US Presidential Election 2020

23-02-2020 09:26PM

MSNBC are garbage.

Joe_ Public · 23-02-2020 09:44PM

CNN not been a lot better. Clear anti sanders bias from a lot of what I've seen, almost seemed a station diktat there for a while among its analysts to refer to buttigieg as "mayor pete."

sid waddell · 23-02-2020 10:03PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Thanks for the constructive feedback.

Just to spell it out for you.

You called MSNBC "a left wing Fox News".

What people are complaining about here is their consistently negative tone towards the one real left-wing candidate in the race, and Chris Matthews' comparison of Sanders (who is Jewish) to the Nazis storming Paris.

They're complaining about its corporate, centrist bias.

Whatever MSNBC is, a left wing Fox News is one thing it definitely isn't.

23-02-2020 10:09PM

sid waddell wrote: »

Just to spell it out for you.

You called MSNBC "a left wing Fox News".

What people are complaining about here is their consistently negative tone towards the one real left-wing candidate in the race, and Chris Matthews' comparison of Sanders (who is Jewish) to the Nazis storming Paris.

They're complaining about its corporate, centrist bias.

Whatever MSNBC is, a left wing Fox News is one thing it definitely isn't.

How isn't an (atheist) Jewish man being compared to Nazis the equivalent to Fox?

They pull that sort of bollocks all the time.

sid waddell · 23-02-2020 10:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

How isn't an (atheist) Jewish man being compared to Nazis the equivalent to Fox?

They pull that sort of bollocks all the time.

Well Sanders wasn't compared to the Nazis. His victory in Nevada was compared to the Nazis taking Paris in 1940. Even at that, it was an absolutely terrible analogy.

But how does that make MSNBC the left wing equivalent of Fox News?

Because that was something you would have expected from the actual Fox News.

If MSNBC was a left wing equivalent of Fox News, it would be vilifying Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg and fully in support of Sanders. It isn't, or anything of the sort.

What it is is a corporate owned station designed to appeal to a broadly liberal, not left-wing audience. It has some excellent shows, chiefly Maddow but its entire weekday prime time line up is pretty decent, but some of the commentary, especially from Chris Matthews and the execrable Chuck Todd is painfully bad and corporate centrist-biased. They've had some hilariously bad guest commentators on Sanders' case lately, a guy called Jason Johnson in particular has made an awful arse of himself.

It isn't just Sanders that gets a raw deal from corporate liberal media, Elizabeth Warren has been increasingly ignored and deliberately written out of corporate liberal media coverage in favour of Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg, who are the favoured candidates of the Democratic party bigwigs and corporate donors.

peddlelies · 23-02-2020 11:21PM

sid waddell wrote: »

Just to spell it out for you.

Whatever MSNBC is, a left wing Fox News is one thing it definitely isn't.

Confirmation bias in full blast.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

"But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

markodaly · 24-02-2020 12:41AM

MSNBC like many of the cable news networks in the US is truly awful.

sid waddell · 24-02-2020 01:44AM

peddlelies wrote: »

Confirmation bias in full blast.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

"But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

You said MSNBC was left-wing. It isn't. You said it was an equivalent of Fox News and then you quoted staistics that actually disprove what you're saying.

I suppose anything even vaguely factual now is considered left-wing or "communist" by Trump supporters.

To be fair I did like the way the piece you copied and pasted there put the "news" quotient of Fox News in inverted commas.

I laughed a little bit inside when you of all people mentioned confirmation bias as you've shown a thorough willingness to engage in it in your time here.

hotmail.com · 24-02-2020 01:10PM

markodaly wrote: »

MSNBC like many of the cable news networks in the US is truly awful.

From a European point of view, yes they are all truly awful. They are all ratings driven. Their only bias is ratings to get ad revenue.

The minute by minute coverage of Trump and the impending election to the loss of almost all other issues.

No wonder voter engagement is so low in America and ratings for news channels is so small.

24-02-2020 02:11PM

sid waddell wrote: »

Well Sanders wasn't compared to the Nazis. His victory in Nevada was compared to the Nazis taking Paris in 1940. Even at that, it was an absolutely terrible analogy.

But how does that make MSNBC the left wing equivalent of Fox News?

Because that was something you would have expected from the actual Fox News.

If MSNBC was a left wing equivalent of Fox News, it would be vilifying Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg and fully in support of Sanders. It isn't, or anything of the sort.

What it is is a corporate owned station designed to appeal to a broadly liberal, not left-wing audience. It has some excellent shows, chiefly Maddow but its entire weekday prime time line up is pretty decent, but some of the commentary, especially from Chris Matthews and the execrable Chuck Todd is painfully bad and corporate centrist-biased. They've had some hilariously bad guest commentators on Sanders' case lately, a guy called Jason Johnson in particular has made an awful arse of himself.

It isn't just Sanders that gets a raw deal from corporate liberal media, Elizabeth Warren has been increasingly ignored and deliberately written out of corporate liberal media coverage in favour of Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg, who are the favoured candidates of the Democratic party bigwigs and corporate donors.

OK, that's fair enough, if that's what you meant by not being the equivalent of Fox News.

I think Maddow is a joke. Russiagate broke her. Used to be worth watching but after the last election, she became intolerable to me.

24-02-2020 02:13PM

Are we all at least agreed that, bar DNC f*ckery, it's going to be Trump vs. Sanders?

sid waddell · 24-02-2020 02:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, that's fair enough, if that's what you meant by not being the equivalent of Fox News.

I think Maddow is a joke. Russiagate broke her. Used to be worth watching but after the last election, she became intolerable to me.

In what way is Maddow a joke?

Russian interference and their consistent promotion of the far right has been the most important geopolitical story of the last five years. It threatens to destroy the post World War II western order.

Russian interference abroad is a malignant cancer.

Water John · 24-02-2020 02:16PM

SC would seem to be between Biden and Sanders. If they're close, 1st or 2nd won't matter a lot. The end of the first Super Tuesday will really bed in the narrative, which I believe will be with Sanders.

24-02-2020 02:35PM

sid waddell wrote: »

In what way is Maddow a joke?

Russian interference and their consistent promotion of the far right has been the most important geopolitical story of the last five years. It threatens to destroy the post World War II western order.

Russian interference abroad is a malignant cancer.

Would you ever behave.

More important than the continued theft of Palestinian land?

More important than the abandonment of the Kurds in Syria?

More important than the genocide in Yemen?

Red for Danger · 24-02-2020 03:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are we all at least agreed that, bar DNC f*ckery, it's going to be Trump vs. Sanders?

And if there is, dnc ****ery it goes straight onto the streets.

And with millions marching no way does it stay 100% entirely peaceful so fox news will be on the scene to exaggerate anything and show the country being torn apart.
Trump will have to step in "until we can figure out whats going on".

Englo · 24-02-2020 03:43PM

Red for Danger wrote: »

.
Trump will have to step in "until we can figure out whats going on".

Who oversees elections in the US actually?

It has crossed my mind that if things do not look like they will go well for Trump prior to the election, that there is probably about a 30% chance he tries to cancel it outright and make a push to become dictator. And if he does, we know for a fact that at least 52 of the republican senators will support it. It's a concern.

Gbear · 24-02-2020 04:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you ever behave.

More important than the continued theft of Palestinian land?

More important than the abandonment of the Kurds in Syria?

More important than the genocide in Yemen?

Without a shadow of a doubt.

As tragic as those situations are, they're symptomatic of larger issues.

The rise of totalitarianism and autarky worming its way into the western hegemony at a time when they need to be united, is a global problem, of the sort that has lead to previous world wars.

The problems you've highlighted are exacerbated by such politics - inwards focused, jingoistic, more easily corrupted.

A US administration that is willing to face up to this will help alleviate some of the problems you've mentioned above, because the continuing support of the Saudi and Israeli regimes, and continued ballsing up of Middle Eastern diplomacy, are fundamentally conservative political stances.

This is only partially Trumpian politics. The entire Republican party are on board with it. Corporate Democrats will address some of the popular issues as they arise, but have failed to make any clear proposals (as far as I know), to undermine the causitive factors, such as propping up the Israeli and Saudi regimes come hell or high water. Still, it'd be better than nothing.

Itssoeasy · 24-02-2020 11:22PM

Bernie sanders will be a terrible nominee for the democrats IMO. He's not as bad as trump but he's as inflexible as trump on his positions. He seems to not want or like to compromise on those positions. It'll be two candidates of the extremes of the political system in America and it's going to be unpleasant. I also see that Bernie sanders won't be releasing any more medical info about his health despite the fact that he's 78 and had a heart attack not that long ago. I think that's worrying.

hotmail.com · 25-02-2020 12:22AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Bernie sanders will be a terrible nominee for the democrats IMO. He's not as bad as trump but he's as inflexible as trump on his positions. He seems to not want or like to compromise on those positions. It'll be two candidates of the extremes of the political system in America and it's going to be unpleasant. I also see that Bernie sanders won't be releasing any more medical info about his health despite the fact that he's 78 and had a heart attack not that long ago. I think that's worrying.

In terms of economic policy, the stuff that actually matters and what people vote on, Trump's policies wouldn't be considered as extreme in America. Keeping taxes low and reducing the size of the government is part of American culture. Taking an anti immigrant stance is also not extreme in America. America has always been anti immigrant.

The Phantom Jipper · 25-02-2020 12:35AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

In terms of economic policy, the stuff that actually matters and what people vote on, Trump's policies wouldn't be considered as extreme in America. Keeping taxes low and reducing the size of the government is part of American culture. Taking an anti immigrant stance is also not extreme in America. America has always been anti immigrant.

Trump's economic policies are extreme to be fair. That's why he needs to mask them by pretending they benefit primarily working class Americans rather than corporations and the wealthy.

Similarly on immigration, there is a xenophobic undercurrent but suggesting the average Mexican immigrant is a potential rapist or drug dealer is far beyond the usual Republican dog whistling.

sid waddell · 25-02-2020 01:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you ever behave.

More important than the continued theft of Palestinian land?

More important than the abandonment of the Kurds in Syria?

More important than the genocide in Yemen?

Russia is heavily linked to one of those things and loosely linked to another. They are happy to stand idly by at the third.

How is Russian influence over world politics and events not a cancer?

Never mind what they're doing in the US and Europe, which has the gravest consequences for those societies, have you seen what they're doing in Syria? They're committing war crimes with impunity, bombing hospitals, bombing paramedics, in addition to the chemical weapons attacks they've already sponsored, absolute wanton disregard for human life.

It's a barbaric regime. Putin is easily the most dangerous Russian leader since Stalin and sadly there's a serious cohort of people in the west who are utterly blind or ignorant to the evils of what Russia has been up to under him.

Manic Moran · 25-02-2020 03:58AM

It's a barbaric regime. Putin is easily the most dangerous Russian leader since Stalin and sadly there's a serious cohort of people in the west who are utterly blind or ignorant to the evils of what Russia has been up to under him.

My earlier point stands.

What would you suggest that the rest of the world do to put a stop to Russian bombings etc in Syria? Are we really going to come to blows over a third country which is tore itself apart without any particular external assistance? They don't need to be ignorant about it to be impotent about it.

everlast75 · 25-02-2020 01:16PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

My earlier point stands.

What would you suggest that the rest of the world do to put a stop to Russian bombings etc in Syria? Are we really going to come to blows over a third country which is tore itself apart without any particular external assistance? They don't need to be ignorant about it to be impotent about it.

A common approach might help. Perhaps if the six or seven most powerful nations came together, they could do something about it? You'd have to make sure one of them didn't try to drag it apart though, and cause acrimony.

rossie1977 · 25-02-2020 03:18PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

In terms of economic policy, the stuff that actually matters and what people vote on, Trump's policies wouldn't be considered as extreme in America. Keeping taxes low and reducing the size of the government is part of American culture. Taking an anti immigrant stance is also not extreme in America. America has always been anti immigrant.

Dramatically cutting taxes wasn't a thing until Reagan came along.

Trump hasn't reduced the size of government. More than $4 trillion has been added to the national debt since January 2017 and budget deficit has doubled.

AbusesToilets · 25-02-2020 03:44PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

My earlier point stands.

What would you suggest that the rest of the world do to put a stop to Russian bombings etc in Syria? Are we really going to come to blows over a third country which is tore itself apart without any particular external assistance? They don't need to be ignorant about it to be impotent about it.

Quit being pushed around by Putin. Russia is a fundamentally weak country, their entire economies propped up by the oil industry, as is Putin. A concerted effort to jointly Target oil exports, with an all-out effort by the US and western nations to transition their energy economies away from oil to deny Russia the market space.

eire4 · 25-02-2020 05:54PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

Dramatically cutting taxes wasn't a thing until Reagan came along.

Trump hasn't reduced the size of government. More than $4 trillion has been added to the national debt since January 2017 and budget deficit has doubled.

The so called Reaganomics were actually the creation of Milton Friedman and the adoption of the Fridemanite disaster capitalism since then in the US with even the corporate takeover of the Democrats meaning that the US has been dominated by far right economics designed to benefit the wealthy and powerful. The export of Disaster capitalism has been a core tenet of US so called foreign policy with the US bullying various countries into imposing these economic policies on their populations rather then being allowed to govern without US interference in their own populations own best interests. The US behaviour throughout central and south America being prime examples.

Hande hoche! · 25-02-2020 05:56PM

South Carolina is going to be a very interesting one to watch. One of the more curious theories I have seen is that Steyer has been pumping cash into that state. The idea is to cause an upset in the "moderate" lane and give him a boost going into Super Tuesday. Bit of momentum along the lines of Mayor Pete after Iowa.

eire4 · 25-02-2020 06:06PM

Hande hoche! wrote: »

South Carolina is going to be a very interesting one to watch. One of the more curious theories I have seen is that Steyer has been pumping cash into that state. The idea is to cause an upset in the "moderate" lane and give him a boost going into Super Tuesday. Bit of momentum along the lines of Mayor Pete after Iowa.

To be fair to Steyer compared to the likes of Bloomberg who is a Republican just minus the hate and guns and Buttigieg and Biden who are out and out corporate Democrats he actually comes over fairly well.

pixelburp · 25-02-2020 06:43PM

Steyer and Bloomberg both appear to be candidates mistaking marketing & ad campaigns as real, tangible campaigning and doorstepping. Seems like the most imprint they've had on the Primaries is to merely be "that guy who runs all those ads". Bloomberg at least came with the added bonus of having Corporate News Media attempt to inflate his importance.

Hande hoche! · 25-02-2020 09:19PM

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair to Steyer compared to the likes of Bloomberg who is a Republican just minus the hate and guns and Buttigieg and Biden who are out and out corporate Democrats he actually comes over fairly well.

Out of the two, he is the more preferable one. Reckon Steyer could end up with a few delegates.

pixelburp wrote: »

Steyer and Bloomberg both appear to be candidates mistaking marketing & ad campaigns as real, tangible campaigning and doorstepping. Seems like the most imprint they've had on the Primaries is to merely be "that guy who runs all those ads". Bloomberg at least came with the added bonus of having Corporate News Media attempt to inflate his importance.

Might eat into the percentages in the next few states, might lower a few other contenders below the 15% Threshold.
The constant disclaimers and references on the Bloomberg TV channel are mildly amusing. Must make an effort to watch their coverage after the next debate.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments