MSNBC and others blacklisted Bernie Sanders in election

[franklinstower]

Thanks you so much MSNBC!!!



Did Bernie run on using power at a bank to get his wife a lone after which the wife bankrupted the college she was the president of? That is some good sound Marxist economic policy to run on.

Point taken.

On the other hand we all ought to be very worried when the wealthy and wealthy corporations and news outlets have more influence in deciding our national politics than we do.

Also it seems dems and rep alike could and should unite in demanding free and fair elections.

Any politician who does not take this problem seriously and address it as a core position for their campaign is totally full of shit in my opinion.

There is no problem more serious than this in the United States. None. And fucking no one seem to really give a shit.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Ron Paul was the hero everyone wanted but no one voted for, because they'd rather have a black neocon in office instead.

Ron "Freedom is about taking your own [medical] risks" Paul was only a hero to neckbeard college sophomores and sociopaths that will happily watch the world burn as long as there's no taxes.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Ron "Freedom is about taking your own [medical] risks" Paul was only a hero to neckbeard college sophomores and sociopaths that will happily watch the world burn as long as there's no taxes.

Ron Paul’s FP would have saved 3 million lives and $7 trillion dollars and the ME would still be standing

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Ron Paul’s FP would have saved 3 million lives and $7 trillion dollars and the ME would still be standing

His FP was his saving grace, I'll give him that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Perhaps, but see the motivation point. Why on Earth would she be willing to make that kind of sacrifice for the TPP? It doesn't make any sense to me. I had been willing to bet my account (with one of the nutters ITT) on it if she were elected.

Because she in fact did think it was a good trade deal, as evidenced by her own words and the fact that the delegates who supported her blocked the inclusion of anti-free trade language in the Democratic platform.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Because she in fact did think it was a good trade deal, as evidenced by her own words and the fact that the delegates who supported her blocked the inclusion of anti-free trade language in the Democratic platform.

So good that she'd sacrifice her political career for it? That's pretty heroic, though such heroism would be utterly wasted on something so small.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So good that she'd sacrifice her political career for it? That's pretty heroic, though such heroism would be utterly wasted on something so small.

You're really exaggerating the consequences such a flip flop would have on her. She's not an impulsive and erratic actor like Trump, if she did do it she'd do it in a way that would produce as little backlash as possible. And I doubt that'd sink her career, Obama failed to close Guantanamo and he still won his reelection handily for instance. Its not exactly analogous but point being reneging on a campaign promise or two is virtually expected at this point.

 

[Madmick]

not even remotely, I just think you respect our own media more than I do

the apparently 'progressive' MSNBC is about as Neoliberal as humanly possible in reality, it's a complete joke

why do you think guys like Jimmy Dore get as many views as he does, all he does is pt about media hypocrisy like a left Sargon

The character of an outlet doesn't bear on the veracity of its reporting. Magazines like Mother Jones are extremely leftist, but also honorably so. Agendas themselves aren't lies.

You guys know what MSNBC is to me? They're that scourge of "modernized journalism" that doesn't print a damn thing, anymore. I sometimes get pulled into MSNBC from clickbait links, and 100% of the time I don't even get article coverage. It's a video. Their expectation amounts to a demand that I sit and watch a fucking video rather than choose which medium I prefer. It's intolerable.

I'm not sure what MSNBC's track record is. Personally, I don't ever really see anything from them that isn't posted here. Usually it's that Rachel Maddow dude. But I haven't seen them broadcasting Assad denials that kids like Omran Daqneesh even existed, and treating that as the real story-- the real news (only to months later enthusiastically cover Assad as he trot this family out after discovering the father was an Assad sympathizer...whoops, Syria, I'm not stupid, I remember things).

Do you have an example of MSNBC perpetrating a massive propaganda scheme that has been exposed with specific examples like this one? Tell me about it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're really exaggerating the consequences such a flip flop would have on her. She's not an impulsive and erratic actor like Trump, if she did do it she'd do it in a way that would produce as little backlash as possible. And I doubt that'd sink her career, Obama failed to close Guantanamo and he still won his reelection handily for instance. Its not exactly analogous but point being reneging on a campaign promise or two is virtually expected at this point.

I think you're grossly understating it. Obama's first action was to order a closure of Guantanamo, and he continued fighting for it for a while. If he'd said, "you know, I actually think we should keep it open," he would have taken a major hit, especially if a bloc of his supporters were afraid he'd do that.

And, again, you're attributing a surprising level of heroism to her.

 

[Rematch]

I mean, yeah, it was kind of obvious.

However, that anecdote isn't much of stark evidence, since at that time Sanders was not considered to be even a remotely legitimate challenger, and it could well be that the other stories in Texas, Baltimore, etc. that he was downplaying did have real significance to the outlet's interests. It's not like people, even on the far left who had at that time sort of written Sanders off as a flaky social democrat as we tend to do, was waiting on pins and needles for his campaign announcement.

And right wingers (not you, OP) ignorantly and recklessly appropriating the "Bernie got screwed" narrative to justify their shit candidate and their shit choice in voting for him are kind of sad.

So the fact it happened and the obvious intent of the media shouldn't matter then? Seriously?

 

[Trotsky]

So the fact it happened and the obvious intent of the media shouldn't matter then? Seriously?

...huh?

 

[Trotsky]

Side note: I think it's funny that people who buy the right-wing characterization of her as some kind of sleazy politician would think she'd flip, as that would entail massive political costs and would indicate that she's putting (her idea of) the good of the country above her political fortunes. I don't think she'd be that sacrificing.

I think you misunderstand the characterization, its internal logic, and the very anxieties about the nature of American politics/politicians.

Political capital isn't a tangible thing, and isn't even something most voters think of. Real capital, actual dollars, are tangible, and there was considerable money to be thrown at politicians for greasing the wheels of trade deals. To pretend that the concerns about Clinton (left or right, right or wrong) were completely about democratic expediency (which may well be a good thing, democratically speaking) and not personal fortune is just obtuse, especially given her husband's history as the who sold the Democratic Party to big business.

A large part of the Trump appeal was that he was independently wealthy, could supposedly fund his own campaign, and bore the subsequent appearance of impartiality from special interests. To a simpleton, that's a powerful quality.

Why on Earth would she be willing to make that kind of sacrifice for the TPP? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Mitch McConnell was born to a lower middle class family. Straight out of law school he worked in government and he has held political office. He has never worked in the private sector. When he first became senator in 1984, the salary was $75k. It is currently $175k.

Mitch McConnell is currently estimated to be worth $22.5 million. That would take 180 years of taking a senatorial salary, without spending anything.

 

[franklinstower]

So the fact it happened and the obvious intent of the media shouldn't matter then? Seriously?

The fact that it happened IS bad enough for sure. And this story just adds to the credibility of many other accounts from other reporters who have experienced the same thing. Cenk from TYT said what happened to him was not as bad as on the vid I posted.

There was a ton of backlash against NPR also because of their coverage of Bernie Sanders. I remember the day after one of the debates between Bernie and Hillary where it was at least a pretty even debate if not a clear victory for Bernie and one of the shows primed it with "Was it a landslide victory for Hillary". I could not believe how full of shit that whole show was.



The whole point of me posting the vid was really only secondarily about Bernie though. The real scandal is that corporate interests use their own corporate medial to shape our politics and policies and the way we think about policy towards their agenda and benefit. This is beyond fucked up but is going on all the time. We dont live in a true democracy.

The corruption in our system from corporate and special interest money in our political sphere especially on the level of campaign donations and lobbying is the single most important political issue of our day. Our democracy is totally undermined and you cant look into our system for very long without seeing it.

Any politician who cant see it or wont see it is an enemy of democracy, a liar, con man or woman and a thief, or else too stupid to see the problem. I cant take ANY politician seriously who cant or wont make a stand against this bullshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Political capital isn't a tangible thing, and isn't even something most voters think of. Real capital, actual dollars, are tangible, and there was considerable money to be thrown at politicians for greasing the wheels of trade deals. To pretend that the concerns about Clinton (left or right, right or wrong) were completely about democratic expediency (which may well be a good thing, democratically speaking) and not personal fortune is just obtuse, especially given her husband's history as the who sold the Democratic Party to big business.

Your theory is that there would be a meaningful difference in 2020 campaign funding that would result from a reversal on the TPP? That sounds too ludicrous to be your actual point so please clarify (for one thing, why would the evil corporations give any money after they already got their alleged prize?). Also, I'd think that the results of the 1980, 1984, and 1988 presidential elections might have more to do with the 1992 Democratic candidate moving right than some secret plan to obtain campaign funding from big business.

Mitch McConnell was born to a lower middle class family. Straight out of law school he worked in government and he has held political office. He has never worked in the private sector. When he first became senator in 1984, the salary was $75k. It is currently $175k.

Mitch McConnell is currently estimated to be worth $22.5 million. That would take 180 years of taking a senatorial salary, without spending anything.

So this seems to imply that you think that politicians are being directly bribed (rather than getting campaign funding) by donors to pass policies that you don't agree with. Is that the claim?

Also, I think McConnell is one of the worst human beings in Washington, but I'm not aware of him taking any bribes, and I doubt he'd get away with it if he has been. His wife (Elaine Chao) has probably outearned him by a lot, and he's probably made money doing some shady but not illegal stuff.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Mitch McConnell is currently estimated to be worth $22.5 million. That would take 180 years of taking a senatorial salary, without spending anything.

Well shit. How much did he make before taxes? Homie should be running the economy.

 

[Trotsky]

Well shit. How much did he make before taxes? Homie should be running the economy.

Sadly, he more or less is a beacon of Republican economy. Nothing for the poor, everything for the rich, and a nice big cut for their representatives.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sadly, he more or less is a beacon of Republican economy. Nothing for the poor, everything for the rich, and a nice big cut for their representatives.

We should all be representatives.

No more poor.

 

[Trotsky]

Your theory is that there would be a meaningful difference in 2020 campaign funding that would result from a reversal on the TPP? That sounds too ludicrous to be your actual point so please clarify (for one thing, why would the evil corporations give any money after they already got their alleged prize?).
Also, I'd think that the results of the 1980, 1984, and 1988 presidential elections might have more to do with the 1992 Democratic candidate moving right than some secret plan to obtain campaign funding from big business.

No, silly.

I'm not talking about campaign finance. Clinton didn't come under scrutiny, for instance, from campaign contributions, but from patronage independent of the political process. She came under scrutiny for donations to the Clinton Foundation and alleged "pay or play" (from the right) and for paid speeches by big financial interests (from the left). Those are, depending on your perspective, arguable bribes.

There are anxieties, which are understandable in my opinion, of private interests swaying objective policy opinion. For example, I would be hard pressed to ever believe that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ever really believed on an objective policy basis that pay day lenders really needed to be de-regulated and protected from oversight in issuing predatory loans. I just don't think that is consistent with what she holds to be her philosophical platform.

So this seems to imply that you think that politicians are being directly bribed (rather than getting campaign funding) by donors to pass policies that you don't agree with. Is that the claim?

Well, that's not my claim: my claim surrounds the appearance of corruption, not the existence of corruption itself. The former is much more democratically important than the latter when it comes to winning elections.

Also, I think McConnell is one of the worst human beings in Washington, but I'm not aware of him taking any bribes, and I doubt he'd get away with it if he has been. His wife (Elaine Chao) has probably outearned him by a lot, and he's probably made money doing some shady but not illegal stuff.

McConnell has also been the single biggest opponent of, in addition to campaign finance regulation and transparency, financial regulation and reporting in general in modern history.

You can take the position of "I don't have proof, so I won't engage in conspiracy theory" and that's admirable enough. I, however, will not give that benefit of the doubt to McConnell that he parlayed a lifetime of public salaries into $22 million just through savvy investing on the side, although I am absolutely sure he has made plenty of windfalls in that area.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, silly.

I'm not talking about campaign finance. Clinton didn't come under scrutiny, for instance, from campaign contributions, but from patronage independent of the political process. She came under scrutiny for donations to the Clinton Foundation and alleged "pay or play" (from the right) and for paid speeches by big financial interests (from the left). Those are, depending on your perspective, arguable bribes.

So your theory is that she would flip on the TPP because she would personally profit for it or get donations for her charity? That's even crazier than the campaign finance thing. And, as I said earlier, I think a lot of the cynics here think they're being sophisticated but end up inadvertently crediting people they're trying to attack with an extremely high degree of personal virtue.

Well, that's not my claim: my claim surrounds the appearance of corruption, not the existence of corruption itself. The former is much more democratically important than the latter when it comes to winning elections.

So then it's kind of out of place in this discussion, no?

To reiterate my view: Clinton would have paid a terrible political price for flipping on the TPP and would get no benefit for it. Thus, there was never a legitimate chance that she would have flipped on it. I could add that I never saw a plausible motive put forward for such an odd expectation.

You can take the position of "I don't have proof, so I won't engage in conspiracy theory" and that's admirable enough. I, however, will not give that benefit of the doubt to McConnell that he parlayed a lifetime of public salaries into $22 million just through savvy investing on the side, although I am absolutely sure he has made plenty of windfalls in that area.

"Savvy investing" by U.S. Senators for much of his career involved legally using material, non-public information. And see my point about his wife. And to be clear, I'm perfectly willing to engage in speculation (I don't need someone to meet a legal standard here), but it should be reasonable speculation. "He's an amoral prick therefore he's guilty" isn't what I'd call reasonable speculation.

 

[franklinstower]

Ron "Freedom is about taking your own [medical] risks" Paul was only a hero to neckbeard college sophomores and sociopaths that will happily watch the world burn as long as there's no taxes.

I really liked Ron Paul when I first heard him speak because I could tell that he really believed what he was saying. Then I looked up his policies and it made me very afraid of him any anyone that would vote for him. He wants the wild wild west days back.