SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
It was about News Corp having multiple active acquisitions for international media firms.
Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I think that Obamacare got the foot in the door for universal healthcare.
How do we break the stranglehold the big health insurance companies have? They aren't gonna go quietly, after all; once a rent seeker, always a rent seeker.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Legislate the huge profits away; they'll either leave by themselves or play ball like in Germany, etc.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
They have the money to buy everyone involved- except those who actually need universal healthcare. We don't count.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
I thought the first step on your ladder was to change campaign contributions?
One could naturally lead to the other, no?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
People need a personal stake in the process and if better healthcare for themselves and their loved ones isn't good enough, frankly we're already fucked.
So use these hot button issues to get people involved and invested and then use that energy to attack the core problem. It's not misdirection at all; as we've seen in the headlines, if you change healthcare legislation, the next bought and paid for politician who comes along will simply work to reverse it.
On the other hand, if we get rid of the money used to buy these political opportunists off, doing things that hurt the majority of Americans becomes detrimental to the politician's own career- which is as it should be!
Do y'all remember when Social Security was considered the 'third rail' of American politics? The point was that messing with these entitlements was tatamount to the kiss of death for a politician's career. And it was true- right up until the era of Citizens United. Now, money means more than votes, and right wing pols are actually gaining political stock by attacking it.
If we don't get rid of campaign finance nothing else that We the People need from our government will ever be safe from the greed heads and nothing we want will be taken seriously.
It's OUR government, not theirs. Cut off their funding and we can regain control of our government.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
People have always had to read the news, gather facts and make up their own minds. I don't see today as any different from 50 years ago. There has always been fake news and propaganda. Read what was said about the Vietnam War in the mid-60's or red-baiting before that. Foreign and domestic affairs reporting then was worse than today in that regard.
The today, major news outlets get it wrong by commission, not omission. They don't report on enough but I see an effort to get it right in a lot of the reporting. For myself, NPR seems pretty fair and accurate reporting.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The difference would be the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan in 1987 and by the FCC in 2011.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
THIS.
Good read;
Bad News, by Tom Fenton, CBS Senior Correspondent, retired.
It has always been such that the old days seem golden in retrospect of the present. True in some ways, not true in others. I was going through some old national Geographic magazines in a used book store and came across an issue from the "good old days" of the Vietnam war. It was horrendously distorted in retrospect. Yet, then as now, the truth comes out because most reporting, at least from reputable sources, aren't nearly as biased as you guys claim. In a sense, you promote fake conspiracy theories as much as the right does.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You're free to believe whatever you want, however that's exactly what you and others were telling us about the DNC leaks when they were happening. We have a better track record than you do, the narrative many here were pushing about Clinton being a good, qualified candidate was the fake news
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
well, thank you for letting me "believe" whatever I want, even though belief without facts is your territory. To which I'll give you the same courtesy.
I didn't vote for Clinton because I thought she was the best qualified candidate. I voted for Sanders for that reason in the primary.
Your track record in accomplishing anything is zero. Especially laughable in light of your reply is the fact that you are on record as saying you would have voted for Clinton for exactly the same reason I did. The only reason you didn't is because many voters in California relieved you of the decision.
But really, your reply does nothing to refute the post that drew your response. Nothing to say? Just attacking somebody who has a differern opinion and stated his reasons without the attacks. hmmmm? Very weak of you.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What do I believe that's not based on fact?
You and others in the Clinton camp were pushing the narrative that she was a good, qualified candidate who had a better chance at beating Trump than Sanders did even though every metric was against it. Poll numbers, popularity numbers, unfavorable numbers, etc., which was false.. You guys were the ones espousing fake news, pal..
50 years ago journalists actually did real journalism because stations had a financial incentive to produce quality investigative reports. Back then, that's what garnered ratings. You bring up Vietnam as an example, journalists reported so accurately on Vietnam that it became the major contributing factor to the change in official government policy for journalists reporting on war.
Here's a clip of CBS correspondent Richard Threlkeld on patrol with a platoon that comes under fire from enemy forces;
Journalists back then from mainstream sources were actually embedded with soldiers, on the ground, in the dirt, actually putting their lives on the line to gain actual truth. When was the last time someone at FOX or MSNBC did that?
"America’s trust and confidence in mainstream media stood at its highest level back in 1976 at 72%. Of course, that was due to the investigative journalism regarding Vietnam, and naturally Woodward and Berstein, with the Watergate scandal."
FOX is the propaganda wing of the Republican party, MSNBC is the propaganda wing of the Democratic party and CNN has a 50/50 bias, you can see this as clear as day when it comes to things like climate change. They will bring on a scientist to debate someone like Marsha Blackburn or Marc Morano and present each side as legitimate and "let the viewers make up their mind", which is monumentally bad journalism. It's reasons such as these that mainstream media is on its way out and new media is on the rise, especially among younger viewers;
"the slide in media trust has been happening for the past decade. Before 2004, it was common for a majority of Americans to profess at least some trust in the mass media, but since then, less than half of Americans feel that way. Now, only about a third of the U.S. has any trust in the Fourth Estate, a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public."
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced."
This regulation was the best protection against "fake news". Since 1987 and the explosion of infotainment news, stations have not been subject to this regulation.
No it wasn't
I see a narrative being pushed by corporate interests, which would make sense since 6 corporations own the mainstream media you view; Here's a report from NPR about it
Explaining the difference to you was an "attack"?
Last edited:
Aeroknow
Well-Known Member
Can you imagine the numbers that Hillary would have won the majority by if only the Bernie bitches would have voted? EVEN IN CA.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
She did win the majority of votes. She failed to appeal to working-class voters which lost her the votes she needed to win the election.
Sanders and the people that voted for him, as well as Stein and Johnson and the people that voted for them are not responsible for Clinton's failure. Her supporters simply use that excuse as a scapegoat to ignore her and the Democratic party's blatant failures to attract voters, and ignore party bylaws requiring neutrality of the process while subverting democracy. And they haven't learned a goddamn thing from it. They will lose again in 2018 and 2020 unless they change to a more populist progressive platform. Quote me on that.
Last edited:
Aeroknow
Well-Known Member
She would have won by a very more impressive number.
Trump lied to those gullible "working class" voters. Shit's not gonna happen, they'll come back around. What's your excuse? Let it all burn down? And then in will come the 'real' progressive finally? Give me a fucking break yo. Right after all kinds of damage has been done
Aeroknow
Well-Known Member
Bullshit
Aeroknow
Well-Known Member
You suckas got fucking played by the GOP. Suckers
So fucking disgusted I've tried to stay away from here.