What does The War Room consist of mostly?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're saying 80% of America switches back and forth from election to election?

No, I'm saying 80% looks at the candidates and typically comes to about same conclusion.

I respectfully disagree. And both your state and mine (MN) will go blue next election just to prove it (people tend to stick to one voting preference regardless of the candidate). I guaran-damn-tee it. I know more people who vote consistently D or R and always have and always will, by a 20-to-1 margin, than I do those who switch camps.

If one party is consistently more in tune with their thinking, that party will consistently win their votes. But that doesn't mean that those people would be safe voters for a fringe candidate from the party they usually vote for.
 
Yes because Republicans don't gleefully play the liberal media card at every opportunity.

Republicans have Fox News and AM radio, that's it. They are literally, actually the underdogs in media and certainly in academia, and vastly in unions. It's not a card so much as it is reality. Eric Holder saying all opposition is racist is playing a card.
 
No, I'm saying 80% looks at the candidates and typically comes to about same conclusion.

You're saying Dems think and then pull the D lever, I'm saying they don't think and pull the D lever. Same with most R voters. I'll agree to disagree, hard to prove something that produces the same results regardless of who's right.

If one party is consistently more in tune with their thinking, that party will consistently win their votes. But that doesn't mean that those people would be safe voters for a fringe candidate from the party they usually vote for.

You consider George W Bush mainstream then?
 
How do they create an adversarial relationships with the media? They can't respond to media that hasn't been created. The media glorified W.Clinton, lampooned GWB, mocked Palin and venerated Obama.

That's where your siege mentality originates from. The media distinctly chooses sides and they rarely choose Republicans (for whatever reason). You can't then be surprised when Republicans stop seeing the media as an ally and correctly treats most of them as an opponent.

McCain had long been a media favorite before 2008, and that didn't really change in the election. They media were fawning over Palin when she was first announced and gave her speech. It wasn't until she started embarrassing herself with her lack of knowledge that the coverage of her turned. The media loved GWB before and during his first term. The media were also brutal to Al Gore--repeating constant fake quotes and inaccurate claims about him.

My impression of the real media bias is they like people who come out of nowhere, but then they turn on them. They like winners. They get tired of people who have gotten a lot of coverage. In terms of policy, they hate deficits and are generally right-leaning on economic issues, but they don't "get" the religious and are generally left-leaning on social issues. It all varies, of course, but that's the center. And it's understandable given what they do and where they tend to be based.

You consider George W Bush mainstream then?

Yes, of course. If anything, the party has moved even further to the right since he left office.
 
You type some of the most insulting things I've read in quite a while. An immigrant Hispanic/black lawyer.

I was born here. I'm not an immigrant. Jesus, do you not see how ignorant you're coming across?

And I don't care what you think of as black in American society. The whole point is that what you claim is black in American society is wrong. It's harshly limited by your failure to expose yourself to the full range of black society.

You're not black but you think that talking to the narrow group of blacks you stumble across gives you greater insight into black culture than someone who actually is black and lives life as a black American. Why? Because my perspective doesn't reinforce the stereotypes you'd prefer to believe.

You prefer the narrative that black families don't promote education to their kids or that they expect and/or condone cheating. You prefer it to the narrative that some black people have shitty lives and some black people excel. That some like hip hop and some like country. That some barely get out of high school and some are Ivy League graduates.

The whole point of this lengthy, and sad discourse, is that black culture is far broader than the ghetto or urban life. For example: Have you ever spoken with someone from Jack and Jill? How many former sharecroppers do you know? Have you spoken with middle class black Americans in the Northwest? Rich black Americans in the South? Have you lived in wealthy black neighborhoods? Middle class ones? So forth and so on.

You don't know black America. You don't live it. You don't interact with it at the highest and the lowest levels. A handful of random conversations does not an expert make. Even if we just wanted to talk numbers, I'm pretty sure I've spoken with far more black people than you. This thread really should have been an opportunity for you to recognize the limits of your knowledge and shortcomings of your expectations. Instead, you've chosen to double down on ignorance.

Beatdown!!!!
 
How do they create an adversarial relationships with the media? They can't respond to media that hasn't been created. The media glorified W.Clinton, lampooned GWB, mocked Palin and venerated Obama.

That's where your siege mentality originates from. The media distinctly chooses sides and they rarely choose Republicans (for whatever reason). You can't then be surprised when Republicans stop seeing the media as an ally and correctly treats most of them as an opponent.

My point is that it's become a crutch. Every little bit of negative press gets dismissed because...liberal media. They play it up every chance they get.

Maybe they deserve a lot of negative press for being godawful? They're objectively the worse of the two parties so I'm not sure why they think they're entitled to some perfect 50/50 split with the Democrats when it comes to media treatment. It doesn't help that they regularly elevate clownish idiots to places of high prominence within the party. In what bizarro universe is somebody like Michelle Bachmann EVER going to look good in the media?

They also conveniently ignore instances where the media works in their favor. You mentioned Clinton, well I remember 24/7 coverage of cum-stained dresses.
 
McCain had long been a media favorite before 2008, and that didn't really change in the election. They media were fawning over Palin when she was first announced and gave her speech. It wasn't until she started embarrassing herself with her lack of knowledge that the coverage of her turned. The media loved GWB before and during his first term. The media were also brutal to Al Gore--repeating constant fake quotes and inaccurate claims about him.

My impression of the real media bias is they like people who come out of nowhere, but then they turn on them. They like winners. They get tired of people who have gotten a lot of coverage. In terms of policy, they hate deficits and are generally right-leaning on economic issues, but they don't "get" the religious and are generally left-leaning on social issues. It all varies, of course, but that's the center. And it's understandable given what they do and where they tend to be based.



Yes, of course. If anything, the party has moved even further to the right since he left office.

This is kinda what I'm getting at. They pretend like bad press is just some default thing that happens regardless of how shitty or ridiculous they happen to be at any given time. Seriously, how on earth is a business that relies on ratings and sensationalism ever going to resist clowning on somebody as ridiculous as Palin?
 
Republicans have Fox News and AM radio, that's it. They are literally, actually the underdogs in media and certainly in academia, and vastly in unions. It's not a card so much as it is reality. Eric Holder saying all opposition is racist is playing a card.

Gee ONLY Foxnews and AM radio. Wow man that's rough.
 
This is kinda what I'm getting at. They pretend like bad press is just some default thing that happens regardless of how shitty or ridiculous they happen to be at any given time. Seriously, how on earth is a business that relies on ratings and sensationalism ever going to resist shitting on somebody as ridiculous as Palin?

Yeah. What happens in most races (including at the local level) is that as one candidate starts struggling or another pulls away, the coverage of the struggling candidate gets more negative (because you start getting negative leaks from the campaign and everyone is in a worse mood), and then the struggling candidate blames his defeat on the bad press.
 
Can we start a thread about someone being intimately familiar with the Asian community but isn't Asian and isn't married to one, please?

I nominate C&T as the resident expert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top