droid

Well-known member
The big question now is: Which senile rapist do Americans think is best suited to oversee their final slide into oblivion?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
We've all heard about US officials siezing a load of medical masks in Thailand that were on their way to Germany and Canada, right?
I heard a couple of days back that they seized some on their way to (I think) Barbados, already paid for and all. Today I understand that they have basically said they are gonna stop and examine ALL medical equipment that is for exportation anywhere, potentially to hold it.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
The big question now is: Which senile rapist do Americans think is best suited to oversee their final slide into oblivion?
I've not really followed this that closely but I've seen people saying that Bernie is "obviously an abuser" cos of his manner and stuff... apparently said sincerely (though who knows?) - are there any actual credible reasons to think that? Beyond him being a man and all that.
 

droid

Well-known member
I've not really followed this that closely but I've seen people saying that Bernie is "obviously an abuser" cos of his manner and stuff... apparently said sincerely (though who knows?) - are there any actual credible reasons to think that? Beyond him being a man and all that.

Not Bernie, Biden.


As ignored by the media and laughed off by the #metoo liberals.

 

IdleRich

IdleRich
No I meant Sanders. I know that Biden has a woman claiming that he abused her some while back and Trump obviously has countless people doing that. I'm just saying that early during the primaries I saw lots and lots of people saying that they had a gut feeling (or stronger than that, they simply knew) that Bernie was a serial abuser of women cos of his domineering manner and loud voice and so on. I've actually seen that referred to more than either of the other two and I wondered if there was any reason whatsoever to put that above the level of people who have seemingly legitimate accusations to face... where does it come from?
 

droid

Well-known member
No I meant Sanders. I know that Biden has a woman claiming that he abused her some while back and Trump obviously has countless people doing that. I'm just saying that early during the primaries I saw lots and lots of people saying that they had a gut feeling (or stronger than that, they simply knew) that Bernie was a serial abuser of women cos of his domineering manner and loud voice and so on. I've actually seen that referred to more than either of the other two and I wondered if there was any reason whatsoever to put that above the level of people who have seemingly legitimate accusations to face... where does it come from?

The same place all the Bernie bro nonsense came from, desperate attempts to attack a principled political opponent with innuendo and bullshit because they are threatened by his policies and would prefer the status quo to any change that may materially affect them.
 

droid

Well-known member
big dif between an old-school guy who talks down to women and a rapist.

There's been a credible sexual assault allegation against him. Now Bernie's stepped back I imagine the MSM will be informing you of it soon.
 

Leo

Well-known member
There's been a credible sexual assault allegation against him. Now Bernie's stepped back I imagine the MSM will be informing you of it soon.

You misunderstood...I meant there's a big difference between Sanders as the old-school guy accused of talking down to women (as Rich said he heard) and Biden being a rapist.
 

Leo

Well-known member
separately, is the whole "MSM conspiracy" argument valid? There's a ton of highly competitive major media outlets out there who savagely investigate everything, no way you'd get them to form a secret cabal to universally sanction what does and doesn't get covered. Why, for example, would Fox News and Breitbart go along with a liberal establishment dictate? They wouldn't.
 

droid

Well-known member
separately, is the whole "MSM conspiracy" argument valid? There's a ton of highly competitive major media outlets out there who savagely investigate everything, no way you'd get them to form a secret cabal to universally sanction what does and doesn't get covered. Why, for example, would Fox News and Breitbart go along with a liberal establishment dictate? They wouldn't.

Its not a conspiracy. Its just how the liberal media works. Manufacture consent but also rake in the cash when ts opportune. I also dont think they are particularly competitive in the sense you mean either. Look at Hillary and her emails and how that was treated, the billions in (un)earned coverage trump got, and of course Biden's free 100 million dollar media push after south carolina despite it being expected all along and him having done absolutely nothing of note to deserve the comeback narrative, not to mention the suppression of the sexual assault allegations.

Theory on the US left is that having seen of Sanders, liberal media will now revert back to the usual profiteering and start dredging up dirt on Biden. I dont pay much attention to hate news, but IIRC Breitbart and the like have run a fair few anti-biden stories covering this, and other obvious issues.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
big dif between an old-school guy who talks down to women and a rapist.
That's my point... I see so many things that basically say that there isn't that difference and they say it so matter of factly that I wondered if there was something I'd missed that justified the extraordinary claim. But I always suspected it was just a load of trolls or bots or whatever basically parroting the line they've been told to from HQ. And I guess that (along with a load of stuff) has basically worked.
 

Leo

Well-known member
Not sure I understand...Hilary's mishandling of her emails was covered a ton by everyone, are you saying the "liberal media" brushed it under the rug? and Biden got a ton of coverage because it was a legit news story: crappy polling for month and fourth-place finishes in early states, then a decisive win in South Carolina which changed the race, he suddenly had the momentum which led to significant wins in other states to follow. that's not bias, that just covering the results.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I'm not saying anything like that at all. I'm just there are a load of weird bots saying that Bernie is an accuser. And they said it with such confidence based on just gut feeling it was weird. Nothing about Clinton or Biden or Liberal media, just amazing that I saw it so many times and I started to doubt myself is all.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think Leo might have been replying to droid?

Heck of a lot of confusion in the last pages of this thread...
 

droid

Well-known member
lol, yeah, i think we're all losing IQ points.

Not sure I understand...Hilary's mishandling of her emails was covered a ton by everyone, are you saying the "liberal media" brushed it under the rug? and Biden got a ton of coverage because it was a legit news story: crappy polling for month and fourth-place finishes in early states, then a decisive win in South Carolina which changed the race, he suddenly had the momentum which led to significant wins in other states to follow. that's not bias, that just covering the results.

The propoganda model is the foundation to my understanding of media in capitalist democracies. There's all kinds of quibbles, but the basic thesis is sound IMO - that through a variety of systemic processes, liberal corporate media ultimately serves the interests of power.

So if we take that as our starting point we can look at other characteristics, one is obviously the pursuit of short term profit through narrativisation, particularly stark in the case of election campaigns where there is hysterical focus on 'the race' and coverage tends to exaggerate or diminish certain stories in order to propel this narrative and sell content.

So in the case of Hillary's emails. More or less a non-story, but pushed relentlessly by the likes of the NYT and supposedly liberal broadcast media, whilst at the same time diminishing the importance of the Trump Russia scandal which was far more relevant and serious.

With Biden and Sanders, the media treatment was disgraceful. Sanders recieved far more negative coverage throughout the campaign, his (effective) win in Iowa was carefully stage managed by the DNC in collusion with the media to strip him of momentum, Biden's gaffes were ignored or minimised and then we came to South Carolina. Going into the race, Biden had about a 20 point polling advantage. He exceeded this by about 8 points but he was always expected to win by a large margin, this was followed by breathless media 'comeback kid' coverage leading to super tuesday, which was boosted by the coordinated drop out of the other centrist opponents. The media narrative had a decisive impact on the race. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/joe-biden-south-carolina-primary/607285/ In contrast when Sanders had a blowout win in nevada he faced 3 times as much negative coverage. https://inthesetimes.com/article/22...biden-media-spin-candidates-negative-mentions

This was a massive liberal propaganda campaign to remove a real threat to the status quo - and it was successful. Quite impressive in its outcome when you consider that Biden's closet is packed full of skeletons and he barely knows where he is at any given time. Unfortunately, the end result will most probably be utterly disastrous for the people of the US and the world.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Sorry, yeah, I was very tired and drunk last night and was really just adding a fairly neutral and naive observation (in that it was obviously gonna happen but still surprised me - which is a recurring thing with me observing US politics) but I seem to have confused everyone and especially myself with what I said and what people thought I meant. Apologies for that and derailing etc
 
Top