PDA

View Full Version : Who the Press Wants to Win



IMPress Polly
09-15-2015, 05:48 AM
This may be an astonishing revelation to some, but the corporate press is not neutral on the outcome of our elections and one might want to bake knowledge of their prevailing biases into the way they digest the news. Here are my observations:

For the Republican Nomination

The campaign news on the Republican side is all Trump all the time. On average, probably about half of every news hour is dedicated specifically to Trump campaign coverage. His rallies are covered live and uninterrupted for extended periods of time on all the major news networks, not just Fox News. For example, last night I tuned in to my favorite news program, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, and the first 40 minutes were simply a live broadcast of the latest Trump campaign rally. The show began at 8 PM, launched into live rally coverage within ten seconds, and the live coverage did not end until 8:40. No interruptions for commentary or even commercial breaks. And this is even on a Democratic-leaning network! No other candidate is getting that kind of special treatment. It's doubtless saving Mr. Trump countless millions of dollars on advertising (that he most certainly CAN afford).

Other Republican candidates for president are covered only in relationship to Trump. If they criticize Trump in some way, they'll make the news so he can have the opportunity to hit them back (as you know he will and then some). Otherwise, they are totally ignored. It makes all Mr. Trump's competitors for the nomination look shallow and negatively-focused.

Enough said.

For the Democratic Nomination

Let me put it this way:

-Bernie Sanders' campaign gets virtually no coverage at all.

-Hillary Clinton gets some coverage from time to time, all of it is negative, and none of it discusses her ideas.

-Joe Biden's every move gets nothing but positive coverage despite the fact that he hasn't even declared yet (though he assuredly will run, thanks to all this media-generated encouragement).

Put that all together for a minute. Who do you think the press wants to win the Democratic nomination?

The Motivation

What's the common theme here? What do Donald Trump and Joe Biden have in common that the other candidates don't? Well they're certainly not the most original or substantive options, but they are both known for saying lots of stupid, off-the-cuff things that generate big ratings and neither is interested in challenging the wealth and privilege of corporate America, i.e. in threatening the profit margins of network advertisers. Yep, it's about ratings. Trump has proven the biggest boon to the ailing profit margins of the major news networks in many years and there seems to be an interest in keeping that going on the Republican side and also in finding the closest Democratic analogy possible for a further ratings boost throughout next year.

Just observations.

GrassrootsConservative
09-15-2015, 05:54 AM
The mainstream media (with the exception of Fox News) is largely biased in favor the Democrats. And all MSM sources refuse to show anything that's going on outside of the two-party clusterfuck.

whatukno
09-15-2015, 06:04 AM
The mainstream media (with the exception of Fox News) is largely biased in favor the Democrats. And all MSM sources refuse to show anything that's going on outside of the two-party clusterfuck.

I would like to see more coverage of independent candidates. It is a problem with ALL MSM sources (Including your beloved FOX News)

Mac-7
09-15-2015, 06:17 AM
I don't think modern journalists of the sort found on TV are not particularly bright.



On every news story they take the path of least resistance.

if other journalists are coving trump then they will too.

Pretty soon they all are not because they prefer trump but because its easy.

As for the Party of the Free Ride most journalists are liberals who will give the most attention and the most favorable coverage to the nominee they think has the best chance to win.

Early on that was Hillary.

But if they perceive that she could lose to a republican they will switch to the democrat they think has the best chance to win.

GrassrootsConservative
09-15-2015, 06:37 AM
I would like to see more coverage of independent candidates. It is a problem with ALL MSM sources (Including your beloved FOX News)

What makes you think it's "my beloved" fox news?

Just a strawman. A logical fallacy.

Captain Obvious
09-15-2015, 07:52 AM
The press "wanting someone to win" is a conflict of interest, it should be entirely neutral on elections.

When newspapers endorse candidates it devalues their stock as objective journalists.

Mac-7
09-15-2015, 07:56 AM
The press "wanting someone to win" is a conflict of interest, it should be entirely neutral on elections.

When newspapers endorse candidates it devalues their stock as objective journalists.

Of course they have preference.

They went into journalism for two reasons.

First because it was an easy degree.

and second to change world where liberalism represents change.

Common
09-15-2015, 08:56 AM
Polly much of the trump coverage is negative. The liberal media, the RNC the republican Powerbrokers, the far right conservatives all want trump to go away.

The main stream media leans left, that has been diluted by most of the country getting their news online and from right and left wing blogs.

The truth is if you take everyone in the media as NOT TRUE you will get alot closer to the truth than if you believe its true.

Mac-7
09-15-2015, 09:03 AM
Polly much of the trump coverage is negative. The liberal media, the RNC the republican Powerbrokers, the far right conservatives all want trump to go away.

The main stream media leans left, that has been diluted by most of the country getting their news online and from right and left wing blogs.

The truth is if you take everyone in the media as NOT TRUE you will get alot closer to the truth than if you believe its true.

"Far right conservatives?"

Can you name any examples?

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 09:27 AM
The press has held an incredible power over American politics since at least the "Golden Age" of journalism, starting with the presidency of William McKinley and the outbreak of the Spanish-American War.

Chris
09-15-2015, 09:35 AM
The "press" is in it for the money, iow, advertising dollars. They naturally give more coverage to the most popular and the most controversial candidates because that attracts more viewers, more viewers means high advertising rates. They don't care who wins, it makes no difference who wins.

Safety
09-15-2015, 09:41 AM
The "press" is in it for the money, iow, advertising dollars. They naturally give more coverage to the most popular and the most controversial candidates because that attracts more viewers, more viewers means high advertising rates. They don't care who wins, it makes no difference who wins.

Actually the more controversial the candidate, the more money they make off of viewers. So, it does matter who wins, for it's guaranteed money cow for the presidential term. ie. Obama, Hillary, Trump....

Chris
09-15-2015, 10:08 AM
Actually the more controversial the candidate, the more money they make off of viewers. So, it does matter who wins, for it's guaranteed money cow for the presidential term. ie. Obama, Hillary, Trump....

Well, that's true. Still, it's apolitical for the most part. MSNBC might cheer for the Dems, Fox for the Reps, but it's still all just to garner viewers and make money.

I turned that garbage off during all the 9/11 flag waving. It just got too disgusting.

Adelaide
09-15-2015, 10:14 AM
IMPress Polly - I have seen Fox News discuss Sanders and cover him somewhat extensively. Not as much as Hillary (where they only cover her scandal) or Trump. But Hillary is covered very negatively and while Sanders is called a socialist repeatedly I did catch on to a theme which seemed to be that Fox news would do everything possible to ruin Hillary's chance at the nomination - it really seemed like a concerted effort. Meanwhile, Bernie is covered rather passively. I did catch a fairly long interview of Bernie Sanders on MSNBC or it may have been CBS (Face the Nation, maybe). Most of the coverage I saw was "Can you believe this guy and the support he's getting at rallies?" and "Hillary is in trouble if the 'socialist' is getting more people to his rallies". As for Biden, there was like a week of tons of coverage by Fox before they determined the same thing voters did, which is that he's not going to jump in (unless Clinton gets indicted/charged or something).

I think you're right that they have agendas, but I was basically watching the news all day for 7 weeks in DC and saw Sanders get a decent amount of coverage - more than the Republican candidates, except for Trump. And that was Fox (I find it entertaining for all the wrong reasons and don't watch MSNBC or CBS except for Sunday mornings).

The Xl
09-15-2015, 11:08 AM
Trump has gotten a lot of coverage, but it's a lot of negative press too.

I don't think the establishment knows who they want yet, they're in a bind. Hillary is sinking faster than the titanic and no one on Earth gives a fuck about Jeb Bush.

IMPress Polly
09-15-2015, 01:06 PM
Outside of MSNBC, Bernie is "covered" in snippets overwhelmingly, perhaps in the form of a passing mention of the latest poll numbers and in the context of a discussion of how badly it proves Hillary Clinton sucks. His ideas are almost never discussed. Rather, he's used as a gauge with which to pressure Biden into running. After all, if a socialist can beat the Democratic front-runner, she must be terrible! There is a real desire out there to never acknowledge the possibility that Sanders just might be getting somewhere based upon his own merits; based upon the resonance of his ideas.

Chris
09-15-2015, 01:20 PM
I don't understand Bernie's polling given the general support on the left of his ideas. He's a popular populist compared to Clinton or Biden.

Cigar
09-15-2015, 01:23 PM
I just want to see Donald Trump against any Democrat in a debate. :laugh:

Cigar
09-15-2015, 01:24 PM
Outside of MSNBC, Bernie is "covered" in snippets overwhelmingly, perhaps in the form of a passing mention of the latest poll numbers and in the context of a discussion of how badly it proves Hillary Clinton sucks. His ideas are almost never discussed. Rather, he's used as a gauge with which to pressure Biden into running. After all, if a socialist can beat the Democratic front-runner, she must be terrible! There is a real desire out there to never acknowledge the possibility that Sanders just might be getting somewhere based upon his own merits; based upon the resonance of his ideas.

He's going to come out of nowhere and surprise a lot of people.

Chris
09-15-2015, 02:05 PM
He's going to come out of nowhere and surprise a lot of people.

Biden?

Peter1469
09-15-2015, 04:01 PM
I think there is a difference between the owners of the MSM and the on-air personalities, reporters and staff. Polls have shown a consistent, insanely high level of democrats for the staff at newsrooms (print and media).

The owners are more worried about the bottom line.

donttread
09-15-2015, 04:01 PM
This may be an astonishing revelation to some, but the corporate press is not neutral on the outcome of our elections and one might want to bake knowledge of their prevailing biases into the way they digest the news. Here are my observations:

For the Republican Nomination

The campaign news on the Republican side is all Trump all the time. On average, probably about half of every news hour is dedicated specifically to Trump campaign coverage. His rallies are covered live and uninterrupted for extended periods of time on all the major news networks, not just Fox News. For example, last night I tuned in to my favorite news program, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, and the first 40 minutes were simply a live broadcast of the latest Trump campaign rally. The show began at 8 PM, launched into live rally coverage within ten seconds, and the live coverage did not end until 8:40. No interruptions for commentary or even commercial breaks. And this is even on a Democratic-leaning network! No other candidate is getting that kind of special treatment. It's doubtless saving Mr. Trump countless millions of dollars on advertising (that he most certainly CAN afford).

Other Republican candidates for president are covered only in relationship to Trump. If they criticize Trump in some way, they'll make the news so he can have the opportunity to hit them back (as you know he will and then some). Otherwise, they are totally ignored. It makes all Mr. Trump's competitors for the nomination look shallow and negatively-focused.

Enough said.

For the Democratic Nomination

Let me put it this way:

-Bernie Sanders' campaign gets virtually no coverage at all.

-Hillary Clinton gets some coverage from time to time, all of it is negative, and none of it discusses her ideas.

-Joe Biden's every move gets nothing but positive coverage despite the fact that he hasn't even declared yet (though he assuredly will run, thanks to all this media-generated encouragement).

Put that all together for a minute. Who do you think the press wants to win the Democratic nomination?

The Motivation

What's the common theme here? What do Donald Trump and Joe Biden have in common that the other candidates don't? Well they're certainly not the most original or substantive options, but they are both known for saying lots of stupid, off-the-cuff things that generate big ratings and neither is interested in challenging the wealth and privilege of corporate America, i.e. in threatening the profit margins of network advertisers. Yep, it's about ratings. Trump has proven the biggest boon to the ailing profit margins of the major news networks in many years and there seems to be an interest in keeping that going on the Republican side and also in finding the closest Democratic analogy possible for a further ratings boost throughout next year.

Just observations.

I've come to believe that the press simply wants a close , controversial race to jack ratings and careers. I came to this realization when the MSM killed Howard Dean's campaign over virtually nothing because he had a blow out lead

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 04:28 PM
I've come to believe that the press simply wants a close , controversial race to jack ratings and careers. I came to this realization when the MSM killed Howard Dean's campaign over virtually nothing because he had a blow out lead

The press didn't kill Howard Dean's campaign, Howard Dean killed Howard Dean's campaign.

How not to get elected president:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j6xm7e5bJo

Common
09-15-2015, 04:34 PM
"Far right conservatives?"

Can you name any examples?

You and a psuedonym for it is nutcase :)

Common
09-15-2015, 04:34 PM
The press has held an incredible power over American politics since at least the "Golden Age" of journalism, starting with the presidency of William McKinley and the outbreak of the Spanish-American War.

Absolutely

Captain Obvious
09-15-2015, 04:36 PM
The press didn't kill Howard Dean's campaign, Howard Dean killed Howard Dean's campaign.

How not to get elected president:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j6xm7e5bJo
Green Arrow - look to the right of that stillshot ( Safety - I first typed "left" lol), is that Art Rooney II clapping behind him?

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 04:38 PM
@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) - look to the right of that stillshot ( @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226) - I first typed "left" lol), is that Art Rooney II clapping behind him?

No, that guy's too old to be him. They do have similar features, though. Plus, I don't think ARII wears glasses.

Captain Obvious
09-15-2015, 04:43 PM
No, that guy's too old to be him. They do have similar features, though. Plus, I don't think ARII wears glasses.

Dan Rooney, my bad.

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/the-huddle/2011/06/03/rooneyx-large.jpg

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 04:48 PM
Dan Rooney, my bad.

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/the-huddle/2011/06/03/rooneyx-large.jpg

It could be Dan. He did get appointed Ambassador of Ireland, and he'd still be pretty influential anyway.

Captain Obvious
09-15-2015, 04:49 PM
It could be Dan. He did get appointed Ambassador of Ireland, and he'd still be pretty influential anyway.

The Rooney's have always been Democrats.

City of Pittsburgh thing.

Mac-7
09-15-2015, 05:12 PM
You and a psuedonym for it is nutcase :)

In case you've forgotten here what you wrote that prompted my question:


Polly much of the trump coverage is negative. The liberal media, the RNC the republican Powerbrokers,

the far right conservatives all want trump to go away.

I'm ok with being called a far right conservative,

but if you think I want trump to go away you have not been paying attention.

are you just trying to climb out a dumb hole by digging even deeper?

donttread
09-15-2015, 06:00 PM
The press didn't kill Howard Dean's campaign, Howard Dean killed Howard Dean's campaign.

How not to get elected president:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j6xm7e5bJo

So he had a little passion? they made that out to mean he was rabid and apparently you bought it hook line and sinker

IMPress Polly
09-15-2015, 06:07 PM
Hey, I voted for Howard Dean. No dissing Dean! :angry:

Anyway...


The Xl wrote:
Trump has gotten a lot of coverage, but it's a lot of negative press too.

I don't think the establishment knows who they want yet, they're in a bind. Hillary is sinking faster than the titanic and no one on Earth gives a $#@! about Jeb Bush.

Here's what I predict: I predict this winds up a race between Trump and Biden.

On the Republican side, it looks to me like Trump is actually shaping up to be the new party establishment candidate, if you will, at least to judge from the fact that his biggest supporters are the party's "moderates" and "liberals", as they describe themselves; the people who normally vote for the Paul clan and GOP establishment candidates respectively. Those two factions of the party always unite eventually to stop the social conservatives from winning, but they already seem united now, very early on this time around. Although Trump also enjoys strong support among the Christian evangelicals, they're currently split between him and Ben Carson, which is resulting in this shaping up, for the present, to be a two-way race between them for all intents and purposes. Now knowing the volatility of the Christian evangelicals, their preference for Carson as an alternative to Trump may change in the course of the race, perhaps to someone like Mike Huckabee or what have you. But the point is that I think this is going to be a two-way race for the nomination between Trump on the one hand and some Christian evangelical candidate on the other. In such a contest though, it's always the establishment candidate who wins in the end because he's always the one with the money with which to buy and run all those last-minute campaign ads that switch people's votes at the last second.

On the Democratic side, it's hard to flesh out the details this early on, without Biden being formally in the race yet, but I just have this sinking feeling that he's going to be the nominee. It seems apparent that Clinton's not going to recover and she's starting to lose her core constituents: women and people of color. Remarkably, according to the most recent poll, she's specifically losing women to Joe Biden, who emerged as the only Democrat with a majority-female support base. (Considering most Democrats are women, that's a promising balance for Mr. Biden to start out with.) Now it's specifically the more conservative women who are bolting for Biden. The feminists are remaining with Clinton. But you can't win with just the feminists and Latinos, and especially not with just the older ones. Sanders COULD win if he keeps up this momentum and wins the early primaries like Iowa and New Hampshire (and he's presently leading in both), but my gut tells me Biden can do very well in those states too. And he'll have lots of Wall Street money. And probably the African American vote due to his close connection to President Obama. And probably the vote of most labor unions too just because. (The United Steelworkers already seem quite anxious to endorse him, for example.) And he won't face any persecution because he's a white guy. Sanders has the youth, but can he win the nomination with just that? It could be a close, three-way contest and that would be ideal. Or Clinton could drop out early (there's no question she'll come in last out of the three major Democratic candidates, after all) and make it a two-way contest between Sanders and Biden, and that would be bad. For Bernie to have a realistic shot at the nomination, the establishment wing's vote needs to become, AND REMAIN, divided between two candidates.

(In case you couldn't tell, I'm not interested in a Biden nomination. I'll vote for a third party or independent candidate if he's the Democratic Party's nominee. He's too conservative for me.)

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 06:15 PM
So he had a little passion? they made that out to mean he was rabid and apparently you bought it hook line and sinker

Yes, of course. I think a man screaming while on the campaign trail is a little bonkers, so I must be a media stooge. How dare I have an opinion that differs from yours, almighty donttread.

I'll get to constructing that shrine to you in my closet right away.

IMPress Polly
09-15-2015, 06:21 PM
The "bonkers" man went on to lead the Democratic Party for six years, successfully guiding it through two big wins: 2006 and 2008 before being retired following the 2010 Tea Party wave (which I hardly blame on him). What a know-nothing. At least he knew to oppose the Iraq War, unlike the actual 2004 Democratic nominee!

Common
09-15-2015, 06:23 PM
I think this winds up a race between Hillary and ? I doubt trump will last the long haul

IMPress Polly
09-15-2015, 06:24 PM
Trump's got the money, the momentum, the broadest ideological range of supporters (i.e. the most staying power), and teflon status (i.e. no criticism hurts him in the polls). How does he NOT win the Republican Party's nomination with all those advantages?

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 06:29 PM
The "bonkers" man went on to lead the Democratic Party for six years, successfully guiding it through two big wins: 2006 and 2008 before being retired following the 2010 Tea Party wave (which I hardly blame on him). What a know-nothing. At least he knew to oppose the Iraq War, unlike the actual 2004 Democratic nominee!

I'm not criticizing him, I just thought that was a bad choice.

Am I allowed an opinion?

Tahuyaman
09-15-2015, 07:54 PM
This may be an astonishing revelation to some, but the corporate press is not neutral on the outcome of our elections....

No..... You aren't trying to say that members of the media have an agenda? Really?

Can you provide a link to prove that?

texan
09-15-2015, 08:27 PM
They want Joe because they know Billary can't win when the country starts paying even more attention and poor Bernie will be labelled a socialist by his own admission, That ain't flying either. So they need Joe.

texan
09-15-2015, 08:29 PM
BTW nobody likes hillary, I am not even sure dems actually do they just thought she could win. Mostly because no one knew anybody else at the time. Then the obvious using her position to line their pockets became well obvious and her email lies..................Oh now we remember why we really don't like her.

She is a carpetbagging coattailer, never won anything.

Chris
09-15-2015, 08:44 PM
CNN covers Sanders....

http://i.snag.gy/KqNaF.jpg

Chris
09-15-2015, 08:46 PM
WSJ: Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion (http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511)...

http://i.snag.gy/8Y9SB.jpg

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 08:47 PM
CNN covers Sanders....

http://i.snag.gy/KqNaF.jpg

Assuming their cost figures are accurate (I don't believe they are necessarily), that's hardly his fault. If our government focused more on infrastructure improvements and less on nation building, we largely wouldn't even really need to spend much at all on infrastructure improvements because most everything would be up to date already.

Tahuyaman
09-15-2015, 09:05 PM
BTW nobody likes hillary,


That's not accurate. Right here for instance, TrueBlue thinks she would be a great president. Maineman thinks she's the one and only, plus he thinks she has ...... his word...... gravitas.

So clearly, some people like her. Of course those people either don't actually know her and they would like anyone with a D after their name.

Chris
09-15-2015, 09:10 PM
Assuming their cost figures are accurate (I don't believe they are necessarily), that's hardly his fault. If our government focused more on infrastructure improvements and less on nation building, we largely wouldn't even really need to spend much at all on infrastructure improvements because most everything would be up to date already.

The $15T is based on a similar proposal before Congress:


...What is driving support for Sanders' campaign? The promise of lots of free shit certainly helps. The Wall Street Journal has analyzed Sanders' campaign proposals and estimated that his plans for new federal programs would cost $18 trillion over the next ten years. The bulk of that—$15 trillion—would be spent on expanding Medicare to include all Americans in an attempt to impose a "single payer" (the government) healthcare system in the United States, something Republican frontrunner Donald Trump says he's supported other countries doing.

The $15 trillion number comes from a similar proposal in Congress for a single payer system, introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), which comes with that price tag. Sanders declined an interview request from the Journal but the paper spoke to his policy director, Warren Gunnells, who called the $15 trillion number for a single-payer system alone a fair estimate....

@ Bernie Sanders, the 18 Trillion Dollar Man (https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/15/bernie-sanders-the-18-trillion-dollar-ma)

maineman
09-15-2015, 09:10 PM
That's not accurate. Right here for instance, TrueBlue thinks she would be a great president. Maineman thinks she's the one and only, plus he thinks she has ...... his word...... gravitas.

So clearly, some people like her. Of course those people either don't actually know her and they would like anyone with a D after their name.

got a link where I ever applied that word to Mrs. Clinton? Or will you admit you are a lying sack of shit?

Tahuyaman
09-15-2015, 09:13 PM
@ Bernie Sanders, the 18 Trillion Dollar Man (https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/15/bernie-sanders-the-18-trillion-dollar-ma)

It's only money.

maineman
09-15-2015, 09:21 PM
got a link where I ever applied that word to Mrs. Clinton? Or will you admit you are a lying sack of shit?

I guess the answer to those questions would be "no".

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 09:39 PM
The $15T is based on a similar proposal before Congress:



@ Bernie Sanders, the 18 Trillion Dollar Man (https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/15/bernie-sanders-the-18-trillion-dollar-ma)

It's also $18 trillion over ten years, which is like $1.8 trillion a year. According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the federal government collects $3.7 trillion a year in revenue, and appropriate cuts to the existing budget can be made to keep Sanders's proposals well within the line.

*EDIT* Also, when figuring costs, you also have to consider that any current costs for social security, healthcare, and infrastructure wouldn't exist with Bernie's proposals, as his proposals would be the only spending on those issues.

Bob
09-15-2015, 10:07 PM
The press has held an incredible power over American politics since at least the "Golden Age" of journalism, starting with the presidency of William McKinley and the outbreak of the Spanish-American War.

I have here in my possession, news media reports from the Civil War. You need to do more reading.

Notice to forum. I do plan to talk to Green Arrow from time to time as the mood hits me.

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 10:19 PM
I have here in my possession, news media reports from the Civil War. You need to do more reading.

That's nice, Bob. Do you have a point?

Bob
09-15-2015, 10:27 PM
That's nice, Bob. Do you have a point?

I call the point the Green Arrow destruction point.

Green Arrow
09-15-2015, 10:27 PM
I call the point the Green Arrow destruction point.

What, exactly, does it destroy?

Doublejack
09-15-2015, 11:39 PM
I'm with Chris.

"The Media" simply capitalizes on whatever the hell is going on at the time.

Mac-7
09-16-2015, 06:36 AM
Assuming their cost figures are accurate (I don't believe they are necessarily), that's hardly his fault. If our government focused more on infrastructure improvements and less on nation building, we largely wouldn't even really need to spend much at all on infrastructure improvements because most everything would be up to date already.

If the matchup is Trump and Sanders it will be a choice between growing the pie for everyone or locking the pie in place and dividing it up according to Marxist principles.

birddog
09-16-2015, 07:59 AM
The MSM helped Slick Willie get elected an reelected by not exposing any of his corruptions or scandals, unless they were forced to.

They did the same for The Kenyan A good example is the lie told by Candy in the debate.

Of course, the entire Press is after good ratings but at least Fox News does a good job of presenting both sides politically.

Chris
09-16-2015, 08:44 AM
If the matchup is Trump and Sanders it will be a choice between growing the pie for everyone or locking the pie in place and dividing it up according to Marxist principles.

I didn't know Trump was a Marxist. :shocked:

Chris
09-16-2015, 09:20 AM
It's also $18 trillion over ten years, which is like $1.8 trillion a year. According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the federal government collects $3.7 trillion a year in revenue, and appropriate cuts to the existing budget can be made to keep Sanders's proposals well within the line.

*EDIT* Also, when figuring costs, you also have to consider that any current costs for social security, healthcare, and infrastructure wouldn't exist with Bernie's proposals, as his proposals would be the only spending on those issues.

Think those costs continue. Like infrastructure, it's always in need of maintenance.

$18T even over 10 years is a lot looking at all the overspending leading to the debt we're in.

Hopefully this study will result in others for the budgets of other candidates.

Green Arrow
09-16-2015, 01:02 PM
Think those costs continue. Like infrastructure, it's always in need of maintenance.

$18T even over 10 years is a lot looking at all the overspending leading to the debt we're in.

Hopefully this study will result in others for the budgets of other candidates.

What I mean is the costs we're spending on those things now are replaced by the new costs. Under Bernie's infrastructure plan, for example, you don't pay to fix a bridge twice. Also, all current healthcare expenditures would be replaced with the new system.

Bob
09-16-2015, 01:06 PM
What I mean is the costs we're spending on those things now are replaced by the new costs. Under Bernie's infrastructure plan, for example, you don't pay to fix a bridge twice. Also, all current healthcare expenditures would be replaced with the new system.

Sen. Coburn stated today on CSPAN that when one involves the Feds in infrastructure, you get 5/8 bang for the dollar compared to when the costs remain with the states.

Watch Coburn say this at about minute 12. Start a bit early to make sure.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327991-3/washington-journal-former-senator-tom-coburn-rok

Green Arrow
09-16-2015, 01:11 PM
I call the point the Green Arrow destruction point.
Bob, again...what point of mine does it destroy?

Bob
09-16-2015, 01:33 PM
@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), again...what point of mine does it destroy?

Since you forgot what you were talking about, it has to do with the Mexican war that America won under Polk or if I am wrong, the Spanish War we waged. It had to do with the press and I told you I have in my possession, reprints of the press just about the time the Civil war started.

Green Arrow
09-16-2015, 04:29 PM
Since you forgot what you were talking about, it has to do with the Mexican war that America won under Polk or if I am wrong, the Spanish War we waged. It had to do with the press and I told you I have in my possession, reprints of the press just about the time the Civil war started.

Right. You said your reprints of the press from before the Civil War destroyed a point I made. I assume you're referring to my point that the press had a powerful influence over American politics since at least the lead up to the Spanish-American War of 1898, during the presidency of William McKinley. I'm curious how you think it destroys my point.

rembrant
09-16-2015, 05:21 PM
The mainstream media (with the exception of Fox News) is largely biased in favor the Democrats. And all MSM sources refuse to show anything that's going on outside of the two-party cluster$#@!.

Repeat the same lie enough.........

MSNBC is Left. Fox is RIGHT... any others are so eager to never take a stand their message is that dogcrap and Fudge Brownies are equal.
Fringe right wing Nutjobs often are SO delusional/fascist/STUPID they think FOX is a bit too liberal.. won't feed their need. So.... CNN.... must be Hyper Liberal if Fox ain't quite Fascist/bonkers enough.

rembrant
09-16-2015, 05:33 PM
Sen. Coburn stated today on CSPAN that when one involves the Feds in infrastructure, you get 5/8 bang for the dollar compared to when the costs remain with the states.

Watch Coburn say this at about minute 12. Start a bit early to make sure.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327991-3/washington-journal-former-senator-tom-coburn-rok So.. Coburn thinks Senators like he was....suck? But lower level politicos in any of 50 states.. do real well? By that logic maybe local COUNTIES ought to do the whole "Infrastructure". I think around here.... Counties don't have the skills,manpower or funds.. but.. if there's some magic plan..share it with us.

FWIW.. Ex Sen Cobern was a fringe nutjob, so, maybe find a better guy to quote. Meanwhile... fact is that often FEDS do the big project and then the States later do the upkeep. Well.. HERE the States slack off and the Fed Politics don't step up, so....we get MINIMAL.When a dridge..a dam..a dike fails.....then there's huge costs to clean up damage.. and EVERYONE had said.. PLEASE.. someone stop passing the buck.. FIX it.

Bob
09-16-2015, 06:22 PM
So.. Coburn thinks Senators like he was....suck? But lower level politicos in any of 50 states.. do real well? By that logic maybe local COUNTIES ought to do the whole "Infrastructure". I think around here.... Counties don't have the skills,manpower or funds.. but.. if there's some magic plan..share it with us.

FWIW.. Ex Sen Cobern was a fringe nutjob, so, maybe find a better guy to quote. Meanwhile... fact is that often FEDS do the big project and then the States later do the upkeep. Well.. HERE the States slack off and the Fed Politics don't step up, so....we get MINIMAL.When a dridge..a dam..a dike fails.....then there's huge costs to clean up damage.. and EVERYONE had said.. PLEASE.. someone stop passing the buck.. FIX it.

I don't believe Coburn talked that way. What minute does he say states suck?

I once worked on highway projects. The state sent out the inspectors on our jobs. I never saw a federal inspector and worked on over 300 jobs that I am certain of. Coburn is straight talking and has a good idea how to fix things.

The workers on the jobs are private. I5 for instance I worked on a good number of times. I never saw a Fed on the job.

Your state wants to construct roads or refurbish them. Depending on the road in question, it can qualify for Fed funds and as Coburn states, costs rise dramatically. Why? Feds don't give out money, they hand you strings. The first place to turn for local help is your locals.

Bob
09-16-2015, 06:26 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1257656#post1257656)
Since you forgot what you were talking about, it has to do with the Mexican war that America won under Polk or if I am wrong, the Spanish War we waged. It had to do with the press and I told you I have in my possession, reprints of the press just about the time the Civil war started.


Right. You said your reprints of the press from before the Civil War destroyed a point I made. I assume you're referring to my point that the press had a powerful influence over American politics since at least the lead up to the Spanish-American War of 1898, during the presidency of William McKinley. I'm curious how you think it destroys my point.

Your point is the press became a pain in the ass much later than it became a pain in the ass. I collect history and have press reports from the beginning of the Civil War. A lot earlier than you claim the press did this.

Green Arrow
09-16-2015, 07:19 PM
Your point is the press became a pain in the ass much later than it became a pain in the ass. I collect history and have press reports from the beginning of the Civil War. A lot earlier than you claim the press did this.

What I claimed is that the press didn't have a powerful influence on politics until the McKinley presidency. That's a fact, as policy was actually moved almost entirely because the press wielded so much power with the American populace.

The existence of the press during the Civil War has zero to do with anything I've said.

Bob
09-16-2015, 07:28 PM
What I claimed is that the press didn't have a powerful influence on politics until the McKinley presidency. That's a fact, as policy was actually moved almost entirely because the press wielded so much power with the American populace.

The existence of the press during the Civil War has zero to do with anything I've said.

The fatal flaw in the reply to me is that the OP has a blind spot to posters flaws.
I told you the press was a very important factor much sooner than you admit.

But I can only try to help you.

Green Arrow
09-16-2015, 09:14 PM
The fatal flaw in the reply to me is that the OP has a blind spot to posters flaws.
I told you the press was a very important factor much sooner than you admit.

But I can only try to help you.

I didn't say they weren't very important prior to McKinley, Bob. I said they didn't reach the level of power that allowed them to sway public opinion and actually move the action's of the government, until McKinley.

Bob
09-16-2015, 10:00 PM
I didn't say they weren't very important prior to McKinley, Bob. I said they didn't reach the level of power that allowed them to sway public opinion and actually move the action's of the government, until McKinley.

You still have not proved your point. Show us all your evidence. I believe the press was powerful during Washington as well. I know very well it moved the public during the Civil war.

Green Arrow
09-16-2015, 10:33 PM
You still have not proved your point. Show us all your evidence. I believe the press was powerful during Washington as well. I know very well it moved the public during the Civil war.

The United States went to war against the Spanish primarily because the journalists of the day provoked the people into wanting war with Spain. Facing that pressure from the people, the government declared war on Spain.

Adelaide
09-17-2015, 10:09 AM
Outside of MSNBC, Bernie is "covered" in snippets overwhelmingly, perhaps in the form of a passing mention of the latest poll numbers and in the context of a discussion of how badly it proves Hillary Clinton sucks. His ideas are almost never discussed. Rather, he's used as a gauge with which to pressure Biden into running. After all, if a socialist can beat the Democratic front-runner, she must be terrible! There is a real desire out there to never acknowledge the possibility that Sanders just might be getting somewhere based upon his own merits; based upon the resonance of his ideas.

His coverage seems to pop up most when they (the media) want to say Clinton won't succeed. It is still coverage and exposure which for the most part is passive and not aggressive - the only negative thing being emphasized often is that he is a "socialist" which still scares Americans (even if he isn't quite a socialist). The dialogue about him could be a lot more aggressive and negative but the media is highly focused on behaving that way about Trump and Clinton. I expect that kind of negative coverage will now start for Fiorina since she is proving herself to be a good candidate. I think Sanders may benefit from not being attacked all day every day - in fact I already think he is reaping the rewards of not being treated that way.

Bob
09-17-2015, 02:14 PM
The United States went to war against the Spanish primarily because the journalists of the day provoked the people into wanting war with Spain. Facing that pressure from the people, the government declared war on Spain.

I expect proof. What media do you blame? The name of the media please.

I believe the sinking of the Maine was the major problem.

The Spanish–American War (Spanish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language): Guerra hispano-estadounidense) was a conflict in 1898 between Spain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_under_the_Restoration) and theUnited States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the result of U.S. intervention in the Cuban War of Independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_War_of_Independence). U.S. attacks on Spain's Pacific possessions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_East_Indies) led to involvement in the Philippine Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Revolution) and ultimately to thePhilippine–American War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War#cite_note-9)
Revolts against Spanish rule had occurred for some years in Cuba. There had been war scares before, as in the Virginius Affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginius_Affair) in 1873. In the late 1890s, US public opinion was agitated by anti-Spanish propaganda led by journalists such as Joseph Pulitzer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Pulitzer) andWilliam Hearst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst) which used yellow journalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism) to criticize Spanish administration of Cuba. After the mysterious sinking of the US Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Navy)battleship Maine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)) in Havana harbor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_Harbor), political pressures from theDemocratic Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)) and certain industrialists pushed the administration of Republican (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)) President William McKinley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley) into a war he had wished to avoid.[7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War#cite_note-10)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War

Green Arrow
09-17-2015, 05:04 PM
I expect proof. What media do you blame? The name of the media please.

Primarily, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pullitzer.


I believe the sinking of the Maine was the major problem.

The Spanish–American War (Spanish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language): Guerra hispano-estadounidense) was a conflict in 1898 between Spain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_under_the_Restoration) and theUnited States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the result of U.S. intervention in the Cuban War of Independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_War_of_Independence). U.S. attacks on Spain's Pacific possessions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_East_Indies) led to involvement in the Philippine Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Revolution) and ultimately to thePhilippine–American War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War).[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War#cite_note-9)
Revolts against Spanish rule had occurred for some years in Cuba. There had been war scares before, as in the Virginius Affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginius_Affair) in 1873. In the late 1890s, US public opinion was agitated by anti-Spanish propaganda led by journalists such as Joseph Pulitzer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Pulitzer) andWilliam Hearst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst) which used yellow journalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism) to criticize Spanish administration of Cuba. After the mysterious sinking of the US Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Navy)battleship Maine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)) in Havana harbor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_Harbor), political pressures from theDemocratic Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)) and certain industrialists pushed the administration of Republican (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)) President William McKinley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley) into a war he had wished to avoid.[7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War#cite_note-10)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War

The main was the cause. The U.S. government was not initially blaming it on Spain, however, as there was no evidence that the Spanish had anything to do with it and that it was anything other than an accident. It was U.S. papers, led by Hearst and Pullitzer, that drove the people into a furor in blaming the Spanish and pretty much forced the U.S. government to declare war.

The portion of the article you quoted actually answers your questions and confirms what I've said.

Bob
09-17-2015, 05:18 PM
Primarily, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pullitzer.



The main was the cause. The U.S. government was not initially blaming it on Spain, however, as there was no evidence that the Spanish had anything to do with it and that it was anything other than an accident. It was U.S. papers, led by Hearst and Pullitzer, that drove the people into a furor in blaming the Spanish and pretty much forced the U.S. government to declare war.

The portion of the article you quoted actually answers your questions and confirms what I've said.

The Main as you finally admit is the cause. The papers did not force the war to commence. The sinking is why it happened.

Green Arrow
09-17-2015, 05:22 PM
The Main as you finally admit is the cause. The papers did not force the war to commence. The sinking is why it happened.

No, Bob. Pay attention. Your own article said exactly what I've been saying.

The Maine exploded and sunk. That was the main issue. However, without the influence of the papers, it likely would have been labeled an accident and there would have been no war with Spain. Instead, the papers provoked the people of America into a fury blaming Spain for the Maine, and the people pressured their politicians - in this case, the Democrats, since the Republicans didn't want to go to war - into declaring war on Spain. The politicians pressured the president, and the result was we declared war on Spain.

Read your own articles.

Bob
09-17-2015, 06:40 PM
No, Bob. Pay attention. Your own article said exactly what I've been saying.

The Maine exploded and sunk. That was the main issue. However, without the influence of the papers, it likely would have been labeled an accident and there would have been no war with Spain. Instead, the papers provoked the people of America into a fury blaming Spain for the Maine, and the people pressured their politicians - in this case, the Democrats, since the Republicans didn't want to go to war - into declaring war on Spain. The politicians pressured the president, and the result was we declared war on Spain.

Read your own articles.


The Main exploded and sank.

Now you got it correct.

Green Arrow
09-17-2015, 06:56 PM
The Main exploded and sank.

Now you got it correct.

Then the press had an influential and powerful role in sending the United States to war.

Bob
09-17-2015, 06:58 PM
Then the press had an influential and powerful role in sending the United States to war.

Oh, how about Pearl Harbor. The press caused that too. LMAO

Green Arrow
09-17-2015, 07:03 PM
Oh, how about Pearl Harbor. The press caused that too. LMAO

The link you posted yourself said exactly what I've been saying. Read your own sources.

Bob
09-17-2015, 07:26 PM
The link you posted yourself said exactly what I've been saying. Read your own sources.

No, it says the Maine was sunk. But you blame the press. Ever think the loss of 260 men and the ship could start a war?

Green Arrow
09-17-2015, 07:30 PM
No, it says the Maine was sunk. But you blame the press. Ever think the loss of 260 men and the ship could start a war?

Read it again. The whole thing. Don't stop reading after it says what you want it to say, read it ALL.

Peter1469
09-17-2015, 07:32 PM
This is funny... :grin:

Green Arrow
09-17-2015, 07:33 PM
This is funny... :grin:

I love arguing with Bob, he usually proves my point while trying to argue against it.