utilizing their connections in media to keep him barely mentioned in the mainstream press
Bullshit. Bernie gets covered by the media. The only reason his supporters say this is because nobody who is reading cares. Bernie's message is always the same, and does nothing to excite anyone except progresives. To steal a line from Churba, just because no one reads the story doesn't mean it isn't being covered.
utilizing their connections in media to keep him barely mentioned in the mainstream press
Bullshit. Bernie gets covered by the media. The only reason his supporters say this is because nobody who is reading cares. Bernie's message is always the same, and does nothing to excite anyone except progresives. To steal a line from Churba, just because no one reads the story doesn't mean it isn't being covered. I was going to field that one, but decided against it - it's nearly two in the morning, and now that I'm finished what I needed to do, I probably should be setting course toward bed, not looking up months of media coverage.
I will give Mups one point in his favor, Sanders does get less coverage than, say, Trump or most of the other Major republican candidates. But that's not a surprise, considering Sanders isn't an delusional racist egomaniac, or trying to ape one in a desperate attempt to capture voters, and rarely shoves his foot in his mouth to that degree. Of course, this leaves out the fact that the majority of coverage of those candidates leans negative, not positive, and mostly covers said candidates fucking up and saying/doing incredibly stupid things.
Edit - make that getting toward 2:30, no wonder I feel wrecked and off my game.
I will give Mups one point in his favor, Sanders does get less coverage than, say, Trump or most of the other Major republican candidates. But that's not a surprise, considering Sanders isn't an delusional racist egomaniac, or trying to ape one in a desperate attempt to capture voters, and rarely shoves his foot in his mouth to that degree. Of course, this leaves out the fact that the majority of coverage of those candidates leans negative, not positive, and mostly covers said candidates fucking up and saying/doing incredibly stupid things.
True, but Muppet is saying Sanders gets basically no coverage, which is nonsense. It might not be as much as Muppet and other Sander's fans want, but blame it on the GOP clown car and not some idiot idea of Clinton controlled media.
Churba, the same way that 17,000 employees at my hospital system won't report any of the dozens of abuses or regulatory problems that occur here on a daily basis: they like their jobs. Yes, I've reported tons of shit. No, I hardly ever get any corroboration from jobsworths. It's not like there aren't examples of this everywhere.
On the Time Warner thing, I haven't got my numbers handy. Time Warner covers an awful lot of entities.
For the rest: something JFK said about making peaceful revolution impossible. This country isn't going to get any LESS polarized any time soon.
I know you're talking about me. Meanwhile I don't see a whole lot of citations coming from many others.
I'm not averse to such a rule. I'm just amused that people only tend to call for it when they don't agree with what's being said.
Bernie has been on CNN about 10% as often as Hillary. The debates are almost his only coverage, aside from pundits tearing apart his performance in them.
He's in The Hill a lot, which almost no one reads.
I don't think FOX has mentioned him on television once. Maybe in the back of some website in their network somewhere.
The only candidate covered less than Bernie is Chasse.
ITT: a whole lot of privileged guys arguing that what Bernie is saying about working Americans getting screwed doesn't resonate with voters and media bias isn't an issue. OK.
While they acknowledge some nuance, Time Warner is among Hilary's top 10 donors to the tune of nearly a half million dollars in contributions. And that's what gets reported. While we certainly can't quantify back room deals and so it would all be speculation, it would also be disingenuous to pretend that they don't exist. Hillary's coverage is certainly complimentary compared to Bernie's on Time Warner affiliates, for example.
Do you people not realize you basically sound like Ron Paul supporters?
The stuff he wants which is good is all stuff the president can't do. The stuff he's bad at (foreign policy, trade policy) is all stuff he'd have power over. So yes, please elect Bernie if you want him to crash the worldwide economy again by enacting protectionist policies in the 21st century while he yells at congress to please raise the minimum wage.
Like it or not, Clinton will be able to get things done the way things actually get done in the US government as it stands. Congress holds all the cards, and Congress needs to be manipulated.
Bernie has repeatedly said that if all his supporters do is elect him president then nothing will change. You should probably understand his platform before you mock it.
Bernie has repeatedly said that if all his supporters do is elect him president then nothing will change. You should probably understand his platform before you mock it.
His supporters changing Congress and Clinton getting elected would probably do far more.
My vote goes to whoever wants us to stop killing people and at this point it looks like the best candidate for that is somehow resurrecting Henry Wallace.
Yeah, the really important thing of the upcoming election is to secure the Judicial branch for a 100% lock. Honestly, the best chance the US has right now is a progressive Supreme Court obliterating some of the funding and election-manipulating mechanics holding Congress hostage so that election results snap closer actual demographics. The democrats should have a solid and loyal supermajority going just by population, and if they have it for 4 to 8 years and are released from some of the more obnoxious lobbying pressure/corruption they can prolly introduce energy, health and tax reform just fine.
What your country needs is a return to the New Deal, and it won't get it until the mechanisms assembled by the Right around the legislative branch by corporate mechanisms to neuter it are dismantled from the outside.
huffingtonpost.com/findthebest-/every-2016-candidate-from_b_7562176.html Keep beating that dead horse Muppet. "Hillary Clinton winds up a bit more liberal than average for a Democratic candidate, though Bernie Sanders would be the most left-leaning choice among Democrats. The Green Party's Jill Stein would make for the most liberal president of all."
The truth is as the Democratic party moves So Does Hillary. Not to crazy for her to shift as her base shifts. You don't get elected being out of step with the people electing you. There are differences between being a good activist and a good politician.
Clinton is as good as any republican. The delta is academic.
That is utter bullshit.
I don't agree, but it's fine that you have your own perspective. Here's mine: capitalism is broken. Sanders isn't a socialist but he's a far better one than Hillary is.
Hillary is only "more liberal than the average Dem candidate" if you pick a window of about the past 8-10 years, at most.
Fucking Nixon was more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and he was a crook.
Hillary shifts more left (in word, anyway) every time Bernie gets on the news. The trouble is that it's all lip service.
Much like Obama, Hillary is electioneering and will ultimately maintain the status quo. The Supreme Court boogieman does not impress me nor does it impress a lot of people.
A huge shit storm is coming no matter who gets elected, sadly.
CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB’S FREEDOM PAC V. BENNETT WALMART V. DUKES ASHCROFT V. IQBAL Hobby Lobby. Bush vs Gore. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS V. SEBELIUS
I don't have a lot of faith in Hillary's appointees over any Republican's, is what I'm saying. I think this is the only moderately strong tactic that pro-Hillary propagandists have got over Bernie supporters and it's weak sauce, not least because Hillary isn't the only Dem nominee.
I don't understand why populism scares people on this board or why it's so heavily mocked, but whatever. I doubt many of you have ever been bankrupted by a medical bill.
So your wondering why a bunch of college educated, middle class white guys (generally) are going to feel that the educated and the experts should make the policy instead of the regular folks? :-p
Just look at the right wing Populism that is going on right now. A cess-pool of xenophobia and racism.
Comments
I will give Mups one point in his favor, Sanders does get less coverage than, say, Trump or most of the other Major republican candidates. But that's not a surprise, considering Sanders isn't an delusional racist egomaniac, or trying to ape one in a desperate attempt to capture voters, and rarely shoves his foot in his mouth to that degree. Of course, this leaves out the fact that the majority of coverage of those candidates leans negative, not positive, and mostly covers said candidates fucking up and saying/doing incredibly stupid things.
Edit - make that getting toward 2:30, no wonder I feel wrecked and off my game. Change you can fail sanity rolls against!
On the Time Warner thing, I haven't got my numbers handy. Time Warner covers an awful lot of entities.
For the rest: something JFK said about making peaceful revolution impossible. This country isn't going to get any LESS polarized any time soon.
I'm not averse to such a rule. I'm just amused that people only tend to call for it when they don't agree with what's being said.
Bernie has been on CNN about 10% as often as Hillary. The debates are almost his only coverage, aside from pundits tearing apart his performance in them.
He's in The Hill a lot, which almost no one reads.
I don't think FOX has mentioned him on television once. Maybe in the back of some website in their network somewhere.
The only candidate covered less than Bernie is Chasse.
ITT: a whole lot of privileged guys arguing that what Bernie is saying about working Americans getting screwed doesn't resonate with voters and media bias isn't an issue. OK.
EDIT - from Politifact, which I consider to be a pretty well established source that tends to justify their positions well: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/
While they acknowledge some nuance, Time Warner is among Hilary's top 10 donors to the tune of nearly a half million dollars in contributions. And that's what gets reported. While we certainly can't quantify back room deals and so it would all be speculation, it would also be disingenuous to pretend that they don't exist. Hillary's coverage is certainly complimentary compared to Bernie's on Time Warner affiliates, for example.
I think Sanders is this country's last shot at not imploding.
The stuff he wants which is good is all stuff the president can't do. The stuff he's bad at (foreign policy, trade policy) is all stuff he'd have power over. So yes, please elect Bernie if you want him to crash the worldwide economy again by enacting protectionist policies in the 21st century while he yells at congress to please raise the minimum wage.
What your country needs is a return to the New Deal, and it won't get it until the mechanisms assembled by the Right around the legislative branch by corporate mechanisms to neuter it are dismantled from the outside.
Keep beating that dead horse Muppet.
"Hillary Clinton winds up a bit more liberal than average for a Democratic candidate, though Bernie Sanders would be the most left-leaning choice among Democrats. The Green Party's Jill Stein would make for the most liberal president of all."
fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.
The truth is as the Democratic party moves So Does Hillary. Not to crazy for her to shift as her base shifts. You don't get elected being out of step with the people electing you. There are differences between being a good activist and a good politician.
Hillary is only "more liberal than the average Dem candidate" if you pick a window of about the past 8-10 years, at most.
Fucking Nixon was more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and he was a crook.
Hillary shifts more left (in word, anyway) every time Bernie gets on the news. The trouble is that it's all lip service.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/21/is-hillary-clinton-a-liberal-increasingly-democrats-say-she-is/
Much like Obama, Hillary is electioneering and will ultimately maintain the status quo. The Supreme Court boogieman does not impress me nor does it impress a lot of people.
A huge shit storm is coming no matter who gets elected, sadly.
You're right that she's been shifting left her whole life. Her time with the GOP was interesting for certain.
CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC
ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB’S FREEDOM PAC V. BENNETT
WALMART V. DUKES
ASHCROFT V. IQBAL
Hobby Lobby.
Bush vs Gore.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS V. SEBELIUS
Those are some of 5-4 losses that screwed us.
I don't understand why populism scares people on this board or why it's so heavily mocked, but whatever. I doubt many of you have ever been bankrupted by a medical bill.
Just look at the right wing Populism that is going on right now. A cess-pool of xenophobia and racism.