DescentBB

You really need to stop reminding us all about how political cartoonists are just people who dropped out of art school. I'm sure they already feel bad enough about it themselves.

Top Gun wrote:You really need to stop reminding us all about how political cartoonists are just people who dropped out of art school. I'm sure they already feel bad enough about it themselves.

So it doesn't bother you at all that we have a media working hand in hand with a single political party as a willing propaganda apparatus?

^^^^
should I even answer that?

Nightshade wrote:

Top Gun wrote:You really need to stop reminding us all about how political cartoonists are just people who dropped out of art school. I'm sure they already feel bad enough about it themselves.

So it doesn't bother you at all that we have a media working hand in hand with a single political party as a willing propaganda apparatus?

I don't watch Fox news much, so it doesn't really bother me.

callmeslick wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

Top Gun wrote:You really need to stop reminding us all about how political cartoonists are just people who dropped out of art school. I'm sure they already feel bad enough about it themselves.

So it doesn't bother you at all that we have a media working hand in hand with a single political party as a willing propaganda apparatus?

I don't watch Fox news much, so it doesn't really bother me.

...right. The republicans "have" Fox...but the left has CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC and so on.

Nah, reality just has a liberal bias, right?

That "supposed" cartoon of Hillary looks a lot like Trump, down to the same orange, backward comb over.

Top Gun wrote:Nah, reality just has a liberal bias, right?

What the hell does that even mean?

I asked you this before, if “reality” has a liberal bias, then why is the universe such a hostile place?

What does that mean?

It means that certain people continually ★■◆● about various news organizations having a "liberal bias," even when said news organizations are reporting basic factual information. Ergo, if we follow that (il)logic to its conclusion, reality itself must have a liberal bias.

Spidey wrote:What the hell does that even mean?

I prefer "facts have a liberal bias." I take it to mean when we learn new things, we're forced to confront the old ways of viewing the world. It's a driver for change, which conservatives are typically against. This is, of course, a great generalization.

Then there's the studies and polls that show Fox News viewers are the most misinformed. Take, for instance, Nightshade's image. White Water? Really?

Ok I get it.

Of course that also draws some conclusions that not everyone agrees with.

...............

Yes indeed…facts have a liberal bias…

When:
Slaves helped build the White House, becomes “slaves built the White House” then yes…facts certainly take on a liberal bias.

Top Gun wrote:It means that certain people continually ★■◆● about various news organizations having a "liberal bias," even when said news organizations are reporting basic factual information. Ergo, if we follow that (il)logic to its conclusion, reality itself must have a liberal bias.

The unfortunate connotation of "liberal" today is being a closed-minded intolerant leftist militant that screams that all dissent against this ideology must be squelched and destroyed.

Reality is simply that...but todays "liberal/progressive" is known for completely dismissing reality when it doesn't align with their twisted world view.

Yes indeed…facts have a liberal bias…

When:
Slaves helped build the White House, becomes “slaves built the White House” then yes…facts certainly take on a liberal bias.

What a strange nit to pick.

Nightshade wrote:The unfortunate connotation of "liberal" today is being a closed-minded intolerant leftist militant that screams that all dissent against this ideology must be squelched and destroyed.

Reality is simply that...but todays "liberal/progressive" is known for completely dismissing reality when it doesn't align with their twisted world view.

You really have no earthly concept of how normal people think or act, do you?

Nightshade wrote:The unfortunate connotation of "liberal" today is being a closed-minded intolerant leftist militant that screams that all dissent against this ideology must be squelched and destroyed.

Reality is simply that...but todays "liberal/progressive" is known for completely dismissing reality when it doesn't align with their twisted world view.

I actually laughed out loud. So dramatic!

Top Gun wrote: You really have no earthly concept of how normal people think or act, do you?

Define "normal".

I dunno, people who aren't the distorted perceptions of an LSD-induced bender?

I think you should have chosen 'sensible' or 'most' instead of 'normal', but I got your gist, and you are correct. Now, if the damned bartender would get my Sapphire and Tonic over here, I can return to real fun. Can't wait to hear Joe and the Prez unload tonight. I suspect this might be the attack the opposition night, as opposed to starting out that way on the first day or two like normal conventions. Funny about the talk of chaos.....I was reminiscing about the first convention I attended with my Dad. What a choice, 1968 in Chicago!
This is the third Dem convention I've ever been to, and it is a unique spectacle.

Top Gun wrote:I dunno, people who aren't the distorted perceptions of an LSD-induced bender?

Really? So what do you think of people that don't share the "liberal" ideology?

How would you characterize them?

I characterize them by, y'know, listening to them and making a judgement call.

[removed]

Nightshade wrote:Really? So what do you think of people that don't share the "liberal" ideology?

Define liberal ideology. I need another laugh.

vision wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Really? So what do you think of people that don't share the "liberal" ideology?

Define liberal ideology. I need another laugh.

You didn't answer.

Top Gun wrote:I characterize them by, y'know, listening to them and making a judgement call.

Loon? I'm a moderate centrist. How can a moderate centrist be a loon?

Your political ideology has absolutely nothing to do with your grasp on reality, and you demonstrate the lack thereof on a daily basis.

Top Gun wrote:It means that certain people continually ★■◆● about various news organizations having a "liberal bias," even when said news organizations are reporting basic factual information. Ergo, if we follow that (il)logic to its conclusion, reality itself must have a liberal bias.

Lets see how this happens. Whens the last time you heard the press ask Chelsea Clinton about how her father treats women. Now find out how often the press ask Ivanka Trump about how her father treats women. Maybe then you will understand the liberal bias in the press.

[moderator]

Reminder:

• Debate is fine
• Personal shots are not

[/moderator]

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:It means that certain people continually ★■◆● about various news organizations having a "liberal bias," even when said news organizations are reporting basic factual information. Ergo, if we follow that (il)logic to its conclusion, reality itself must have a liberal bias.

Lets see how this happens. Whens the last time you heard the press ask Chelsea Clinton about how her father treats women. Now find out how often the press ask Ivanka Trump about how her father treats women. Maybe then you will understand the liberal bias in the press.

That question would be very personal to Chelsea. I'm sure she has an opinion, but she'll probably keep it to herself since Bill Clinton is her father. It's a private matter. Sure, Bill Clinton was a womanizing cad, but that's between Hillary, Chelsea and Bill, since no breakup happened. It's also one of the reasons I don't like him. He couldn't keep his fly zipped while doing his job for the people.

Trump on the other hand has been married 3 times, the last time preferring a younger woman over his previous wife, and has publicly called women he dislikes some pretty nasty names, like "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals", plus a cringe worthy comment straight from his TV show. And did anyone happen to notice that after Ivanka got done speaking at the convention and Trump came out, he put his arm around her and then proceeded to point right at her breasts, like they were HIS trophies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -fat-pigs/

Does that cartoon really express how you feel about the situation?

Vander wrote:Does that cartoon really express how you feel about the situation?

About media bias? Yes.

I suppose they did give Trump all that coverage during the primaries. I could probably contort myself into believing that is pro-Clinton bias.

Vander wrote:I suppose they did give Trump all that coverage during the primaries. I could probably contort myself into believing that is pro-Clinton bias.

Was the media manipulated into covering Trump or does is brand of ridiculousness just sell too good for media to resist!?

I absolutely believe Trump got the amount of coverage he did because he was a D list celebrity saying outrageous things in a field of boring politicians to an audience that would rather be entertained than informed. He was savvy enough to continuously say outrageous things to dominate 24 hour cable news cycles.

But, if there was a Clinton bias, all they had to do was keep feeding the complete absurdity that is a Trump candidacy to get the weakest opponent for Clinton. Win/Win.

I don't really believe that, but there is a certain logic to it.

Vander wrote: there is a certain logic to it.

Of course there is. That's the outcome they worked hard to engineer. Looks like they succeeded.

Some things that also needed to be "engineered" for the theory to hold:

* "The liberal media" must have stoked establishment resentment which made the outsider more possible. I don't know where the point between reporting on and encouraging is, but I'm not sure it was crossed. Was it "the liberal media" that stoked a backlash to immigration reform?

* "The liberal media" must have engineered support for Trump starting at least as far back as July 2015, when he took the lead in the polls he never relinquished.

* Conservative media must have been in on the fix, at least from late 2015 on. More and more jumped on the bandwagon when his poll numbers didn't drop.

* Early Trump supporters must have been consumers of the "liberal media." (which happened to be a target of early Trump rhetoric which probably gained him support) Do you think woodchip habitually watches the CBS Evening news?

* And then these Republican consumers of the "liberal media" turned out in record numbers to vote for Trump. The theory neatly downplays them.

This all seems like a thin needle to thread when a pretty obvious alternative is available. There was a backlash against establishment Republicans who were trying to push through immigration reform in an effort to gain hispanic voters. (among plenty of other things) This happened well before Trump, but he capitalized on it at the very start by saying he wanted to build a wall. He's instantly the frontrunner in polls. His follow up was calling McCain a loser. EVERY TALKING HEAD EVERYWHERE SAID HE WAS DONE. He didn't drop in polls. A couple months of bombast, and he shows no signs of losing support.

So now you own a 24 hour news network, and the Republican frontrunner is a minor league celebrity with a penchant for saying wild and outlandish things. How do you not cover that? If you don't cover it, people will cry "liberal media." (at least Trump supporters, of which there were many!) Of course they should be covering more legitimate stories, but that costs money and people don't want to eat their vegetables. You're in the business of selling advertising. No, you're going to host talking head round tables to discuss that crazy thing Trump said today. It's marginally news, and it's a whole lot cheaper than sending a team out to investigate real news. That, and it's entertaining! People watched! It's capitalism, baby!

Some liberal media.

*edit

The liberal media didn't rip out Rubio's heart and show it to him while he repeated the same talking point for the third time in a row, Christie did.

The liberal media didn't make Jeb! the most bland pol you ever saw. You can clap now.

The liberal media didn't make Cruz the most despised member of the Senate by his own colleagues, he did that all by himself.

Trump is a fluke. A perfect storm. If you want to blame anyone or anything for him, you can blame his voters.

Vander wrote:The liberal media didn't make Jeb! the most bland pol you ever saw. You can clap now.

Oh man I like that Jeb! guy. I don't know why it is, I just find that "please clap" thing hilarious, but more laughing with him than at him. This election would be so much better with Jeb!

vision wrote:

Vander wrote:The liberal media didn't make Jeb! the most bland pol you ever saw. You can clap now.

Oh man I like that Jeb! guy. I don't know why it is, I just find that "please clap" thing hilarious, but more laughing with him than at him. This election would be so much better with Jeb!

Instead, we're getting two democrats to choose from. One a conman with bad hair...the other, a criminal that wears pantsuits.

Vander wrote:
Trump is a fluke. A perfect storm. If you want to blame anyone or anything for him, you can blame his voters.

A very convenient "fluke" for Hillary.

Nightshade wrote:Trump is a fluke. A perfect storm.

A very convenient "fluke" for Hillary.[/quote]
True, and while it is fun to indulge in conspiracy thinking (I'm guilty of it), the writing has been on the wall for years. This is how a party collapses.

In 2008, the GOP offered McCain (an Ok candidate) and Palin (WTF?). They lost dismally.
In 2012, the GOP offered the guy who lost to McCain the previous election. They were crushed handily.
In 2016, long time GOP players are now endorsing a Democrat.

It's over.