The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Rostere]

 

Supporters Aggravated Bernie Sanders Didn't Use DNC Speech to Get Voters to Act Against their Own Self-Interest

We have now achieved singularity, where the Onion has merged with reality.

 

 

As I keep saying, nothing can be done until the laws are changed to get rid of the two party system. A third party will never be viable unless it can replace one of the two major parties. Suppose Bloomberg ran like he was thinking of doing. He'd probably get a good chunk of votes, but all it would accomplish is ensure that Hilzilla, who he just endorsed, and would infinitely prefer to Trump, lost. Disclaimer: I'm actually pretty happy the way the election is going so far.

 

 

I can say this with 100% certainty:  So long as no one with at least a modicum of power and relevance, on whatever side of the fence, takes the risk of shaking up this broken as **** system, nothing will change.  If someone takes the chance there may be a very small chance of succeeding in changing the system and a very high chance of failing.  If no one does anything there is a 0% chance of changing the system.  So long as people keep saying "you just have to play along with the game" we'll be stuck in this bull**** vicious cycle forever until the country completely collapses.

 

Proportional representation. You know you want it.

[Gorth]

You can trust the media on most things, the same stories get told on Al-Jazeera, CNN, Sky, BBC etc. So if the media was indeed untrustworthy that would mean all independent global media houses are complicate in some kind of global deceit and conspiracy theory....and I reject that idea

Mate... I sometimes wonder if we live in the same world?

 

There is no such thing as "independent" media. Even the BBC which is probably less bad than most have a bias. The only thing I would trust them to report truthfully and objectively is she soccer results after the final whistly.

 

You want to know the truth, you need to do your own digging for it. Don't ever trust "truths" served to you by others. It's just, most people don't care. It's easier to whinge about the state of things than taking responsibility for your own life.

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Hurlshort]

I believe it is more accurate to say the media spins their stories than to say they outright lie.  That's why it is so important to develop critical thinking skills in this day.  Of course, everyone THINKS they know how to look at a story critically.  

[BruceVC]

 

You can trust the media on most things, the same stories get told on Al-Jazeera, CNN, Sky, BBC etc. So if the media was indeed untrustworthy that would mean all independent global media houses are complicate in some kind of global deceit and conspiracy theory....and I reject that idea

Mate... I sometimes wonder if we live in the same world?

 

There is no such thing as "independent" media. Even the BBC which is probably less bad than most have a bias. The only thing I would trust them to report truthfully and objectively is she soccer results after the final whistly.

 

You want to know the truth, you need to do your own digging for it. Don't ever trust "truths" served to you by others. It's just, most people don't care. It's easier to whinge about the state of things than taking responsibility for your own life.

 

Gorhtie you being naughty, your post is defeatist talk...its reeeeeeeeeeks of archaic and anachronistic conspiracy theories

 

But of  course you make some good points,  there will always be a degree a bias but is it biased or just reasonable views on  certain global matters and events that the global media  houses report on   ...and these matters dont really have much leeway around what they mean, they not subjective. They happen for a real reason and other justifications for them are just a distraction. I can give you literally hundreds of examples 

 

• ISIS is not a creation of the CIA, they are exactly who people  say they are .. " Islamic Extremists with a reprehensible and barbaric view of how to implement political change around the world " 
• The annexation of Crimea by Russia was illegal and was correctly condemned by The West 

Edited July 27, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

I believe it is more accurate to say the media spins their stories than to say they outright lie.  That's why it is so important to develop critical thinking skills in this day.  Of course, everyone THINKS they know how to look at a story critically.  

Except for me hey Hurlshot, I know how to look at a story critically...thats has to be something you have noticed about me 

[Longknife]

He's not a troll, everyone.

[ShadySands]

I roll 20s

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

he could lie with impunity since no one had the resources to effectively rebut him. Most voters just don't bother to find out information for themselves and make the right decision, so what can you do about it?

 

Behold the consequences of 3 decades spent telling the voters that they can't trust media organizations! 

 

(And, you know, the internet killing the economic viability of local investigative reporting.)

 

Well, you can't, it's just a fact. You can still find everything you need on the internet, like the voting record, you don't need investigative reporting for that. I'm not claiming he did anything underhanded that needed to be investigated, but most people don't even bother to check how their Congressman actually votes.

 

You can trust the media on most things, the same stories get told on Al-Jazeera, CNN, Sky, BBC etc. So if  the media was indeed untrustworthy that would mean all independent global media houses are complicate in some kind of global deceit and conspiracy theory....and I reject that idea 

 

 

It worries me immensely that you feel you can't trust international media houses yet you seem to believe any other link from far less credible sources....especially when they suit a particular narrative

 

All these news outlets are similar ideologically, thus have similar biases. As I said before, they mostly lie through omission and emphasis, and giving opinions disguised as facts, so you having a similar ideology may not recognize it. I try to evaluate all sources objectively. Here's an example: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/marathon_motive_mystery/

 

OK, probably not entirely fair as some of the reporting was very early.

 

 

Proportional representation. You know you want it.

We don't want it. 4-5 viable parties would be enough.

[Hastur]

The problem with saying that the media is biased and lies as a blanket statement is that it leads to nowhere. We can pretend that the internet makes us all experts, but it doesn't. At some point, if we're to have a rational discussion, we have to rely on something we get from somewhere. So, we have to rely on some sort of media, but the media clearly has biases. You can spread out your sources, but what if every source is wrong or if every source goes back to one source? The media doesn't get a lot of respect, and I don't think it deserves it, but some media cannot outright lie without destroying themselves as an institution. No, the media isn't entirely Satan. They deal in half truths instead of lies and promote the stories they want to promote. Also, while some is undoubtedly intentional, I think most of it is run of the mill prejudicial mindsets regarding the news, and good luck finding anyone who doesn't suffer from that. Of course, you can do your own digging. Good luck with trusting the internet to make you an expert on all things. ...And if the media is biased or mistaken, then can't the books you read or the other sources you find be biased just as easily? Are you going to do your own research on subjects ranging from nuclear physics, the state of Baltic manufacturing, the quality and disposition of OPEC versus North American oil deposits?

 

I hate the media as much as the next guy and I odn't doubt they're corrupt or incompetent a lot of the time, but I don't see how we can do without them or someone so much like them that the difference lacks any real distincion.

[Pidesco]

I believe it is more accurate to say the media spins their stories than to say they outright lie.  That's why it is so important to develop critical thinking skills in this day.  Of course, everyone THINKS they know how to look at a story critically.  

 

No one knows how to look at something critically. Either you can look at things critically because you have literally no stake in the subject matter, or you have a stake in the subject matter and then you are not critical, even if you are unaware of your bias. You have no conscious control over it, either way.

 

Although, after saying that, I would argue that the ideal conditions under which one would be unbiased are hypothetical conditions that never happen when you are making a judgment.

[BruceVC]

He's not a troll, everyone.

Thank you LK for finally acknowledging I'm not troll, I have been telling you that for ages 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/26/nina-turner-prominent-sanders-delegate-ejected-dnc?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

 

 

Nina Turner, Prominent Sanders Delegate, Ejected from DNC

Source close to former Ohio state senator confirms to Common Dreams that credentials were stripped

 

Just before former president Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night, progressive social media lit up with news that former Ohio state senator Nina Turner, one of Bernie Sanders' most celebrated surrogates, had her convention credentials stripped by the DNC and was ejected from the convention hall.

 

Earlier on Tuesday, a massive walkout of Sanders volunteers and supporters occurred at the convention after hundreds who had been promised access to the floor were reportedly denied.

How is the city not burning right now?

[ShadySands]

All things are excusable in pursuit of the greater good

 

 

 

Though, I read that Turner's creds weren't stripped but that some other drama did occur.

 

I must say that I find this all quite entertaining now that I no longer care. The speakers aren't as interesting as they were in the RNC but the other drama and shenanigans are pretty good

[Pidesco]

It has already been confirmed by Sanders people that that story is not true. Those same people say however that Turner was mistreated, and that she will explain  tomorrow.

[Volourn]

'Sander's people'. You mean that guy who is such a coward that he claims to fight against the establishment... all the while sucking up to them and being the 'good soldier'? LMAO

 

He's untrustworthy, a fake, and a fraud. I thought he was better than the other two but nope he is just another piece of ****. Not surprising though. That is politics.

[BruceVC]

I know Trump can be offensive at times but he also makes me laugh sometimes 

 

I just dont know if he realizes how some of the things he says come across or what the consequences of what he says are if he could implement them

 

But he makes me laugh at times, for example his latest speech on Russia hacking the DNC he said something like " Russia...if you listening please find the 30 k emails Hilary  deleted. The press will appreciate your efforts "  ....

 

Of course this is just another  attack on Hilary, its politics,  but its now been interpreted by some as "  Trump is encouraging Russia to commit cyber espionage "  ...people do love to vilify him and at times they do exaggerate what he says or read too much into his motives 

[BruceVC]

'Sander's people'. You mean that guy who is such a coward that he claims to fight against the establishment... all the while sucking up to them and being the 'good soldier'? LMAO

 

He's untrustworthy, a fake, and a fraud. I thought he was better than the other two but nope he is just another piece of ****. Not surprising though. That is politics.

Volo do you feel Sanders betrayed you?

[Volourn]

Me? No. Because I was never loyal to him. But, he most certainly betrayed his worshippers

 

 

"Of course this is just another  attack on Hilary, its politics,  but its now been interpreted by some as "  Trump is encouraging Russia to commit cyber espionage "  ...people do love to vilify him and at times they do exaggerate what he says or read too much into his motives "

 

Agreed with this.  Some people are going to use that statement as proof that he is actively working with Russia to spy on the US and will want him executed (Like they don't already). L0L

Edited July 27, 2016 by Volourn

[BruceVC]

Me? No. Because I was never loyal to him. But, he most certainly betrayed his worshippers

 

 

"Of course this is just another  attack on Hilary, its politics,  but its now been interpreted by some as "  Trump is encouraging Russia to commit cyber espionage "  ...people do love to vilify him and at times they do exaggerate what he says or read too much into his motives "

 

Agreed with this.  Some people are going to use that statement as proof that he is actively working with Russia to spy on the US and will want him executed (Like they don't already). L0L

You right he did have very loyal almost fanatical supporters 

 

But many of supporters still believe in the Democratic party and will vote for Hilary ..and Sanders did give a glowing endorsement of Hilary  so I  dont  think its fair to say he betrayed his supporters, yes he disappointed some people 

 

But Hilary did win the popular vote against Sanders so you do expect the Democratic party to unite behind the candidate who won?

Edited July 27, 2016 by BruceVC

[ShadySands]

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

[BruceVC]

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

I absolutely agree, I have always liked Sanders. He means well but as we have discussed before some of the things Bernie wanted to implement didnt really make economic sense 

 

But he believes what he says about a fair and more tolerant world and he would always be opposed to some of the more  divisive rhetoric from the Trump campaign .

 

Its not a betrayal for him to support Hilary 

[Namutree]

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

[BruceVC]

 

He always said he would back her if/when she got the nomination

 

Just like some of us said we wouldn't support her at such a time

 

We both kept our word. I don't see a problem

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton.

 

But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters

 

 

I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political  institutions think