Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[starlord]

Troll's not really a slur. Is it? Maybe I've been on the internet too long.

on these forums it is.
but trolling is a lost art, i've only seen a handful of old school style ones around here. just saying stupid shit isn't trolling.

[kasuke06]

I'm surprised that anyone is actually surprised by what happened. A "news" corporation that's almost entirely propaganda and a known liar teaming up to smear someone who's a threat to both? Insert shocked pikachu meme.

[mvaliz]

Troll's not really a slur. Is it? Maybe I've been on the internet too long.

I did one better and just threw him on ignore as well. Calling somebody for what they are by doing what they do repeatedly is not an insult - and he damn well knows that.

[eschatological]

Unfortunately for Warren, CNN's anti-Sander's questions coincided with the Sanders-Warren feud, which made it seem like CNN is on Warren's side. Having CNN on your side is the kiss of death.

The Sanders-Warren feud will pass. The hit to CNN's reputation will not. It would be nice if CNN just went away, but I suppose that is too much to ask!

I remember CNN in the 90s with fondness. It was muttered in the same breath as CSPAN. CSPAN had the live feed, CNN had in-depth, measured debates. Hell, CNN is the network of Christian Amanpour.

It's Zucker who has made CNN all about entertainment for topics which should be measured and reasonable. And that's the fundamental problem of a revenue-driven news station. It's why FoxNews burst onto the scene in the 90s, because they didn't pretend to care about impartiality beyond having the nominal "Fair and Balanced" tag (which was never true), and they started destroying ratings.

So who's to blame? The public, who can't stand and don't watch CSPAN/the more news-heavy CNN from past decades, or the 24/7 cable news channels who drive revenue through advertising, which leads to shock valuations on what to put on the air? I think one could argue it's more of a culture problem than anything else, because heavy-news driven channels exist in the rest of the world without the inherent dramatic undertones our news seeks to exploit. Unfortunately, we're exporting that culture around the world, which is why the whole problem with the BBC and Brexit happened as well.

[downnola]

I did one better and just threw him on ignore as well. Calling somebody for what they are by doing what they do repeatedly is not an insult - and he damn well knows that.

You don't know how disappointed I am that we'll no longer be able to converse about politics. Your insight is so valuable to me, and I'll have a hard time coping with the fact that we will no longer interact with each other.

[Levelfive]

You don't know how disappointed I am that we'll no longer be able to converse about politics. Your insight is so valuable to me, and I'll have a hard time coping with the fact that we will no longer interact with each other.

I think he's talking about the person he called a T-word...

[downnola]

I think he's talking about the person he called a T-word...

That's some incredibly sloppy grammar on his part if that's true. I don't think it is after reading his post again.

[Levelfive]

That's some incredibly sloppy grammar on his part if that's true. I don't think it is after reading his post again.

Here's his post to the person in question:

1) no they didn't, stop lying

2) It's high time I threw your ass on Ignore. Goodbye, T-Word.

ETA: Nvm, I think you're right. Welp.

[Blade Wolf]

Did Bernie did tell his senior campaign staff that Liz is a dear friend? They spent the week on twitter basically calling Liz a backstabbing bitch.

Again your following the fallacy that Bernie is entitled to all Dem votes. Just like they felt they were entitled to Warrens support in 2016. Help me remember, but again I think his staff called liz a backstabbing bitch after she endorsed Hillary in June of 2016 (waay after Bernie was mathematically eliminated).

Between Biden and Bernie, will largely depend on which is stronger after March. Liz is smart and strategic enough to hold an endorsement until then. Or when she can get the most consencessions for her endorsement.

You do know there is no actual source that witnessed the event itself right? All you have is Elizabeth Warrens word that it was said vs the most progressive senator in the current US, who advocated women could run for president in the 80s but sure she is right about this

[Levelfive]

You do know there is no actual source that witnessed the event itself right? All you have is Elizabeth Warrens word that it was said vs the most progressive senator in the current US, who advocated women could run for president in the 80s but sure she is right about this

Ok, again, no one is claiming Bernie said a woman couldn't run for or even be president. The claim is that he said he didn't think a woman could be elected. So it's irrelevant how progressive he is now or was in the 80s. Given the climate, I don't even think he's wrong.

[Blur4stuff]

It couldn't be more obvious that this is a last ditch effort to make Warren relevant for the upcoming caucus/primaries. It's disgusting and will damage her chances even more.

It's a flat out dumb thing to even invent considering we all witnessed Clinton get 3 million more votes than Trump. It's 100% proven that the American people are willing to elect a female president. The American people did not elect Trump, the EC did.

Warren fucked up, plain and simple. Whatever chance she still had is gone.

[Omega10]

I remember CNN in the 90s with fondness. It was muttered in the same breath as CSPAN. CSPAN had the live feed, CNN had in-depth, measured debates. Hell, CNN is the network of Christian Amanpour.

It's Zucker who has made CNN all about entertainment for topics which should be measured and reasonable. And that's the fundamental problem of a revenue-driven news station. It's why FoxNews burst onto the scene in the 90s, because they didn't pretend to care about impartiality beyond having the nominal "Fair and Balanced" tag (which was never true), and they started destroying ratings.

So who's to blame? The public, who can't stand and don't watch CSPAN/the more news-heavy CNN from past decades, or the 24/7 cable news channels who drive revenue through advertising, which leads to shock valuations on what to put on the air? I think one could argue it's more of a culture problem than anything else, because heavy-news driven channels exist in the rest of the world without the inherent dramatic undertones our news seeks to exploit. Unfortunately, we're exporting that culture around the world, which is why the whole problem with the BBC and Brexit happened as well.

Don't know who is really to blame. I'm just glad that CNN is finally taking some heat. Another left wing take on CNN:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/17/cnn-is-trash/

Basically, the gist of the article is that CNN is no different after the debates than before, but that the debate questions to Sanders were so biased against him and his policies that it became hard to ignore it. Apparently the twitter tag #CNNistrash trended for a while.

I agree with the article that CNN has been trash for quite a while. I am happy that others are beginning to notice We can't make CNN a non-trash network. But if they speak and no one listens it won't matter so much.

[Gaidax]

Biden is probably the only one who can win against Trump. Sanders has snowball's chance in hell and I don't think Warren can do it either.

Overall, I think Trump got it in the bag this time around.

[NED funded]

Biden is probably the only one who can win against Trump. Sanders has snowball's chance in hell and I don't think Warren can do it either.

Overall, I think Trump got it in the bag this time around.

Definitely. I don't think the 2016 primary was as divided as this one. Whoever wins is going to have a tough time uniting the party, it doesn't help that a good chunk of Sander's supporters are basically cultists

[Elegiac]

Definitely. I don't think the 2016 primary was as divided as this one. Whoever wins is going to have a tough time uniting the party, it doesn't help that a good chunk of Sander's supporters are basically cultists

Y'all really don't remember 2008, huh.

[Omega10]

Definitely. I don't think the 2016 primary was as divided as this one. Whoever wins is going to have a tough time uniting the party, it doesn't help that a good chunk of Sander's supporters are basically cultists

Call me whatever name you want. I won't vote for Biden, I'll vote Libertarian instead. Libertarian websites have been the leading anti-war voice in this country recently.

[Elegiac]

Call me whatever name you want. I won't vote for Biden, I'll vote Libertarian instead. Libertarian websites have been the leading anti-war voice in this country recently.

Kinda doesn't make sense to be anti-war and then being facile in re-electing Trump who, last I checked, was busy poking Iran in the eye with a stick.

[NED funded]

Call me whatever name you want. I won't vote for Biden, I'll vote Libertarian instead. Libertarian websites have been the leading anti-war voice in this country recently.

Lol it took one post for confirmation.

Hope you enjoy Trump then, dude is a massive pro-military intervention guy

[Gaidax]

I have no clue why people effectively make the same mistake as in 16. Sanders effectively sank that ship after doing all that damage.

But then again, seems like Dems can't help themselves but put useless crap on the ballot. Biden being the best they got is just sad, really.

[NED funded]

Y'all really don't remember 2008, huh.

I was too young for that borderline zoomer