• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 11:36
CEST 17:36
KST 00:36
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL21] Ro24 Preview Pt2: News Flash10[ASL21] Ro24 Preview Pt1: New Chaos0Team Liquid Map Contest #22 - Presented by Monster Energy18ByuL: The Forgotten Master of ZvT30Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book20
Community News
$5,000 WardiTV TLMC tournament - Presented by Monster Energy2GSL CK: More events planned pending crowdfunding3Weekly Cups (May 30-Apr 5): herO, Clem, SHIN win0[BSL22] RO32 Group Stage4Weekly Cups (March 23-29): herO takes triple6
StarCraft 2
General
Quebec Clan still alive ? BGE Stara Zagora 2026 cancelled Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool Weekly Cups (May 30-Apr 5): herO, Clem, SHIN win Rongyi Cup S3 - Preview & Info
Tourneys
GSL CK: More events planned pending crowdfunding $5,000 WardiTV TLMC tournament - Presented by Monster Energy Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL Season 4 announced for March-April Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
Custom Maps
[D]RTS in all its shapes and glory <3 [A] Nemrods 1/4 players [M] (2) Frigid Storage
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 520 Moving Fees Mutation # 519 Inner Power Mutation # 518 Radiation Zone
Brood War
General
ASL21 General Discussion so ive been playing broodwar for a week straight. BW General Discussion Gypsy to Korea Pros React To: JaeDong vs Queen
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Escore Tournament StarCraft Season 2 [ASL21] Ro24 Group F [BSL22] RO32 Group B - Sunday 21:00 CEST
Strategy
Fighting Spirit mining rates Muta micro map competition What's the deal with APM & what's its true value Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
General RTS Discussion Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Starcraft Tabletop Miniature Game Nintendo Switch Thread Darkest Dungeon
Dota 2
The Story of Wings Gaming Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
G2 just beat GenG in First stand
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas TL Mafia Community Thread Five o'clock TL Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Trading/Investing Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece [Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion Cricket [SPORT] Tokyo Olympics 2021 Thread General nutrition recommendations
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
[G] How to Block Livestream Ads
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Loot Boxes—Emotions, And Why…
TrAiDoS
Broowar part 2
qwaykee
Funny Nicknames
LUCKY_NOOB
Iranian anarchists: organize…
XenOsky
FS++
Kraekkling
ASL S21 English Commentary…
namkraft
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Electronics
mantequilla
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1971 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9015

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9013 9014 9015 9016 9017 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Tachion
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Canada8573 Posts
October 18 2017 01:40 GMT
#180281
On October 18 2017 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 10:29 Danglars wrote:


In my humble opinion, Sanders got wrecked at the last go-around, but somehow thought a new match was a good idea.


lol, remind me which one of those guys is the most popular politician in the country?

Remind me again who the most popular GOP politician is right now? I wouldn't be putting too much stock in popularity these days.
i was driving down the road this november eve and spotted a hitchhiker walking down the street. i pulled over and saw that it was only a tree. i uprooted it and put it in my trunk. do trees like marshmallow peeps? cause that's all i have and will have.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
October 18 2017 02:06 GMT
#180282
On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

Not any evidence you would like if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews.

As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole.

I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance".

As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter.

It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview.

I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
October 18 2017 02:08 GMT
#180283
On October 18 2017 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 10:29 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/920364447088234501

In my humble opinion, Sanders got wrecked at the last go-around, but somehow thought a new match was a good idea.


lol, remind me which one of those guys is the most popular politician in the country?

If only debates were popularity contests. Socialism has enduring popularity, lost debates notwithstanding.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12429 Posts
October 18 2017 02:09 GMT
#180284
What do you think about the good faith claim that if the establishment media lost its bias, it would be harsher to republicans than it is today, Danglars?
No will to live, no wish to die
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-18 02:13:26
October 18 2017 02:13 GMT
#180285
There has to be more to this... Is there a Transcript?

"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
October 18 2017 02:24 GMT
#180286
In feel good story of the year, this happened

Aquanim
Profile Joined November 2012
Australia2849 Posts
October 18 2017 02:45 GMT
#180287
On October 18 2017 11:06 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

Not any evidence you would like if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews.

As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole.

I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance".

As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter.

It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview.

I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness.

You can call me names, but you're not only talking to me - everybody who reads this thread sees what you have to say.

If you're interested in convincing any of them, then it seems to me that you would be best served by providing evidence for assertions that other posters in the thread disagree with.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
October 18 2017 02:52 GMT
#180288
On October 18 2017 11:09 Nebuchad wrote:
What do you think about the good faith claim that if the establishment media lost its bias, it would be harsher to republicans than it is today, Danglars?

Troll claim from start to finish. It might be more accurate in its criticism (a lot of the attacks, as just said, are bullshit), I'll give you that. Otherwise, you might as well believe the earth is flat and communism hasn't failed every time it's been tried.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
October 18 2017 02:56 GMT
#180289
On October 18 2017 11:45 Aquanim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 11:06 Danglars wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

Not any evidence you would like if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews.

As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole.

I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance".

As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter.

It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview.

I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness.

You can call me names, but you're not only talking to me - everybody who reads this thread sees what you have to say.

If you're interested in convincing any of them, then it seems to me that you would be best served by providing evidence for assertions that other posters in the thread disagree with.

You should pay more attention. I read what you and others say in the forum to determine if I should waste time laying out a case. If you show the patterns, and dare I say objectively bad faith trolly patterns, then I know you aren't willing to be convinced of anything you don't already believe in. I'll merely outline the opposing point of view because this thread serves as a constant reminder that you haven't a clue what conservatives believe or why. The parodies of the other side are breathtakingly ignorant. We've had some reformed posters in the last nine thousand pages, so you can show that from your actions. Anyone can, not just you. In case it isn't abundantly clear, there's usually only one or two at a time coming at issues from the American right and roughly fifteen to twenty against ... so I have to be a little picky with trolls and shitposters so my time is spent productively.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
GoTuNk!
Profile Blog Joined September 2006
Chile4591 Posts
October 18 2017 03:01 GMT
#180290
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?


You can't be serious.
Aquanim
Profile Joined November 2012
Australia2849 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-18 03:12:11
October 18 2017 03:10 GMT
#180291
On October 18 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 11:45 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 11:06 Danglars wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

Not any evidence you would like if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews.

As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole.

I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance".

As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter.

It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview.

I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness.

You can call me names, but you're not only talking to me - everybody who reads this thread sees what you have to say.

If you're interested in convincing any of them, then it seems to me that you would be best served by providing evidence for assertions that other posters in the thread disagree with.

You should pay more attention. I read what you and others say in the forum to determine if I should waste time laying out a case. If you show the patterns, and dare I say objectively bad faith trolly patterns, then I know you aren't willing to be convinced of anything you don't already believe in.

Where you lose me here is that sitting on my side of my keyboard, I know for certain what my actual motivations are... and they are not what you claim them to be. If you provided evidence for this claim, or any of the other claims you've presented without evidence and I've subsequently dismissed, I'd take it seriously. If you believe otherwise then you are, quite simply, wrong.

I'll merely outline the opposing point of view because this thread serves as a constant reminder that you haven't a clue what conservatives believe or why. The parodies of the other side are breathtakingly ignorant.

Proclaiming your opinions as fact, claiming that anybody who disagrees with them is on the level of a flat-earther, and not providing any evidence to support your opinions, seems like a near-optimally bad way to change that.

edit:
On October 18 2017 12:01 GoTuNk! wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?


You can't be serious.

I'm perfectly serious. Can you provide (non-anecdotal) evidence to support that claim?
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
October 18 2017 03:17 GMT
#180292
On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

Not any evidence you would like if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews.

As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole.

I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance".

As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter.

It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview.

When Danglars refers to "media" he is not talking about Fox news or Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative media apparatus. He means Hollywood and CNN.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Aquanim
Profile Joined November 2012
Australia2849 Posts
October 18 2017 03:22 GMT
#180293
On October 18 2017 12:17 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:
On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

Not any evidence you would like if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews.

As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole.

I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance".

As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter.

It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview.

When Danglars refers to "media" he is not talking about Fox news or Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative media apparatus. He means Hollywood and CNN.

I'll quite happily stipulate that there are quite biased media sources in any given direction. I don't think that is the point, though.
Tachion
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Canada8573 Posts
October 18 2017 03:25 GMT
#180294
On October 18 2017 12:10 Aquanim wrote:
I'm perfectly serious. Can you provide (non-anecdotal) evidence to support that claim?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304606-final-newspaper-endorsement-count-clinton-57-trump-2
Does that count?

Don't be mistaken though, just because I think the overall media is biased doesn't mean that I don't think that bias is well deserved. In fact I think it's necessary. Trump is abhorrent and breaks societal norms for the worse. Any criticism he receives for his poor performance and behavior can be properly justified.
i was driving down the road this november eve and spotted a hitchhiker walking down the street. i pulled over and saw that it was only a tree. i uprooted it and put it in my trunk. do trees like marshmallow peeps? cause that's all i have and will have.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
October 18 2017 03:25 GMT
#180295
If you want to talk about credibility problems a good place to start would be with the fact that right-wing criticisms of the "media" implicitly disqualify Fox and conservative talk radio as "media" per se.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Karis Vas Ryaar
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
United States4396 Posts
October 18 2017 03:26 GMT
#180296
"I'm not agreeing with a lot of Virus's decisions but they are working" Tasteless. Ipl4 Losers Bracket Virus 2-1 Maru
Buckyman
Profile Joined May 2014
1364 Posts
October 18 2017 03:31 GMT
#180297
"Hey, media? This is the Republicans speaking. We know you think our presidential candidate is disgusting and rude. You know what? You're right. We tried running a polite and honorable candidate last time and you slandered him right out of the election. So if you call anyone we put forward a literal Nazi, don't be surprised when we run a candidate you can't make this stuff up about."

Aquanim
Profile Joined November 2012
Australia2849 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-18 03:41:29
October 18 2017 03:34 GMT
#180298
On October 18 2017 12:25 Tachion wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 18 2017 12:10 Aquanim wrote:
I'm perfectly serious. Can you provide (non-anecdotal) evidence to support that claim?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304606-final-newspaper-endorsement-count-clinton-57-trump-2
Does that count?

Don't be mistaken though, just because I think the overall media is biased doesn't mean that I don't think that bias is well deserved. In fact I think it's necessary. Trump is abhorrent and breaks societal norms for the worse. Any criticism he receives for his poor performance and behavior can be properly justified.

It's a data point, at any rate. Thank you.

I do not think that what you're describing even counts as bias (or perhaps more accurately, prejudice) though. By definition, if somebody's actions deserve a certain level of criticism, and then they receive that level of criticism, then *even though they were treated differently to people who were not criticised* there was no prejudice or bias involved.

That being said, if the degree of criticism given was more or less than deserved, then prejudice or bias enters the picture. Quantifying that is difficult, especially through personal or anecdotal experience, which is why I'm asking for evidence one way or the other.

On October 18 2017 12:31 Buckyman wrote:
"Hey, media? This is the Republicans speaking. We know you think our presidential candidate is disgusting and rude. You know what? You're right. We tried running a polite and honorable candidate last time and you slandered him right out of the election. So if you call anyone we put forward a literal Nazi, don't be surprised when we run a candidate you can't make this stuff up about."

Can you provide evidence vis-a-vis systematic bias against Romney by the media?

(To clarify: I will stipulate that individual media outlets were biased against both Romney or Obama. The question is asking about systematic bias across the media as a whole.)
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-18 03:48:23
October 18 2017 03:48 GMT
#180299
Donald Trump on Tuesday doubled down on his claim that Barack Obama did not routinely call the families of servicemen and women killed in battle. He also warned John McCain, a decorated war hero with whom he has clashed before, that he might “fight back” after the senator said America’s “leadership and ideals are absent”.

Regarding Obama’s contacts with the families of fallen troops, Trump directed inquiries to his chief of staff. John Kelly’s son, like the retired general a US marine, died in Afghanistan in 2010.

“I think I’ve called every family of someone who’s died,” Trump told Brian Kilmeade of Fox News Radio. “As far as other representatives, I don’t know. You could ask General Kelly, did he get a call from Obama?”

A White House official told the Associated Press Obama did not call Kelly. The official did not immediately respond to questions about whether the former president reached out in another fashion.

The AP also reported, however, that White House visitor records showed Kelly attended a breakfast Obama hosted for Gold Star families six months after his son died. A person familiar with the breakfast – speaking on condition of anonymity because the event was private – said the Kelly family sat at Michelle Obama’s table.

Obama aides said it was difficult to determine whether he had also called Kelly, and when. But the former Obama spokesman Ned Price reacted angrily to Trump’s comments.

“Kelly, a man of honor & decency, should stop this inane cruelty,” Price tweeted. “He saw up-close just how – & how much – Obama cared for the fallen’s families.”

Trump first made the claim in a press conference in the White House Rose Garden on Monday, when he was asked why he had not yet commented publicly about four special forces soldiers who were killed in Niger last week.
“If you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls,” Trump said. “A lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate.”

Pressed, he softened his claim a little. “President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes, and maybe sometimes he didn’t,” he said. “I don’t know. That’s what I was told. Other presidents did not call, they’d write letters. And some presidents didn’t do anything.”

Former Obama aides were quick to criticise Trump. Eric Holder, one of Obama’s attorneys general, said on Twitter: “Stop the damn lying – you’re the president.” Alyssa Mastromonaco, Obama’s former deputy chief of staff, responded strongly. She wrote: “That’s a fucking lie. To say President Obama (or past presidents) didn’t call the family members of soldiers KIA – he’s a deranged animal.”

The former White House press secretary Josh Earnest, now an MSNBC commentator, told the network past Republican and Democratic presidents had recognized their duty to honor soldiers’ sacrifices and not highlight their own actions.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-18 03:49:34
October 18 2017 03:49 GMT
#180300
"Media was mean to Romney so that makes me spinning for Trump's incompetence, insanity, lies, and malevolence is okay". Could you be more of a crybaby snowflake? Why not own your own positions and say you support Trump because you support him. The media being mean to Romney excuses none of Trump's behavior. Even if you could somehow prove the media was mean to Romney, even making that kind of a sorry excuse for Trumplicking just reveals your bottomloss bad faith Bucky.
Prev 1 9013 9014 9015 9016 9017 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 18h 25m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
trigger 288
LamboSC2 76
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 43786
Mini 1367
Soma 726
EffOrt 691
Stork 549
Zeus 198
ggaemo 193
Shuttle 182
Snow 171
PianO 163
[ Show more ]
Hyuk 149
Soulkey 144
hero 134
Sharp 118
Rush 112
Shinee 90
sorry 82
Barracks 64
Hyun 53
Movie 40
Nal_rA 40
Free 36
Hm[arnc] 28
HiyA 25
Terrorterran 21
scan(afreeca) 20
Sacsri 15
soO 14
Sexy 14
yabsab 11
GoRush 11
ajuk12(nOOB) 10
Dota 2
Gorgc5036
qojqva1361
420jenkins258
Fuzer 172
Counter-Strike
fl0m3205
edward136
Other Games
singsing1927
B2W.Neo1085
hiko851
FrodaN514
Mlord408
RotterdaM189
ArmadaUGS146
QueenE82
XaKoH 75
Trikslyr38
Mew2King28
Organizations
Counter-Strike
PGL25962
Other Games
BasetradeTV651
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 493
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 27
• Shameless 11
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 26
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota255
League of Legends
• Nemesis4143
• TFBlade1393
Other Games
• Shiphtur74
• WagamamaTV62
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
18h 25m
WardiTV Team League
19h 25m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
23h 25m
IPSL
1d
Hawk vs TBD
StRyKeR vs TBD
BSL
1d 3h
n0maD vs perroflaco
TerrOr vs ZZZero
MadiNho vs WolFix
DragOn vs LancerX
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 18h
WardiTV Team League
1d 19h
OSC
1d 21h
BSL
2 days
Sterling vs Azhi_Dahaki
Napoleon vs Mazur
Jimin vs Nesh
spx vs Strudel
IPSL
2 days
Artosis vs TBD
Napoleon vs TBD
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
Wardi Open
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
Soma vs YSC
Sharp vs sSak
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Snow vs PianO
hero vs Rain
GSL
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Kung Fu Cup
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Escore
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-04-09
RSL Revival: Season 4
NationLESS Cup

Ongoing

BSL Season 22
ASL Season 21
CSL 2026 SPRING (S20)
StarCraft2 Community Team League 2026 Spring
Nations Cup 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Finals
ESL Pro League S23 Stage 1&2
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026

Upcoming

IPSL Spring 2026
Escore Tournament S2: W3
Acropolis #4
BSL 22 Non-Korean Championship
CSLAN 4
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
RSL Revival: Season 5
WardiTV TLMC #16
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
Asian Champions League 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
PGL Astana 2026
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
CCT Season 3 Global Finals
IEM Rio 2026
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.