Why I am sick and tired of GOPers blaming the media

How would I win anything arguing with the troll?

 

A degree doesn't make you smart, that just means that you were able to sit through class and pass. I know people with degrees that are basically C students. I know of a doctor that the nurses nicknamed the butcher.

 

Offended? Better go to one of those colleges and find a safe space.

 

Or perhaps the ignorance of the American people is the reason for our flawed media.

 

The fact that the preponderance of white American males without a college degree support Trump is proof of the value of a college education.

 

Hmmm, so you think everyone with college degrees only support Hillary? Fantasize much?

 

There you go. Had you gone to college you might have learned the meaning of " preponderance"

 

One of the best posts I have seen here.......good job.

 

I have a college education. I have done radio shows about all the outside research I have done. I have a circle of friends that are highly educated like Tyrone Hughes that exposed Syngenta's Atrazine product . Whistle blowers that want people to know the truth and none of them would have anything to do with Hillary Clinton because she IS part of the problem. If you are "scholarly" but yet you can look past all the shenanigans of the Clintons, the rigging of the DNC nomination process, her ties to Wall Street, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the CFR and yet STILL claim Hillary is the educated choice for the next CEO of USA.INC? Then you need to go back to school and take some classes on critical thinking.

 

Brah, you've hijacked this thread, and trolled much worse than I have. Good comeback attempt anyway.

 

With Trump on the other side, some people just don't care about those things you referenced.

Sorry to break it to you, but (when it comes to accusations against the Clinton's) most educated people just don't care.

Hillary WILL be elected POTUS.

I noticed that you joined the forum in Sept. 2015, and just started posting a few days ago.

Is there any reason that you sat on your username for almost 10 months before posting?

Oh well, back on topic--outside of people who had no intention of ever voting for Hillary (under any circumstances) no one cares.

 

The thing is, the people voting for Hillary see the real picture. We know that some of Trump's foreign policy proposals, not his immigration proposals, but his foreign policy proposals, would make him a war criminal by the end of his first term. I guess those who have served in the military who back Trump are willing to say they have complete disregard for the Geneva Convention. Smart people like us see right through Trump, that Trump is really a democrat in sheep's clothing. No one, but the conservatives, and criminals like Assange, care about the emails. The emails are irrelevant to this election. Trump's tax returns are more relevant than the emails. Sanders' famous statement last fall resonated for a reason. Sean Hannity is just worried about getting the pink slip.

 

I was in college in the late 80s and have been following politics ever since. During that time, I have noticed that....

-While homeless rates per capita have remained remarkably consistent, you only hear about homelessness when the uncaring greedy Republicans are in office, and you hear about it quite a bit. When Democrats are in office, you would think that homeless cease to exist because you all of a sudden never hear about them.

-When Clarence Thomas was nominated, and his sexual harassment accuser made her claims with literally nothing to corroborate her story, the media insisted that this needed to be investigated fully, not because of the nature of the evidence, but rather because of the seriousness of the charge. When Bill Clinton had several accusers with the same serious charges and far more corroborating evidence, the media refused to speculate without proof positive. With Thomas they were rabid dogs, and with Clinton they acted annoyed that they even had to mention these "rumors".

-When a Republican at any level is caught with misconduct, their party affiliation is in the headline or at the very least in the first sentence. When a Democrat at any level is caught with misconduct, their party affiliation is either not mentioned at all, or buried in the last sentence. Basically, if you are hearing about a new political scandal and the article or the broadcaster has said 3 sentences and NOT mentioned party affiliation, you can rest assured that it is a Democrat.

- I have seen Dan Quayle painted as an absolute idiot due to his penchant for occasional gaffes, and Joe Biden painted as lovable because of his.

-For that matter, during my adult life, I have seen EVERY Republican president from Reagan to both Bush's painted as less than intelligent. When George Bush misspoke, it was front page news, and when Obama says 57 states or Corpsemen, nary a word from the media.

-When a Republican is in office during war, we get daily body counts on the news, when a Democrat is in office, the body count all of a sudden seemingly doesn't matter because you never hear a word about it.

-When the Monica news came out, NOBODY in the mainstream media would report it, insisting upon the highest levels of confirmation before daring to mention it. This refusal to bring it up is why some unknown named Drudge was able to become famous. The information was out in the public space, and only because of the new internet was it made public. It surely would have eventually come out, but the media wasn't exactly excited to present it. With your theory about market dynamics driving the news, that salacious story SHOULD have been one that EVERY outlet was dying to break.

-When 100% unfounded rumors about a Bush affair came out right before the election, it was splattered across all news outlets. Once again, not because of the nature of the evidence, but rather because the seriousness of the charge.

- In Florida in 2000, in the closest election in history in a state that that's result was only separated by a few hundred votes, the media decides to report that Gore won the state WHILE voting was still open in the panhandle, which is the Conservative part of the state. Surely some people that were in line in the Conservative part of the state got out of line once they heard that their state was called for Gore. How does that even happen ? The only states that are called right away are those that are CLEARLY in favor of one candidate or the other. Swing states are NEVER called early, and everyone knows that Florida is a swing state. In a historic election where Florida was the difference and was historically close, the media called it BEFORE the polls were closed. Coincidence?...I think not.


I could literally go on to provide a thousand other examples. The mainstream media is in the tank for Democrats. It is an undeniable reality. In 2004 when the exit polls were indicating that Kerry had won, the news anchors were almost giddy, and as it became clear that those exit polls were wrong, they became somber and bitter. Nobody can objectively deny this. Because they pull for Democrats, their coverage is decidedly biased. That bias shows in everything that they do, and it paints how stories are reported. Connotation is ALWAYS slanted toward the Democrats. With there being over a thousand different economic indicators, if Obama says the economy is doing well, the media will back up his assertion by throwing in a few of those indicators that back up his notion. If a Republican in office says the economy is doing well, the media will throw in a few of those indicators that refute his notion.

You may not pick up on these subtle nuances but I do. You may not think it is a big deal, but I do. You say that you see one side concerned with media bias, why do you think that is ? Doesn't it make perfect sense that the side that is the victim of that bias would be the ones complaining ? Would you expect the beneficiaries of that bias to complain ? Are you trying to somehow imply that Democrats are more righteous because they don't care about media bias ? If the media were biased against Democrats, do you suppose the side complaining may change ?

I guess to reply to your central premise, no I do not think that media bias is only a concern because of Trump. It has nothing to do with Trump. He is simply the latest Republican candidate. Whomever the Republicans had nominated, you can rest assured that they would predictably be excoriated by the media. John Mcain was the media darling when he poked his finger in Bush's eye in 2004, but when he got the nomination in 2008 he was transformed into an extremist. The most milquetoast Republican imaginable magically became an extremist. Milquetoast Romney whom created Romneycare was the media darling UNTIL he secured the nomination, at which point he too became an extremist. Republicans literally cannot win when it comes to the media narrative.

Republicans still win despite this handicap, but make no mistake about it, this bias IS a handicap that they have to overcome. What this handicap does is artificially shift the political center to the left. Somebody that favors the left side of the aisle predictably downplays this and sees it as no big deal. Someone that favors the right side of the aisle correctly points out that it is patently unfair.

 

Anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is a better choice for president of the United States than Hillary Clinton...ought not to be lecturing anyone else about "critical thinking."

 

I can only assume that this response was meant for someone else because it makes absolutely zero sense in regard to the post of mine that you quoted. Nothing in this response applies to what I had said.

 

Truer words were never spoken.

 

I'm not going to argue with you. You see what you want. That's conformational bias. I grew up with the Vietnam War on television at dinner with body counts. Johnson was President. I don't care to spend the time to refute each thing you listed, but I'll simply say, we see things differently.

If speaking out on media bias matters to you, by all means, continue to speak out. I doubt you'll sway anyone's vote by claiming media bias, but that's JMHO.

 

For starters it is confirmational bias NOT conformational. You keep masquerading that term as if it delineates something. To whatever extent that I am using confirmational bias, you are using the same. It is a wash. Just because you keep mentioning that term doesn't mean that you are somehow magically exempt from its effects.

Perhaps things were different in the Vietnam war, I do not know. I mentioned my time period in order to address the notion that media bias was only related to Trump. I more than adequately addressed the notion beyond this being a "Trump Thing".

This is a political chat board. Discussing a political topic such as media bias makes perfect sense in this forum. Virtually NOTHING in this forum serves to sway other peoples votes because for the most part people that come to a political chat room already know their position. I happened to reply to YOU on a thread about media bias. Being that YOU had already commented on a thread about media bias, obviously it must matter to YOU as well. Being that this thread is 25 pages long it must also matter to others. I find it disingenuous for you to now act as if I am wasting my time by discussing a topic that you yourself have made at least 10 and probably many more posts about. I doubt you'll sway anyone's vote, but that's JMHO.

 

No. They are not the most trusted name. They are the equivalent of MSNBC in trust. That is a fact.

 

I've attempted to politely bow out of our discussion several times. This is my final response to you. What I post is what I choose to post. Frankly, I'm bored with the topic and don't want to continue.

As for the spelling error, there is no masquerading. It's a function of my browser changing it through spell check and I didn't catch that it did.

Have a nice day.

 

Excellent post and one that rings true throughout the historical period you mention. Any honest and literate Democrat can understand the truth in what you've said. Perhaps some on the left will see the seriousness of what has gone on and that politics is not a team sport. It is the future of the country and the well being for all its citizens which is at risk.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/us/politics/gary-johnson-libertarian-third-party.html?_r=0

There are 3rd and more options.
It doesn't have to be the most insider person of all time or the raving lunatic.

 

Do some research. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/

 

What is the real picture?
If you like WS running the economy.
If you like chicken hawks running the military.
If you like things to be the same as the last 20 yrs. Then yes, hilary and the big picture is for you.

 

Anyone thinking either is a choice worth casting a vote for should not lecture anyone about 'critical thinking'.