Social The Media is attacking Joe Rogan for saying he would prefer Trump over Biden

He won it in more states of those four battleground states. He isn't more popular with independents broadly.

He was more popular among independents who voted in the primary.

The answer to this question is literally in the question.

Less impressionable means you are less likely to be influenced by something. Resistance to influence waning means you are more likely to be influenced by something. Whatever you were trying to say was worded incorrectly.
 
The "crazy new left" is a vocal minority on Twitter. Most people who vote left aren't about identity politics and all that SJW shit. Joe is a comedian. That automatically means he is against censorship and cancel culture. That doesn't mean he is conservative. The majority of comics are liberals.

What specific beliefs do you think make him a conservative?

The very problem is that the crazy left have gone mainstream.

Basically the opposite of what you said.
 
He was more popular among independents who voted in the primary.
Not in those four states he wasn't. Assessing solely those four states by aggregate numbers by extrapolating their total independent populations using the easiest reference I have at hand, via the Pew, weighted by those exit polls, Biden enjoys 3,893K vs. Bernie's 3,572K independent supporters in sum across those states, translating to a 52% vs. 48% absolute advantage.
Less impressionable means you are less likely to be influenced by something. Resistance to influence waning means you are more likely to be influenced by something. Whatever you were trying to say was worded incorrectly.
Media bias in the Democratic primary
The above is a deep dive into media coverage of the primary written in November of last year. The candidates who received the most disproportionate coverage relative to their overall popularity in the polls to that point?
Gillibrand, De Blasio, Warren, Steyer, and Booker.

The most underrepresented?
Hickenlooper, Yang, and O'Rourke.

Marry that to the above analysis of the tone of coverage, and you can see that Biden was actually getting slammed-- with unrivaled volume-- by the press, not the contrary.


You consistently assume these victimization fantasies at odds with reality. It's like a mild form of schizophrenia.
 
The very problem is that the crazy left have gone mainstream.

What? No! It's a very niche almost unrecognizable group! The fact that their views have infected the mainstream to the point where Hollywood movies are pandering to them, means absolutely nothing. NOTHING!
 
The very problem is that the crazy left have gone mainstream.

Basically the opposite of what you said.
When there's talk of putting dudes with dicks in women's prisons and of reparations by presidential candidates, there's no denying this fact.
 
When there's talk of putting dudes with dicks in women's prisons and of reparations by presidential candidates, there's no denying this fact.

Small insignificant group. Don't pay any attention to it, and certainly don't criticize it. Just pretend it's not happening.

It's almost like there's some agenda among a certain group to hide these skeletons, or something...
 
What? Twitter is about as mainstream as it gets. If not though, is Hollywood mainstream, or just some tine insignificant voice?

Most people aren't on Twitter. And of the people on Twitter, the most radical elements get the most attention. And actual news outlets report on this stuff, which I find the most dangerous. Some whacko makes a tweet and all of a sudden it's news.
 
What? No! It's a very niche almost unrecognizable group! The fact that their views have infected the mainstream to the point where Hollywood movies are pandering to them, means absolutely nothing. NOTHING!

I assume you are talking about movies with females and minorities in lead roles. I'm not sure how that's "crazy".
 
Most people aren't on Twitter. And of the people on Twitter, the most radical elements get the most attention. And actual news outlets report on this stuff, which I find the most dangerous. Some whacko makes a tweet and all of a sudden it's news.

That is one hell of a contradictory statement. In one breath, you say that Twitter isn't mainstream. In the next, you're saying that one voice on Twitter can transform the narrative.

Which is it?
 
Anyone who thinks cackling witch Hillary Clinton was a better choice than Trump is..

Lets face it, beside some personality flaws of Trump and not acting very presidential, many people hated him because he wanted a border and it goes against the mass pushed agenda by majority of left and so called right wing governments that we have to have endless migration and no borders.. or its fascist

Of course it only applies to one race of people..
 
Anyone who thinks cackling witch Hillary Clinton was a better choice than Trump is..

Lets face it, beside some personality flaws of Trump and not acting very presidential, many people hated him because he wanted a border and it goes against the mass pushed agenda by majority of left and so called right wing governments that we have to have endless migration and no borders.. or its fascist

Of course it only applies to one race of people..
Who is for open borders exactly? Our last president was a dem and he deported plenty. This is a right wing myth
 
That is one hell of a contradictory statement. In one breath, you say that Twitter isn't mainstream. In the next, you're saying that one voice on Twitter can transform the narrative.

Which is it?

It's not Twitter changing narratives. It's poor journalism from other websites that take tweets and report on them as news, making them appear more significant than they actually are.
 
Who is for open borders exactly? Our last president was a dem and he deported plenty. This is a right wing myth

Obama deported more illegals than any president in history, including Trump.
 
It's not Twitter changing narratives. It's poor journalism from other websites that take tweets and report on them as news, making them appear more significant than they actually are.

It's almost like Twitter has influence, or something...
 
Who is for open borders exactly? Our last president was a dem and he deported plenty. This is a right wing myth

Wasn’t this a big media narrative, which others pointed out that Trump is not the first person to want to safely protect our borders, contradictory to what the media was projecting at the time?

Your comments read like revisionist history now.
 
Not in those four states he wasn't. Assessing solely those four states by aggregate numbers by extrapolating their total independent populations using the easiest reference I have at hand, via the Pew, weighted by those exit polls, Biden enjoys 3,893K vs. Bernie's 3,572K independent supporters in sum across those states, translating to a 52% vs. 48% absolute advantage.

Sanders won independent voters in 3 out of those 4 states. He won the independent vote in every state other than a few deep red southern states and Florida, which was a closed primary. Did you extrapolate that?

Media bias in the Democratic primary
The above is a deep dive into media coverage of the primary written in November of last year. The candidates who received the most disproportionate coverage relative to their overall popularity in the polls to that point?
Gillibrand, De Blasio, Warren, Steyer, and Booker.

The most underrepresented?
Hickenlooper, Yang, and O'Rourke.

Marry that to the above analysis of the tone of coverage, and you can see that Biden was actually getting slammed-- with unrivaled volume-- by the press, not the contrary.


You consistently assume these victimization fantasies at odds with reality. It's like a mild form of schizophrenia.

You didn't answer the question and the author of your article actually concludes there is evidence for bias against Gabbard and Sanders.

Your link is also from last year when the worst bias against Sanders I've seen was from this year when the race kicked off.

"In the 24 hours following his massive win in Nevada, Sanders received 3.26 times the proportion of negative CNN coverage than Biden did following the latter’s South Carolina win—despite the two wins being by similar margins."

http://inthesetimes.com/article/223...iden-media-spin-candidates-negative-mentions/

It's not just negative mentions either, it's the nastiness of them. Here's just a small sample of the negative comments made on NBC about Sanders:

"Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl"
"I see him as a not pro woman candidate"
"I don't understand young women who support him"
“I don’t care how many people from the island of misfit black girls you throw out there to defend you"
"I do find it fascinating that racist liberal whites seem to love them some Bernie Sanders"
"I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940. And the general, Reynaud, calls up Churchill and says, 'It's over.' And Churchill says: 'How can that be? You've got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?' He said, 'It's over.' So I had that suppressed feeling."
"No other candidate has anything like this digital brownshirt brigade"
"I have an attitude towards Castro. I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park, and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering, OK?"
"The only thing between the United States and the abyss is the Democratic Party. That’s it. If we go the way of the British Labour Party, if we nominate Jeremy Corbyn, it’s going to be the end of days."

When Biden has been criticized by the MSM it isn't anywhere near as nasty as this. They won't even report on his sexual assault allegation.
 
It's almost like Twitter has influence, or something...

In terms of real power, no. I'm saying we hear from these people far more than we should. Everyone has an opinion. Before social media you would have to write an article or send a letter, etc to get your opinion heard. Now you can tweet about it in 30 seconds.
 
Back
Top