Sign up  |  Log in

Elizabeth ”Pocahontas” Warren running for president

CFABLACKBELT wrote:

whatsyourgovt wrote:

Trade deals (pulling out of TPP which I think would have been devastating).

TPP seems to remain really unpopular, but I find few convincing reasons why we should have pulled out.  It’s easy to point to who would be the immediate job losers in the US.  However, over the long-term, it seems TPP would have a been a great strategic play to let the US and it’s allies better set the rules of the road for trade and regulations in Asia.  I’d like to hear your thoughts on why it would have been “devastating?”

The problem with these deals is the US is addicted to paying out in one form or another (constant military interventions, aid, etc) immediate and measurable costs for these fantom long term strategic plays that are less measurable and often fail (similar to executives addicted to M&A like Immelt often string together catastrophic deals left unchecked).  It’s just bad US policy.  If having a trade policy is important strategically then we should do it, but not on disadvantaged terms that cost the US economically.  There need to be better controls and oversight.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

whatsyourgovt wrote:

Tulsi Gabbard with Joe Rogan as her VP 2020 dem ticket. This would win

welp, that ended quickly

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfile-tulsi-gabbard-lgbt/index.html

Schopenhauer wrote:

startuppivot wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

startuppivot wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

To clarify, are you suggesting that 

1. Hilary was not well-liked by the voting population

2. This was the result of propaganda by Fox

3. There was nothing particularly wrong with Hilary as a candidate?


I’m saying that due to propaganda by Fox Hilary was held to a different standard as a candidate.

That by manufacturing controversies (number of indictments for emails/benghazi = 0, russia-gate: Like 15, so far and it’s not close to being done) HRC is deemed unlikable/untrustworthy while Trump is worse but penalized less.

1. Without opining on whether Hilary “deserved it”, I agree that Fox laid it on pretty thick in regard to Hilary. FOX clearly has a conservative slant.

2. But where I’m not ready to agree is the part where you take it a step further and insinuate Hilary was the victim of some double standard in the media. I feel like we’re not on the same planet right now and am genuinely curious as to where you got to that. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-med...

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/301285-media-and-trump-bias...

In the 15 months before the 2016 election, the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Politico, Washington Post, Slate, and the New York Times all reported more favorably to Clinton.

The issue isn’t with legitimate news sources, you’re looking at WSJ/WaPo which aren’t the issue.

IThis is why I think Kanye kind of had a point, to his credit Trump was able to change the rules of how politics works. He manage to fundamentally shift the landscape which is why he won.

You seem reasonable and know Fox has a slant, but so does Breitbart Infowars, etc. Some people actually treat these things at legit news sources.

That’s where I think the flaw in your reasoning is, that you’re not looking at studies that reflect the voters. That we live in different universes from each other.

Here’s a link that explains it a little bit better:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

“We find that the structure and composition of media on the right and left are quite different. The leading media on the right and left are rooted in different traditions and journalistic practices. On the conservative side, more attention was paid to pro-Trump, highly partisan media outlets. On the liberal side, by contrast, the center of gravity was made up largely of long-standing media organizations steeped in the traditions and practices of objective journalism.”

But here’s the actual impact:

“Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.”

This is the double standard I’m talking about. The ‘grab her by the *****’ tape should have been the end of Trump, but somehow we aren’t talking about it. But Hillary’s emails were talked about plenty.
 

You are welcome to point to infowars and breitbart, but you should not ignore Slate, Moveon, Change, and The Young Turks etc. And we’re not even counting the political bias on social media sites (moderators and content manipulation) on Facebook, Reddit, and whatnot. It may sound contrarian, but the reason Breitbart, Fox, and Infowars are even talked about is because they are the MINORITY in media.

Donald Trump’s corporate bankruptcies and “grab her by the whatever” were certainly covered in the news. His comments that appeared racially tinged were most certainly covered in the news. Most talking heads masquerading as journalists did little to hide their contempt for Trump, and the few that supported Trump were afraid to say so explicitly and publicly.

Furthermore, let’s not compare some bro-ish locker room talk about models consensually allowing wealthy men to touch them to

A) Hilary selling…or at least exposing sensitive information to foreign governments

B) Clinton’s husband raping women and little kids

Thoughts?

The media did all they could to help her. How many times did they replay any of these clips (13 mins of her lying) vs the access Hollywood audio?

The media didn’t even try to hide their bias and the American people didn’t buy it.

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

im sure she grabs it by the **** as well!

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

startuppivot wrote:

You are welcome to point to infowars and breitbart, but you should not ignore Slate, Moveon, Change, and The Young Turks etc. And we’re not even counting the political bias on social media sites (moderators and content manipulation) on Facebook, Reddit, and whatnot. It may sound contrarian, but the reason Breitbart, Fox, and Infowars are even talked about is because they are the MINORITY in media.

Donald Trump’s corporate bankruptcies and “grab her by the whatever” were certainly covered in the news. His comments that appeared racially tinged were most certainly covered in the news. Most talking heads masquerading as journalists did little to hide their contempt for Trump, and the few that supported Trump were afraid to say so explicitly and publicly.

Furthermore, let’s not compare some bro-ish locker room talk about models consensually allowing wealthy men to touch them to

A) Hilary selling…or at least exposing sensitive information to foreign governments

B) Clinton’s husband raping women and little kids

Thoughts?

They’re minority media, but the GOP is the minority party. It’s big enough to influence the election. 30% of America is all you need to win an election, along with some governmental assistance.

And it’s kinda disgusting how you’re discounting Trump’s long history of sexual assault as ‘broish locker room talk’

well lol voting in america is somewhat retarded because of the followign reasons:

1. voter turnout is low. only about 60%. and this is because

2. electoral college is by state which is fair to smaller states, but it is all or nothing. 

3. so if you live in predominantly repub area, and vice versa your vote will not matter. lol

ultiamtely elections are decided by the north east states as they are the ones who swing both ways.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.