CNN Resorts to Internet Censorship to Promote Hilary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders
114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48930576]Nice generalization.
Did you even watch the debate? He did very well.[/QUOTE]
Not really.
literally the only people I've been seeing swearing he did well were already in on the berniejerk and and assume anything he said is the world of god.
He flopped on all topics he couldn't fall back to "the 1% are a bade". Everyone already knows that's how he feel, he did an absolutely shit job of distinguishing himself on other issues, he either fell back to the usual for him or refused to have an opinion at all.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;48930814]Not really.
literally the only people I've been seeing swearing he did well were already in on the berniejerk and and assume anything he said is the world of god.
He flopped on all topics he couldn't fall back to "the 1% are a bade". Everyone already knows that's how he feel, he did an absolutely shit job of distinguishing himself on other issues, he either fell back to the usual for him or refused to have an opinion at all.[/QUOTE]
What?
Are you sure you tuned into the bernie/hillary/whatever debate, and not an episode of dora the explorer?
He wasnt overtly agressive about what he said, but he did not do an absolutely shit job.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;48930814]Not really.
literally the only people I've been seeing swearing he did well were already in on the berniejerk and and assume anything he said is the world of god.
He flopped on all topics he couldn't fall back to "the 1% are a bade". Everyone already knows that's how he feel, he did an absolutely shit job of distinguishing himself on other issues, he either fell back to the usual for him or refused to have an opinion at all.[/QUOTE]
Coming from you, dismissing Bernie as off handledly as you do, that's not surprising.
He did quite well.
you can assert over and over again that he didn't, but he did better than people like you give him credit for. I think people like you, just turn off your brain when listening to him so you can hear what you want to hear. Hate who you want to hate.
[editline]18th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;48930826]What?
Are you sure you tuned into the bernie/hillary/whatever debate, and not an episode of dora the explorer?[/QUOTE]
Don't bother arguing with him.
He's already defined anyone and everyone who ever says a word about bernie as a mindless robot, so he's just here to talk shit, not listen or talk. Just here to claim he knows best.
I'm not saying money doesn't play a roll in politics ... im just saying there are reasons that CNN pulled the poll that arent part of a media conspiracy to say Hillary rocks and Sanders sucks.
Why would they report this: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-even-new-hampshire/index.html[/url]
or this [url]http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/news/companies/sanders-drug-ceo-shkreli-donation/[/url]
or this [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/opinions/hewitt-hillary-clinton-emails-debate/[/url]
or like a billion other news things. I think money does play a roll in politics - CNN aint a big fan of anyone on the Republican stage. But there isnt a media conspiracy against Bernie in CNN - at least I havent seen much ev for it.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48930847]I'm not saying money doesn't play a roll in politics ... im just saying there are reasons that CNN pulled the poll that arent part of a media conspiracy to say Hillary rocks and Sanders sucks.
Why would they report this: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-even-new-hampshire/index.html[/url]
or this [url]http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/news/companies/sanders-drug-ceo-shkreli-donation/[/url]
or this [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/opinions/hewitt-hillary-clinton-emails-debate/[/url]
or like a billion other news things. I think money does play a roll in politics - CNN aint a big fan of anyone on the Republican stage. But there isnt a media conspiracy against Bernie in CNN - at least I havent seen much ev for it.[/QUOTE]
They're not exactly [I]against[/I] Sanders, they just have a much bigger incentive to support Hillary to hell, to the extent that it drowns out whatever other information they give out.
And the talk about emails is specifically to get more views, since they know a lot of people are irrationally concerned with it, so they publish a lot on the subject to maximize web traffic.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48930847]I'm not saying money doesn't play a roll in politics ... im just saying there are reasons that CNN pulled the poll that arent part of a media conspiracy to say Hillary rocks and Sanders sucks.
Why would they report this: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-even-new-hampshire/index.html[/url]
or this [url]http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/news/companies/sanders-drug-ceo-shkreli-donation/[/url]
or this [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/opinions/hewitt-hillary-clinton-emails-debate/[/url]
or like a billion other news things. I think money does play a roll in politics - CNN aint a big fan of anyone on the Republican stage. But there isnt a media conspiracy against Bernie in CNN - at least I havent seen much ev for it.[/QUOTE]
They've played preferential treatment up this whole time towards her. They don't bring up Bernie or things he's done without it being motivated by public awareness.
Where as they'll post routine things about Clinton to keep awareness up about her.
Look, theres an incredibly strong incentive for these news Media Outlets to make the democratic debate look more competative than it actually is - so people tune in and such.
Id love Bernie to win, but check basically anything from fivethirtyeight.com and you'd see that its a pretty huge long-shot and that Hillary is the hands-down favorite to win the nomination.
I guess I just never saw the media narrative yall are saying was there. Maybe I missed it.
Didn't they also publish the results to that poll, but swapped Hillary's and Bernie's percentages? Or am I wrong
I specifically remember seeing it on the site a few days ago.
[QUOTE=Jacen;48930946]Didn't they also publish the results to that poll, but swapped Hillary's and Bernie's percentages? Or am I wrong[/QUOTE]
They just deleted it.
So the real question is, who the fuck we going to support next? Everyone else is total shit (with the exception of third party candidates).
[QUOTE=codemaster85;48930696]Except theres proof that both clintons have gotten tons of "donations" from CNN. But lets ignore that because we cant have a commie socialist in the white house "more like black house am i right?".[/QUOTE]
You mean the Trump tower at DC?
[QUOTE=Flameon;48930847]I'm not saying money doesn't play a roll in politics ... im just saying there are reasons that CNN pulled the poll that arent part of a media conspiracy to say Hillary rocks and Sanders sucks.
Why would they report this: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-even-new-hampshire/index.html[/url]
or this [url]http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/news/companies/sanders-drug-ceo-shkreli-donation/[/url]
or this [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/opinions/hewitt-hillary-clinton-emails-debate/[/url]
or like a billion other news things. I think money does play a roll in politics - CNN aint a big fan of anyone on the Republican stage. But there isnt a media conspiracy against Bernie in CNN - at least I havent seen much ev for it.[/QUOTE]
We've been having articles about Sanders getting significantly less media coverage for months now.
The most basic reason being that he's essentially not really part of any party and the established systems don't know how to deal with that.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
His policies are paid for threw "new taxes"(effectively taxing stuff that is being taxed correctly). If you only listen to what he has to say.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;48930814]Not really.
literally the only people I've been seeing swearing he did well were already in on the berniejerk and and assume anything he said is the world of god.
He flopped on all topics he couldn't fall back to "the 1% are a bade". Everyone already knows that's how he feel, he did an absolutely shit job of distinguishing himself on other issues, he either fell back to the usual for him or refused to have an opinion at all.[/QUOTE]
This is a beyond-pathetic analysis.
Sanders won. By virtue of popular opinion of those who tuned in and watched the debate, he was victorious over all the other candidates-- including Clinton, who was the one offering the pisspoor rehearsed answers that have not done anything to improve her standing across multiple Democratic polls. "Well I'm not part of a political dynasty, I'd be the first woman president if you elected me." Shit, when she was trying to wrangle questions about her emails scandal that's being investigated, she was failing hard, that is until Sanders stepped in and took her side on it.
The reason she lost, and she did lose according to again public opinion and the polling results, is because she's another cookiecutter politician, and everyone knows it. She's tame and speaks in rehearsed sentences the way all politicians in this day do, using the same old phrases and words that produce a startling lack of individuality amongst them, and she only came across as angry when she tried stealing the limelight from the others (ie. Sanders on firearms)-- not as passionate. Her rhetoric strategy backfired big time. Sanders meanwhile has a tremendous amount of demonstrable strength and passion that he was able to channel throughout the debate, and it's these things that make him stand out from the others and make people love him as much as they do (and tons of people do).
Journalism and convenional media in this country are yellow, and they have been for a very long time now. CNN's backtracking on this is just yet another example of how our news media is incredibly unreliable, biased, and manipulative; not to mention incompetent, but that has been known for many years now since news here in the United States became less and less about facts and more and more about attention-grabbing, viewer-enticing sensationalism and wild speculation that makes them a boatload of money.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48931016]Bernie sanders isnt shit, hes fucking Jesus' jewish stepbrother.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't Jesus Jewish too though?
Imo Sanders sucked on anything he couldn't refer back to Wallstreet or the "1%" on. He had an absolute absence of any foreign policy; and didn't even seem like he was paying attention during the bit. "Oh uh uh WELL I THINK PUTIN WILL REGRET IT" and "uhhh GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST SECURITY THREAT TO THE USA!!!". I want to really like Bernie and I do in his other areas like economic policies, civil rights, etc etc but the man is VERY weak in other areas like foreign policy which matter a whole fuckin lot.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48931070]We've been having articles about Sanders getting significantly less media coverage for months now.
The most basic reason being that he's essentially not really part of any party and the established systems don't know how to deal with that.[/QUOTE]
Exactly this.
Also, it's all a game. Sanders isn't a part of it the way the majority of politicians (like Clinton) are. I mean, the news loves a good story about a person like Sanders who stimulates intense emotion and energy in crowds, and who is challenging the status quo. On the other hand, they also like conventional politicians and fueling political dynasties. This isn't anything new; William Randolph Hearst basically did as much for Franklin Roosevelt the first time he was elected, Pulitzer attempted to attack Theodore Roosevelt for the Panama Canal, etc.
Again, we're still suffering from yellow journalism; they've just learned how to be subtle about it and tone it down enough to where it isn't as blatantly outrageous as it used to be.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48931126]Imo Sanders sucked on anything he couldn't refer back to Wallstreet or the "1%" on. He had an absolute absence of any foreign policy; and didn't even seem like he was paying attention during the bit. "Oh uh uh WELL I THINK PUTIN WILL REGRET IT" and "uhhh GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST SECURITY THREAT TO THE USA!!!". I want to really like Bernie and I do in his other areas like economic policies, civil rights, etc etc but the man is VERY weak in other areas like foreign policy which matter a whole fuckin lot.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Sanders can only repeat a handful of talking points about Wall Street and wealth distribution. If you catch him out of his element, he is utterly clueless. The man fumbled hard on something as fundamental as "How are you going to pay for your programs?" during his internview with Bill Maher, which any politician playing a big game like him should know like the back of his hand. His foreign policy, which is one of the most important things a president can set, is non-existant. The fact that he stumbles on softball and fundamental questions like "What is your foreign policy?" tells me he is not presidental material. He feels like he's too focused on pandering to the 20-somethings and teenagers that support his campaign to actually make a policy besides "wealth inequality and Wall Street bad. The end".
If you were into Sanders' talking points before he even started his campaign (See: Facepunch, Reddit); he's a goddamn savior, but if you weren't, you're not going to be convinced because all he can do is repeat the same points to preach to the choir.
[QUOTE=Ziron;48931222]Exactly. Sanders can only repeat a handful of talking points about Wall Street and wealth distribution. If you catch him out of his element, he is utterly clueless. The man fumbled hard on something as fundamental as "How are you going to pay for your programs?" during his internview with Bill Maher, which any politician playing a big game like him should know like the back of his hand. His foreign policy, which is one of the most important things a president can set, is non-existant. The fact that he stumbles on softball and fundamental questions like "What is your foreign policy?" tells me he is not presidental material. He feels like he's too focused on pandering to the 20-somethings and teenagers that support his campaign to actually make a policy besides "wealth inequality and Wall Street bad. The end".
If you were into Sanders' talking points before he even started his campaign (See: Facepunch, Reddit); he's a goddamn savior, but if you weren't, you're not going to be convinced because all he can do is repeat the same points to preach to the choir.[/QUOTE]
Please. If you wanna talk about repeating the same old bullshit rhetoric then look at Hillary and the GOP. He's made his plans for funding explicitly clear.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;48931392]Please. If you wanna talk about repeating the same old bullshit rhetoric then look at Hillary and the GOP. He's made his plans for funding explicitly clear.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point; Sanders can only repeat his own talking points. Yes, they're diffrent from what's being offered by other candiates, but that doesn't matter if he's just cycling though "Wall Street bad" and "Wealth inequality big" over and over. The debate made Sanders look utterly clueless if an issue wasn't directly related to his two pet causes. People not already slobbering his knob are going to tune out when they see he's just a one-trick pony in both economic policy and ways to implement his policies.
It doesn't matter if he's got a fancy-ass explanation for how he's going to pay for his programs on his website; the fact that he was completely caught off-guard and fumbled bigtime when asked to explain it to a sympathetic audience is quite damning.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;48931392]Please. If you wanna talk about repeating the same old bullshit rhetoric then look at Hillary and the GOP. He's made his plans for funding explicitly clear.[/QUOTE]
Did you hear differently about his foreign policy then I did? Let's be honest here, there's not many good democratic candidates. Bernie is very appealing to the younger crowd because of his fight for income equality, wealth distribution, taxes, education, healthcare, social policies which is all well and good and I totally support...but people are totally ignoring the other side of the Presidency. He's too focused on domestic issues and does not seem like he would be a strong world leader especially with America being one of (if not THE) most influential and powerful country in the world.
[QUOTE=Ziron;48931471]You're missing the point; Sanders can only repeat his own talking points. Yes, they're diffrent from what's being offered by other candiates, but that doesn't matter if he's just cycling though "Wall Street bad" and "Wealth inequality big" over and over. The debate made Sanders look utterly clueless if an issue wasn't directly related to his two pet causes. People not already slobbering his knob are going to tune out when they see he's just a one-trick pony in both economic policy and ways to implement his policies.
It doesn't matter if he's got a fancy-ass explanation for how he's going to pay for his programs on his website; the fact that he was completely caught off-guard and fumbled bigtime when asked to explain it to a sympathetic audience is quite damning.[/QUOTE]
How in the fuck are you going to explain your whole entire economic plan to the average citizen without completely confusing from the word go. Theres like 40% of americans that still think the electoral college system is some school, let alone anything about social programs and government budgets. Thats pretty fucking hard or impossible to go into detail at all.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
Do you even economics?
[editline]18th October 2015[/editline]
I love it when people throw around words like national debt without any understanding of how government spending impacts the economy. It's all pretty basic, when the government pumps money into the economy the main plan is to cause a multiplier effect. E.g they put in a billion dollars which causes a growth of 2 billion dollars. Pretty oversimplified, rarely that functional but not a hard concept to grasp.
[QUOTE=Ziron;48931471]You're missing the point; Sanders can only repeat his own talking points. Yes, they're diffrent from what's being offered by other candiates, but that doesn't matter if he's just cycling though "Wall Street bad" and "Wealth inequality big" over and over. The debate made Sanders look utterly clueless if an issue wasn't directly related to his two pet causes. People not already slobbering his knob are going to tune out when they see he's just a one-trick pony in both economic policy and ways to implement his policies.
It doesn't matter if he's got a fancy-ass explanation for how he's going to pay for his programs on his website; the fact that he was completely caught off-guard and fumbled bigtime when asked to explain it to a sympathetic audience is quite damning.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to admit that he did fumble his foreign policy answer, but I don't know if you noticed, but those two problems are the root cause of the economic shithole we've been in. No other candidate wants to say it because they're afraid of being called a socialist. It's easy to call him a one-trick pony when he's repeating the same stuff, sure. But those problems have gotten this country into some deep shit, and Sanders wants to drive it home as much as possible to get to the people. You wonder why he chose to boil down everything to wealth inequality? Because that is the problem that is affecting the majority of the American people and the root of every other socioeconomic problem. It's not that he can't say anything else, it's because there isn't anything else to say.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48931525]Do you even economics?[/QUOTE]
His entire policy is based on increasing on increasing taxes to pay for programs. If Congress tells him to shove his increases up his ass (which they likely will do), then Bernie is up shit creek without a paddle.
And that's even considering if Bernie managed to pass his wage increase, which would cut a lot of jobs and cause the existing tax base to plummet.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;48931496]How in the fuck are you going to explain your whole entire economic plan to the average citizen without completely confusing from the word go. Theres like 40% of americans that still think the electoral college system is some school, let alone anything about social programs and government budgets. Thats pretty fucking hard or impossible to go into detail at all.[/QUOTE]
This. Excellent post.
Sanders understands how people think and knows how to handle them. Your average voter isn't interested in facts and statistics; they're convinced more by rhetoric skills and appearance. Having said that, it's a matter of "know your audience". This is a debate, not a lecture. Its purpose is not to inform people on excruciatingly precise details, it's to give them a general presentation and idea of who you are and what your running platform is.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;48931547]I'm going to admit that he did fumble his foreign policy answer, but I don't know if you noticed, but those two problems are the root cause of the economic shithole we've been in. No other candidate wants to say it because they're afraid of being called a socialist. It's easy to call him a one-trick pony when he's repeating the same stuff, sure. But those problems have gotten this country into some deep shit, and Sanders wants to drive it home as much as possible to get to the people. You wonder why he chose to boil down everything to wealth inequality? Because that is the problem that is affecting the majority of the American people and the root of every other socioeconomic problem. It's not that he can't say anything else, it's because there isn't anything else to say.[/QUOTE]
It's easy to say that because you fully agree with his points. Some people may disagree with his fundamental points or believe that he's over-exaggerating, and that's his weak point; he can't convince people that aren't already fully in his camp or very sympathetic to his points. If you can't reach out, then you're not really presidential material, because you need a good coalition with a lot of voting power in order to get elected in the first place. Republicans have free-marketeers and the Christian right, which have a lot more voting power than 20-somethings circlejerking online and has-been unions.
[quote]How in the fuck are you going to explain your whole entire economic plan to the average citizen without completely confusing from the word go. Theres like 40% of americans that still think the electoral college system is some school, let alone anything about social programs and government budgets. Thats pretty fucking hard or impossible to go into detail at all.[/quote]
You should still be able to say SOMETHING instead of acting like someone caught you with your pants down. Use lots of weasel words, greatly simplify it, whatever; but you NEED to say something.
[QUOTE=Ziron;48931586]His entire policy is based on increasing on increasing taxes to pay for programs. If Congress tells him to shove his increases up his ass (which they likely will do), then Bernie is up shit creek without a paddle.
And that's even considering if Bernie managed to pass his wage increase, which would cut a lot of jobs and cause the existing tax base to plummet.[/QUOTE]
He's got an army of die-hard supporters the likes of which hasn't been seen in American politics here recently except for perhaps when Obama ran the first time around. He's hardly "up shit creek without a paddle" if Congress says no; if he mobilizes his supporters to protest and fight, which is what needs to happen (and which is what Obama should have done back when he was the new "in" politician), we could easily achieve change. It's hard for government officals and public servants to ignore a horde of organized, reform-zealous citizens who are frustrated with how dysfunctional our country is and might do anything to voice that frustration from march on Washington to harrass naysayers in Congress and their families privately.
There's plenty of options here other than them just saying "no" and that being the end of Sanders' plans. Mass mobilization is a powerful force for change, and that's exactly what's being achieved here by his campaign. All he would need to do as president is keep it going and apply it against opponents. Intimidation works and would be wonderful in this situation, especially because it'd be over something as simple as getting our congressmen to do their jobs and look out for us-- the people-- instead of sit around and stonewall any attempts to instigate change, which is what the Republicans have been doing for years now against Obama.
[QUOTE=Govna;48931743]He's got an army of die-hard supporters the likes of which hasn't been seen in American politics here recently except for perhaps when Obama ran the first time around. He's hardly "up shit creek without a paddle" if Congress says no; if he mobilizes his supporters to protest and fight, which is what needs to happen (and which is what Obama should have done back when he was the new "in" politician), we could easily achieve change. It's hard for government officals and public servants to ignore a horde of organized, reform-zealous citizens who are frustrated with how dysfunctional our country is and might do anything to voice that frustration from march on Washington to harrass naysayers in Congress and their families privately.
There's plenty of options here other than them just saying "no" and that being the end of Sanders' plans. Mass mobilization is a powerful force for change, and that's exactly what's being achieved here by his campaign. All he would need to do as president is keep it going and apply it against opponents. Intimidation works and would be wonderful in this situation, especially because it'd be over something as simple as getting our congressmen to do their jobs and look out for us-- the people-- instead of sit around and stonewall any attempts to instigate change, which is what the Republicans have been doing for years now against Obama.[/QUOTE]
Do you think 'mass mobilization' of the people would realistically happen or mean shit if Bernie was elected? Of Republicans control the Senate, House, or both with Bernie as president then his presidency will mean fuck all. He needs bipartisan support and not just 20 year old college students as his voter base.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.