Jump to content

US Politics: Money, Money, Money Makes the World Go Round


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Bold: what?

What do you call getting in people's faces and sticking their fingers in their faces? This sort of behavior is commonly referred to as threatening.

 

An exaggeration?  Hard to believe there isn't footage of this, even if it's just a phone shot if it was so aggressive and terrible.  Instead you have two anonymous sources.  They can't misquote him so they dramatize the action. 

None of this is threatening the press.

Re: bolded, it's a critique of begging the question and asking leading questions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But it is also not a generalized attack at the press as a concept like Trump.  It seems to be a specific targeted complaint at a single organization that Sen. Sanders believes is treating him unfairly. 

This behavior is not ok. It's especially not ok from a presidential candidate. The impeachment hearing used this against Trump: when the president (or arguably a candidate or anyone powerful) says certain things, it's perceived differently. The Trump set tried to say that what Trump said to Ukraine's pres about a favor was just that but Ds argued that when it's from someone that powerful, the circumstances are different. Same applies to presidential candidates to a lesser degree.

Trump doesn't have a problem with the press as a concept. He was just tweeting support for a free Iranian press. His view of the press, like all things apparently, is transactional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

This behavior is not ok. It's especially not ok from a presidential candidate. The impeachment hearing used this against Trump: when the president (or arguably a candidate or anyone powerful) says certain things, it's perceived differently. The Trump set tried to say that what Trump said to Ukraine's pres about a favor was just that but Ds argued that when it's from someone that powerful, the circumstances are different. Same applies to presidential candidates to a lesser degree.

Trump doesn't have a problem with the press as a concept. He was just tweeting support for a free Iranian press. His view of the press, like all things apparently, is transactional.

page six is owned and operated by the New York Post and is self-described as "grad school for celebrity gossip".  That this is the publication that the MSNBC sources decided to leak this to isn't exactly giving credence to the idea that Sanders is threatening the press.  

The fact that you're bringing in the Trump-Ukraine stuff is also telling 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget about Barack Obama's war on the media. Basically identical to Trump's!*

Quote

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

*as long as you choose to completely not care about assessing the accuracy of their respective complaints

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larrytheimp said:

An exaggeration?  Hard to believe there isn't footage of this, even if it's just a phone shot if it was so aggressive and terrible.  Instead you have two anonymous sources.  They can't misquote him so they dramatize the action. 

None of this is threatening the press.

Re: bolded, it's a critique of begging the question and asking leading questions 

Did you seriously just fake news this?

This behavior would get most people fired. Sometimes the cops get called. A kid would/should get suspended. He's a candidate for president. Act like it. It's not suddenly excusable if someone you like better than Trump does it.

You're validating my concerns about promoting someone with a base who won't hold their candidate to decency standards.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/ive-reported-bernie-sanders-years-free-press-cant-give-him-what-he-wants/

Quote

But Sanders’s remedy for what ails the media — uncritical, stenographic coverage of his agenda — betrays a misunderstanding of the role of a free press. And his dismissal of legitimate journalism not to his liking as “political gossip” bears a troubling resemblance to what another politician refers to as “fake news.”

...

Though Sanders understands the problem, his solutions leave something to be desired. The way the senator sees it, the job of a journalist is merely to transcribe his diatribes unchallenged and broadcast his sermons unfiltered.

“He would not be happy with anything that did not basically publish his press release in its entirety — word for word, quote for quote,” said Graff, who spent nearly three decades reporting in Vermont for the AP.

Back when Sanders held regular news conferences in Vermont — it’s been a few years — he typically refused to answer questions unrelated to his chosen topic of the day. That’s problematic for local reporters, who rarely have the opportunity to quiz the members of Congress they cover without spokespeople running interference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

page six is owned and operated by the New York Post and is self-described as "grad school for celebrity gossip".  That this is the publication that the MSNBC sources decided to leak this to isn't exactly giving credence to the idea that Sanders is threatening the press.  

The fact that you're bringing in the Trump-Ukraine stuff is also telling 

That's an ad hominem and sounds a lot like fake news. I don't have any respect for the Post, but not every single thing they print is wrong. And MSNBC was kinda there as first-hand witnesses. I look forward to Sanders' denial of the claim if he didn't really do it.

You're really sounding like a Trump supporter now.

It's telling of a double-standard where people in power that I don't like can't bully but people I do like can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

That's an ad hominem and sounds a lot like fake news. I don't have any respect for the Post, but not every single thing they print is wrong. And MSNBC was kinda there as first-hand witnesses. I look forward to Sanders' denial of the claim if he didn't really do it.

You're really sounding like a Trump supporter now.

Lol now because of fake news we can't criticize any media or reporting.  And where's the ad hominem?

Not seeing this covered in MSNBC, which certainly hasn't shied from taking shots ant Sanders when possible.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy fuck the gymnastics it takes to make Bernie complaining directly to MSNBC executives equivalent at all to Trump's insidious "fake news" campaign, Twitter campaigns against any journalist that crosses him, and constant "enemy of the people" rhetoric. I'm no fan of Bernie's behavior but this is deranged bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

Holy fuck the gymnastics it takes to make Bernie complaining directly to MSNBC executives equivalent at all to Trump's insidious "fake news" campaign, Twitter campaigns against any journalist that crosses him, and constant "enemy of the people" rhetoric. I'm no fan of Bernie's behavior but this is deranged bullshit.

Agreed wholeheartedly. This sounds like the biggest nothing story ever. Good to know Sanders' nomination is bringing the party together like I was repeatedly shouted at.

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

He looked like he wanted to line Chris Matthews up in front of a firing squad.  

Don't we all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so first Sanders wasn't electable because he only appealed to far-left crazies and toxic Bernie-bros. Then, when he makes massive inroads with nearly all demographic groups, he suddenly becomes unelectable because...he was upset at MSNBC's absolutely outrageous coverage of his campaign (brownshirts, just like Stalin, etc.)? So now that makes him just like Trump apparently? Some people around here need to get a grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens when Bernie loses in the general?  By a electoral college loss like HRC in '16?  What happens to his movement then?  All of the grand promises and pie in the sky change?  There will be more irrevocable damage to what he claims to want to do that the needed change will take at least another generation to get back to.  Bernie Sanders might be the leader of said movement, but he isn't the right President to see the start of enacting it.  He should be backing Warren, but instead his own hubris is going to cause things to end badly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

So what happens when Bernie loses in the general?  By a electoral college loss like HRC in '16?  What happens to his movement then?  All of the grand promises and pie in the sky change?  There will be more irrevocable damage to what he claims to want to do that the needed change will take at least another generation to get back to.  Bernie Sanders might be the leader of said movement, but he isn't the right President to see the start of enacting it.  He should be backing Warren, but instead his own hubris is going to cause things to end badly...

Yeah guess it's over I guess I'll just vote for Trump instead.  

At* evidence that Warren or anyone else is more likely to beat Trump?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I’m obviously not as far along as DMC in my stages of grief.

If you want I can PM you the number to my therapist.  It's this guy:

 

I feel kinda obligated to defend Mathews a bit, met and conversed with him at least a dozen times back in the mid-00s when he frequented a bar a friend of mine worked at (and thus I frequented as well for a time).  Always an incredibly nice, accessible, even sweet guy, nothing like his media persona.  Anyway, obviously his Nazi comparison last night was incredibly stupid and insensitive, but I don't think he meant any malicious intent by it, or even was actually comparing Bernie/Bernie supporters to Nazis in any substantive way.  He pretty clearly is just currently reading a book and the fact that Bernie has so quickly and (to Mathews) surprisingly already almost wrapped up the nomination reminded him of how surprised everyone was when the blitz took over France.  Again, should've never made that comparison, but it's just one of a host of really stupid things he's said over the past twenty years, which tends to happen when you're on TV multiple hours a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Lol now because of fake news we can't criticize any media or reporting.  And where's the ad hominem?

Not seeing this covered in MSNBC, which certainly hasn't shied from taking shots ant Sanders when possible.  

 

You can credibly criticize it. You can't dismiss it just 'cause. Ad hominem was against the NY Post for the reasons I stated above. Being in the Post is grounds for being skeptical and making extra sure their sources are solid. Like I said, it was MSNBC's debate and they witnessed it first-hand.

So...if it's not covered by MSNBC it must necessarily not be true? If you think MSNBC is taking shots at Sanders just wait until you see what the Republicans reveal. The silence surrounding Bernie, even from MSNBC, is stunning. Research his past and notice not even MSNBC is covering it. But the Republicans surely will.

https://www.axios.com/centrist-democrat-bernie-trump-wins-2020-76900aca-ca3c-42a6-a7db-983d1dded0e2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Yeah guess it's over I guess I'll just vote for Trump instead.  

At evidence that Warren or anyone else is more likely to beat Trump?  

 

Theres a lot of data out there indicating that depending on what you think the election will be like. If you think itll be like 2018, for instance, where suburban women are key, then buttigieg and biden are far better. 

But the question isn't asking why vote for Sanders. It is asking what happens when he loses. A core understanding from 2016 was that women cant win, and that has affected candidates this time. If the understanding after Sanders loses is that progressives cant win , what does that mean for the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Theres a lot of data out there indicating that depending on what you think the election will be like. If you think itll be like 2018, for instance, where suburban women are key, then buttigieg and biden are far better. 

But the question isn't asking why vote for Sanders. It is asking what happens when he loses. A core understanding from 2016 was that women cant win, and that has affected candidates this time. If the understanding after Sanders loses is that progressives cant win , what does that mean for the future?

Mass suicide duh

Eta:

Actual response- keep advocating and pursuing goals?  Same as anytime you lose an election.  Lost the primary in 2016?  Won it in 2020.  Keep on promoting leftist candidates especially in safe blue districts with moderate reps.  

Also, with people under 50 Sanders is very popular.  Difficult to believe all those people will abandon their views because they don't win right now.  

What did Al Gore's loss mean for Dems in 2000?  The end of the world?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

So what happens when Bernie loses in the general?  By a electoral college loss like HRC in '16?  What happens to his movement then?  All of the grand promises and pie in the sky change?  There will be more irrevocable damage to what he claims to want to do that the needed change will take at least another generation to get back to.  Bernie Sanders might be the leader of said movement, but he isn't the right President to see the start of enacting it.  He should be backing Warren, but instead his own hubris is going to cause things to end badly...

It's a movement for progressive legislation and progressive representatives.  It's not about Sanders alone.  Bernie himself will probably do exactly what he promised to regarding mass pressure of politicians to enact M4A and Green New Deal and getting oligarch and corporate money out of politics.  He wouldn't have the bully pulpit of being president, but this is genuinely a movement.  If you think its done if he loses, you just don't understand the times at all.

Women's Suffrage got it in 7 years via mass movement.  Civil Rights Act, mass movement.  Abolition of slavery, mass movement.  Through all those times there were "moderates" who said it couldn't be done.

There's zero percent chance the movement goes away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...