- Joined
- 12 Nov 05
- Moves
- 145614
-Removed-I'm not convinced he will be able to do much of what he has promised as most of the republican party have distanced themselves from him.
If they were smart they would have just put one candidate against him in the primaries but instead they split their vote so he crept in.
I wait to be proved wrong though 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyMost of the damage was done before she started her campaign run.
Trump received a far worse thrashing in the media and the internet.
Trump received far less than what he deserved, in the way of media scrutiny. In all, he was only in the media's eye as a candidate for a little more than two years.
His early campaign was treated more like another reality show, with him as the "star". It was only later that the media "woke up" and started taking his blowhard claims and idiotically simplistic "solutions" as comedy fodder. Trump almost sunk his own ship with his racism, sexism and xenophobia, not to mention his history of sexual assaults.
But ALL of this meant nothing to his supporters who have been spoon-fed, for the last three and a half decades, a steady diet of Republican lies which made their way into the public consciousness as "fact". Never mind what the real facts are.
Originally posted by JerryHRidiculous.
Harsh media narrative? Do you think the media too harsh on democratic collusion to suppress Sanders? We should be hailing President-elect Sanders now. Perhaps a bitter dose of Trump is just what the true progressives in this nation need to unhitch from the donkey team.
Sanders would have been an easy win for the Republicans, ever since Reagan demonized liberals, refusing to call them "liberals" and only calling them "the 'L' word", like it was a curse word. There is no way in the world ANY Republicans would've crossed ranks to vote for a "socialist".
Just like Hillary, the labels the Republicans would choose for him would sink him, too. Most of their argument would have centered on the "failures" (never mind the inconvenient successes) of the Democratic party to show that the left is "out-of-touch" (even though the right is more out of touch than they have EVER been). You saw how Bernie got the least media exposure of anyone, that would have been kicked up a couple of notches in the general. Trump would have remained a media darling, leaving Bernie to scream and shout about Trump's lack of qualifications to his own rallies, with little to no media support. Bernie would have made this election a true landslide for Trump. No wonder conservatives like you wanted to run against Bernie instead. It would've been far easier, and without Hillary's annoying "fact-checking" which kept Trump's campaign from depending on Republican fantasies believing his "pants on fire" lies.
Well, I mean any more than they did already.
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseYes, I imagine the "sound-byte" broadcast media is complicit as well. But one may have expected more from the print journalists. I wonder exactly what they're teaching as "journalism" these days. As I said, my theory is that journalists are lazily more concerned about not appearing "out-of-the-mainstream" than they are with doing well-researched and breakthrough journalism. You know, real, actual journalism. Most of their "research" seemingly consists of reading other "journalist's" stories.
Sorry, Suzi, but the media as a bastion of U.S. democracy is one of the
biggest lies ever sold to the gullible, chauvinistic pleb. Don't go too far,
just around the corner to a few decades ago, when those "brave
paladins" of truth did to Gary Webb when he unmasked Reagan's
administration for flooding black neighborhoods with crack to finance the
crac ...[text shortened]... ry of the 1% to keep one system for them, permissive and
pampering, and another for the masses.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneRidiculous? [url=http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/10/glenn_greenwald_bernie_sanders_would_have]http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/10/glenn_greenwald_bernie_sanders_would_have[/url]
Ridiculous.
Sanders would have been an easy win for the Republicans, ever since Reagan demonized liberals, refusing to call them "liberals" and only calling them "the 'L' word", like it was a curse word. There is no way in the world ANY Republicans would've crossed ranks to vote for a "socialist".
Just like Hillary, the labels the Republicans would ...[text shortened]... an fantasies believing his "pants on fire" lies.
Well, I mean any more than they did already.
Why do you feel that I'm a, "No wonder conservatives like you wanted to run against Bernie instead", conservative and not a progressive?
Edit: I believe I've added links to post here before but can't seem to remember how it's done?
1 edit
Originally posted by JerryHOh, lord, don't tell me you're one of those "Bernie or Bust" fools.
Ridiculous? [url=http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/10/glenn_greenwald_bernie_sanders_would_have]http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/10/glenn_greenwald_bernie_sanders_would_have[/url]
Why do you feel that I'm a, "No wonder [b]conservatives like you wanted to run against Bernie instead", conservative and not a progressive?
Edit: I believe I've added links to post here before but can't seem to remember how it's done?[/b]
Well, welcome to "Busted America". Is that what you wanted?