewhere like imgur. Sherdog uploads are broken.

Hard to tell because the image renders for me and in the text section. I dont get the view attachment link.

 

[Fawlty]

Hard to tell because the image renders for me and in the text section. I dont get the view attachment link.

For us, the first one opens in a new tab (yuck) and is visible, and the second one opens to a permissions error page. Both are micro thumbnails when viewed in the thread.