Author Topic: Dem debates  (Read 26780 times)

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2020, 05:43:43 PM »
Quote
I think the argument is that the DNC runs CNN.

Money runs CNN.
Where Fox aims for the GOP audience CNN aims for the DNC audience.
Both the GOP and DNC manipulate that business plan as best they can for their own ends.
The majority of air time on both CNN and Fox does not qualify as news

If it was purely money they would simply shift their perspective to the right to try and get within sniffing distance of Fox ratings (ie advertising $).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2020, 11:08:34 PM »
If it was purely money they would simply shift their perspective to the right to try and get within sniffing distance of Fox ratings (ie advertising $).

Yes, but no. Left-wits have enough boycott threats against Fox News that they don't rely overly much on "traditional advertising" models like every other network out there, be it news, sports, TNT, or TLC. That's why you see so many ads offering to sell you gold on Fox News, but rarely see a major airline or companies like GE advertising on Fox. But will find them on CNN, MSNBC, etc without even trying.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2020, 07:34:48 AM »
It’s not that the DNC runs CNN but that they are deeply aligned with CNN willingly assisting the DNC in achieving the DNC’s goals.

This can be seen in CNN’s leaking of debate questions to Hillary, helping her prepare for a debate to the recent debate where it tried to take down Bernie yet again. Last nights reveal of the “off mike” conversation between Bernie and Warren cements that effort. The DNC doesn’t want Bernie to get the nomination, that is very clear. CNN has always been willing to help.

Look at any of the CNN talent’s social media output and you’ll see they are lockstep in line with the DNC.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2020, 09:51:45 AM »
It’s not that the DNC runs CNN but that they are deeply aligned with CNN willingly assisting the DNC in achieving the DNC’s goals.

This can be seen in CNN’s leaking of debate questions to Hillary, helping her prepare for a debate to the recent debate where it tried to take down Bernie yet again. Last nights reveal of the “off mike” conversation between Bernie and Warren cements that effort. The DNC doesn’t want Bernie to get the nomination, that is very clear. CNN has always been willing to help.

Look at any of the CNN talent’s social media output and you’ll see they are lockstep in line with the DNC.

I thought that the private convo after made Warren look bad and Bernie look honest and friendly.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #54 on: January 16, 2020, 10:18:43 AM »
It’s not that the DNC runs CNN but that they are deeply aligned with CNN willingly assisting the DNC in achieving the DNC’s goals.

This can be seen in CNN’s leaking of debate questions to Hillary, helping her prepare for a debate to the recent debate where it tried to take down Bernie yet again. Last nights reveal of the “off mike” conversation between Bernie and Warren cements that effort. The DNC doesn’t want Bernie to get the nomination, that is very clear. CNN has always been willing to help.

Look at any of the CNN talent’s social media output and you’ll see they are lockstep in line with the DNC.

I thought that the private convo after made Warren look bad and Bernie look honest and friendly.

Honestly that, along with Warren's no-hesitation response in the original exchange where the CNN moderator ignored Bernie's denial looked 100% scripted. Bernie doesn't stand a chance when his own party's state-sponsored media wants him gone.

I thought Van Jones had some interesting comments when he said that none of them looked compelling and that the DNC was missing the boat by excluding Yang.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #55 on: January 16, 2020, 11:18:32 AM »
Quote
If it was purely money they would simply shift their perspective to the right to try and get within sniffing distance of Fox ratings (ie advertising $).

Fox owns the market of the right and assuming a 50 50 right/left split in politics going after the left makes money sense

The real issue is why we allow 'News' stations to operate this way.

It’s not that the DNC runs CNN but that they are deeply aligned with CNN willingly assisting the DNC in achieving the DNC’s goals.
It’s not that the GOP runs Fox but that they are deeply aligned with Fox willingly assisting the GOP in achieving the GOP goals.

So lets let this go and agree that both FOX and CNN have betrayed the peoples trust

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #56 on: January 16, 2020, 11:39:50 AM »
Quote
If it was purely money they would simply shift their perspective to the right to try and get within sniffing distance of Fox ratings (ie advertising $).

Fox owns the market of the right and assuming a 50 50 right/left split in politics going after the left makes money sense

In what way does it "make sense" to let one player dominate half the market to enter into competition with multiple players going after the other half?  Heck even just being fair gives more potential market share than playing on the over crowded left.

Face it, you can't have journalists be overwhelming leftists and not expect that's how they're going to roll.  Money is a consideration, but it's not remotely the prime consideration in their political balance.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #57 on: January 16, 2020, 02:37:40 PM »
Quote
n what way does it "make sense" to let one player dominate half the market to enter into competition with multiple players going after the other half?  Heck even just being fair gives more potential market share than playing on the over crowded left.

Face it, you can't have journalists be overwhelming leftists and not expect that's how they're going to roll.  Money is a consideration, but it's not remotely the prime consideration in their political balance

If you look at the history of Fox news the decision to cater to the right was politically and economical. As you know people are attracted to information they already 'know' and want to be true. And it worked, Fox prospered and CNN faltered. CNN could have gone after Fox viewers (right) and hire right leaning journalists or they could adopt the new practice and go after the left.

Does it make business sense?  Fox had one half of the population locked in why compete when the other half the population is up for grabs.  Low hanging fruit verses fruit hard to get at.

Lets all just forget about the self righteousness indignation we have for Fox or CNN. Any stance favoring one over the other is hypocritical

Just stop it
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 02:47:10 PM by rightleft22 »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #58 on: January 16, 2020, 02:52:02 PM »
anyone defending CNN or Fox news are playing the fool and role of useful idiot

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2020, 02:55:35 PM »
CNN could have gone after Fox viewers (right) and hire right leaning journalists or they could adopt the new practice and go after the left.

Does it make business sense?  Fox had one half of the population locked in why compete when the other half the population is up for grabs.  Low hanging fruit verses fruit hard to get at.

Except clearly it doesn't make business sense. The "low hanging fruit" has resulted in getting their asses kicked for years. Unless you're suggesting that they'd be doing even worse by catering, even in part, to the Fox audience?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2020, 02:56:17 PM »
And to be clear, I'm not defending/deriding any of them. Just looking at it from a commercial perspective.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #61 on: January 16, 2020, 03:22:12 PM »
You're looking for engagement. You're better off having 10 people watch 20 hours a week than to have 100 people watch 1 hour. I think you'd find that an even handed approach would pick up the casual viewer.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2020, 03:38:34 PM »
If you look at the history of Fox news the decision to cater to the right was politically and economical. As you know people are attracted to information they already 'know' and want to be true. And it worked, Fox prospered and CNN faltered. CNN could have gone after Fox viewers (right) and hire right leaning journalists or they could adopt the new practice and go after the left.

They actually did make that effort, anyone remember the days when Glenn Beck worked for CNN?

The problem was CNN's staff leaned so strongly to the left even by then that the environment was consistently described as being "hostile" with respect to any openly conservative person who worked at CNN.

Quote
Does it make business sense?  Fox had one half of the population locked in why compete when the other half the population is up for grabs.  Low hanging fruit verses fruit hard to get at.

While there was a business motive to make the effort, there was a solidly established culture in place at CNN by the end of the Bush(43) Administration which made any attempt to remain in the center, never mind moving to the right, untenable in the views of those who worked there.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2020, 03:48:30 PM »
Quote
Except clearly it doesn't make business sense. The "low hanging fruit" has resulted in getting their asses kicked for years. Unless you're suggesting that they'd be doing even worse by catering, even in part, to the Fox audience?

True it hasn't worked for CNN but it was understandable that they try to adopt Fox news successful model - the right.
Perhaps the left is more discerning then the right when it comes to what news they are willing to watch. who knew :)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2020, 05:06:53 PM »
True it hasn't worked for CNN but it was understandable that they try to adopt Fox news successful model - the right.
Perhaps the left is more discerning then the right when it comes to what news they are willing to watch. who knew :)

It's been awhile, but a number of years ago, Fox had almost as many self-identified Democrats watching it, and preferring to watch it, over viewing CNN.

I imagine Fox News still has a very substantial Democratic viewership, something that CNN cannot appreciably claim at this point I'd suspect when it comes to Republicans.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2020, 05:19:12 PM »
Quote
Except clearly it doesn't make business sense. The "low hanging fruit" has resulted in getting their asses kicked for years. Unless you're suggesting that they'd be doing even worse by catering, even in part, to the Fox audience?

True it hasn't worked for CNN but it was understandable that they try to adopt Fox news successful model - the right.
Perhaps the left is more discerning then the right when it comes to what news they are willing to watch. who knew :)

Here’s how I remember things. CNN carved out a niche of panic news addicted white closet authoritarians. Ran ram shot over us during the Rodney King riots, but there afterward FOX chewed off the right wing of the arthoritarian group and then the left fractioned off what was left. So CNN is like the point of impact from which all things “not right” proceed lefwardly like the empty corona of the leftward Big Bang.  . Right?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2020, 07:47:35 AM »
...CNN carved out a niche of panic news addicted white closet authoritarians. Ran ram shot over us during the Rodney King riots, but there afterward FOX chewed off the right wing of the arthoritarian group and then the left fractioned off what was left. So CNN is like the point of impact from which all things “not right” proceed lefwardly like the empty corona of the leftward Big Bang.  . Right?

Not exactly. The owners of the media made a decision of which way to go. When Murdoch's children took over at Fox, they were Left of center and did much to put the brakes on the Rightward lean of the Fox hosts. It was the investors on the board who liked the money coming in and kept the News side and hosts side different. The Fox-pejorative media are so alienated that it is hard for Fox to get decent Leftist contributors to provide truly balanced opinions. The same purportedly Leftward leaning contributors appear on all the shows trying mightily to provide balanced views.

The real problem on CNN, MSNBC, and all the others is the lack of national journalism to hold rabid bloviating in check. Research after research has shown major breaking stories that are negative toward the Left are not covered at all. All the bulk of the nation ever see is Progressive reinforced chatter, which is never balanced, even when proved wrong. The air is filled with disinformation which is reinforced by a complicit media. It is not just the networks.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #67 on: January 17, 2020, 11:35:13 AM »
The idea that there's ever been such a thing as objective news reporting is a fallacy but back when TV was the dominant medium (say up until the mid-90's) there seemed to be less of a reflex to blatantly inject opinions.

Now that all of these networks are on the endangered species list, they've signed a virtual pact to ratchet everything up to 10 and make sure they aren't just relaying information but assigning opinions to their audience. The model is doomed but I don't think anyone has figured out what v2 should look like, or if TV v2 is even possible.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2020, 11:38:54 AM »
...CNN carved out a niche of panic news addicted white closet authoritarians. Ran ram shot over us during the Rodney King riots, but there afterward FOX chewed off the right wing of the arthoritarian group and then the left fractioned off what was left. So CNN is like the point of impact from which all things “not right” proceed lefwardly like the empty corona of the leftward Big Bang.  . Right?

Not exactly. The owners of the media made a decision of which way to go. When Murdoch's children took over at Fox, they were Left of center and did much to put the brakes on the Rightward lean of the Fox hosts. It was the investors on the board who liked the money coming in and kept the News side and hosts side different. The Fox-pejorative media are so alienated that it is hard for Fox to get decent Leftist contributors to provide truly balanced opinions. The same purportedly Leftward leaning contributors appear on all the shows trying mightily to provide balanced views.

The real problem on CNN, MSNBC, and all the others is the lack of national journalism to hold rabid bloviating in check. Research after research has shown major breaking stories that are negative toward the Left are not covered at all. All the bulk of the nation ever see is Progressive reinforced chatter, which is never balanced, even when proved wrong. The air is filled with disinformation which is reinforced by a complicit media. It is not just the networks.

Most of the stories pushed by breitbart and hard right outlets don't deserve attention, but I'm willing to be convinced. Let me know which stories you think are being suppressed.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2020, 12:22:31 PM »
Well, there’s one member of SCOTUS who has been stalking the news critiquing the hard right while going on about how GOP senators x y and z have disqualified themselves from participating in the impeachment trial. Funny that no one is examining whether any DNC members may have by the same set of principles and assumptions disqualified themselves.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #70 on: January 17, 2020, 01:08:21 PM »
Quote
Well, there’s one member of SCOTUS who has been stalking the news critiquing the hard right while going on about how GOP senators x y and z have disqualified themselves from participating in the impeachment trial. Funny that no one is examining whether any DNC members may have by the same set of principles and assumptions disqualified themselves.

Is there some reason why you're being cagey about this? Hard for me to respond to vague allusions. And by definition, if they are stalking the news, then its not really being ignored is it? So maybe you mean to say that you don't like how they are reporting, not that they are ignoring?

Let's go back to your assertion.

Quote
Research after research has shown major breaking stories that are negative toward the Left are not covered at all.

If there is research after research, I'm sure you can name at least one study?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #71 on: January 18, 2020, 06:25:28 PM »
Quote
Well, there’s one member of SCOTUS who has been stalking the news critiquing the hard right while going on about how GOP senators x y and z have disqualified themselves from participating in the impeachment trial. Funny that no one is examining whether any DNC members may have by the same set of principles and assumptions disqualified themselves.

Is there some reason why you're being cagey about this? Hard for me to respond to vague allusions. And by definition, if they are stalking the news, then its not really being ignored is it? So maybe you mean to say that you don't like how they are reporting, not that they are ignoring?

Let's go back to your assertion.

Quote
Research after research has shown major breaking stories that are negative toward the Left are not covered at all.

If there is research after research, I'm sure you can name at least one study?

Huh? That’s not my assertion.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #72 on: January 18, 2020, 06:33:12 PM »
Sorry, I shouldn't have connected those two comments. It's confusing.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2020, 02:03:32 PM »
I didn't watch the debate last night but thought Bloomberg's video edit (below) was amusing. Of course the crack media immediately jumped into fact-checking mode to see if there were actually crickets on the stage.

https://twitter.com/ccadelago/status/1230542511506063364

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #74 on: February 21, 2020, 02:43:52 PM »
Came across an article today about Bloomberg, proposing that Bloomberg may have as his primary intent to take down Bernie, not Trump. You may take this to be editorialized, but I think it's a reasonable assumption:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/michael-bloomberg-trying-take-bernie-sanders-not-trump/265026/

If anything it shows that the powers that be behind the DNC are much more threatened by Bernie than by Trump. It's not that they don't want a D in office, but I suspect that would rather have Trump than Sanders if forced into that choice. This suggests to me that on the subject of 'draining the swamp' vs maintaining the status quo, Trump is probably closer to status quo than his followers believe, whereas Sanders would actually make changes that upset certain people.

It would be up to you to decide whether those "certain people" are correct or not. For instance a big money interest, even if motivated purely by personal greed and lust for power, may have an intersection between their interests and those of the public if, say, a candidate was coming forward who would tank the economy. On the other hand, if the economy or culture is currently suffering under various types of corruption, then a vanguard candidate would be poised to chip away at that part of their self-interest not intersecting with the general public's welfare. In Bernie's case I feel it is the latter, but I am well aware that some posters here view it very much as the former.

Either way, in my book, if big money wants Sanders to lose this is all the more reason to hope he wins. These people should not be running America as a political oligarchy, except that at present they pretty much are, and many experts seem to say the same thing.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #75 on: March 27, 2020, 03:10:33 PM »
This thread is quite passé at this time, but the contemporaneous belief is that Biden will have the hard majority votes to win nomination unless he voluntarily steps down, due to mental decline. Many in the DNC wanted him over Bernie, but never thought he couild defeat Trump because of the great economy and successes of his administration. Rush Limbaugh corrected his earlier thoughts that the DNC would never back a loser, but reconsidered that they were more concerned with personal power, and Bernie and the ultra-Left would threaten that. He said they would gladly allow Trump a second turn if they could retain the House and maybe pick up votes in the Senate.

With the Wuhan Flue affecting the economy, the Left is now Hell-bent to use the crisis against Trump. They still don't think Biden or Bernie can overcome Trump's metrics - but much now hinges upon what happens nearer November. Any Presidential comments now about how the economy will quickly rebound is aimed at the election up the road.

The attenuating factor is Biden's perceived mental decline. This makes his announced naming of a woman VP even more important. Tulsi Gabbard would probably be his strongest pick, but the DNC will lean to Amy Klobucher over Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, or Hillary. If it is possible, Hillary will call in all her chits to be named - but then we'd have two with the same attenuating factor.

The next focus must be on the one-on-one debates against Trump and Pence. Most will get creamed, as the moderators cannot save bad debaters from themselves (which is why Gabbard has an edge.) The main fear is the tail-coat effect and the lack of votes down-ticket. Biden with Hillary may not win a single state.

...But everything will be seen through the lens of the economy in November. Pelosi and Schumer are fixated on Kevin McCarthy and McConnell, so Covid-19 doesn't seem real to them except as a foil to tarnish the GOP. They will have the complicit media whatever happens, so they are throwing out sheet anchors to latch onto depending on the rebound. If the containment efforts ease late, then the debates are less important, but as we see now, even virtual town halls with Biden are coming apart.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #76 on: March 27, 2020, 03:23:30 PM »
...
The next focus must be on the one-on-one debates against Trump and Pence. Most will get creamed, as the moderators cannot save bad debaters from themselves (which is why Gabbard has an edge.) The main fear is the tail-coat effect and the lack of votes down-ticket. Biden with Hillary may not win a single state.
...

I'm in the boat thinking Biden is going to get creamed, however our society is simply too polarized for them not to pick up a significant number of states. Covid is still a wild card right now could go either way for Trump, but I expect Trump would win more states than he did in 2016 if Biden is his opponent. But Biden would still hold the democratic stalwarts. There just aren't enough swing voters anymore for a Nixon-McGovern type victory again.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #77 on: March 27, 2020, 03:51:42 PM »
...
The next focus must be on the one-on-one debates against Trump and Pence. Most will get creamed, as the moderators cannot save bad debaters from themselves (which is why Gabbard has an edge.) The main fear is the tail-coat effect and the lack of votes down-ticket. Biden with Hillary may not win a single state.
...

I'm in the boat thinking Biden is going to get creamed, however our society is simply too polarized for them not to pick up a significant number of states. Covid is still a wild card right now could go either way for Trump, but I expect Trump would win more states than he did in 2016 if Biden is his opponent. But Biden would still hold the democratic stalwarts. There just aren't enough swing voters anymore for a Nixon-McGovern type victory again.

Agreed, I don't see a scenario where New York or California flips Republican on a presidential race anytime in the foreseeable future.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #78 on: April 08, 2020, 12:10:21 PM »
Congratulations to all the Trump supporters! With Bernie's withdrawal from the primaries I foresee another glorious term for team Trump upcoming. Luckily both parties prefer to have Trump in power at this time, so if that's not bipartisan I don't know what is :)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #79 on: April 08, 2020, 01:45:23 PM »
Will Cuomo be anointed instead?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #80 on: April 08, 2020, 05:38:53 PM »
I'm kind of curious what this does down ballot.  I don't see anything about Trump's actions in response to COVID-19 that are going to weaken his popularity with his supports, and if anything they are going to be incredibly enthusiastic about voting for him.

No one really seems enthusiastic about voting for Biden, but that doesn't really matter because Dem enthusiasm stems solely from their viscerol hatred of Trump.  What this may do though, is push those who don't like him, but don't hate him into a softer position where they are not all that concerned about voting or not.

So that was the prelude, what I'm wondering is what's going to happen down ballot.  The Dems flipped the house based on hate by taking offices in districts where Trump is fairly popular but the hatred was strong. Notwithstanding that fact, those officeholders did not run on hate, they left that to the silent supporters, and instead ran on being able to work on a bipartisan basis to get things done - that lead to an enthusiasm gap as those opposed to the Dems saw someone relatively neutral and the haters weren't going to stay home.  Those reps are already in hot water on that front from the number of partisan party loyalty votes they've had to take, they can't pretend to be nuetral anymore.  Now, the commercials are going to write themselves - your DNC Rep was voting to impeach Trump on a fake issue (despite her promises to work with him) while he could have been focusing on saving lives from COVID 19, is this the kind of bipartisanship you voted for?

I have to think that's its entirely possible that Trump loses the election but the Republicans take back the House.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #81 on: April 08, 2020, 07:56:14 PM »
I'm kind of curious what this does down ballot.  I don't see anything about Trump's actions in response to COVID-19 that are going to weaken his popularity with his supports, and if anything they are going to be incredibly enthusiastic about voting for him.

I agree, but worry about vote scamming. Pelosi has already started trying to change voting procedures. Hanging chads weren't bad enough. The Vegas community organizers who sent in an entire football team's roster (from the wrong state) will still be providing names from cemetery headstones. Remember, for them the ends justify the means. The reason Hillary is so ridiculed now, is that she entirely crossed the line when running, counting on winners rewriting history, and when she lost had to clean up all the dead bodies without the power to do it cleanly. She had enough complicit cheaters to get by, but not without leaving fingerprints that couldn't be ignored. if the economy isn't on the way up withing seven months, the Dems will use that for all they can.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #82 on: April 18, 2020, 05:59:17 PM »
Well, to shift things a back towards democrat derangement:

Yesterday I had occasion to run across a comment from one of my Liberal Facebook friend I wish I had screenshot, I cannot find it now.

But it gains additional noteworthiness in my book because the guy lives in the Salt Lake City Valley, it has plenty of Liberals running around, but hardly an echo chamber unless you go to very great lengths.

They postulated that in 10 years time "Republicans and Trump supporters" will be much like the people in 1950's Germany who loudly and frequently protested that they never supported the Nazi Party, even though they were neck deep in the stuff at the time.

It was amazing to see how many people on their feed agreed with him.

 ::)

I've had some other "interesting" exchanges with them on some other topics recently, and they're out of touch on a number of issues and very well trained in immediately putting the maximum negative spin (and introduction of logical fallacy) on anything anyone tries to insert into the conversation which might threaten their world view.

Not making for a promising next few years, I know there are plenty of those who are deranged on the pro-Trump side of things. But it's disheartening to see the leftist form of it appearing to be settling in among so many people in my extended social circle, particularly given some of those people who agreed with him were libertarian leaning just 15 years ago.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #83 on: April 18, 2020, 07:18:54 PM »
...in 10 years time "Republicans and Trump supporters" will be much like the people in 1950's Germany who loudly and frequently protested that they never supported the Nazi Party, even though they were neck deep in the stuff at the time.

More Democrat projection. They have consistently called the GOP a pro-Nazi party - even though Nazis were socialists and progressives. They say Trump is Hitleresque, when in effect, that more closely adheres to Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler, and the others denouncing the pro-Constitutional Trump administration. They project onto Trump calling him racist:

Donald Trump is the first racist in history to have:
...dated a black woman 
...deported an ex-Nazi 
...Upgraded MLK's birthplace to a national historic park 
...posthumously pardoned legendary boxer Jack Johnson 
...kissed the Western Wall 
...loved his Jewish grandchildren 
...established an Opportunity & Revitalization Council to
   restore insalubrious black neighborhoods 
...signed a major criminal reform bill 
...granted Alice Johnson clemency 
...loaned his personal jet to Nelson Mandela 
...declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel 
...moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem 
...overseen the lowest black employment in history 
...denounced David Duke over 20 years ago 
...been given a lifetime achievement award after paving a way for blacks to enter corporate America…

Worst.  Racist.  Ever.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #84 on: April 18, 2020, 07:58:00 PM »
...in 10 years time "Republicans and Trump supporters" will be much like the people in 1950's Germany who loudly and frequently protested that they never supported the Nazi Party, even though they were neck deep in the stuff at the time.

More Democrat projection. They have consistently called the GOP a pro-Nazi party - even though Nazis were socialists and progressives. They say Trump is Hitleresque, when in effect, that more closely adheres to Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler, and the others denouncing the pro-Constitutional Trump administration.

I would agree it is possible that the "anti-Trumpers" who will be trying to hide their positions in 10 to 20 years, mostly because history is going to find their hysteria over the matter to be completely overblown.

The Fascists were a "rebranding" of Socialism under a Nationalistic model unlike the international flavor the USSR was peddling. Both groups were and are very racist at their core, but the Nationalists were very up front and open about it. Their openness on the matter also makes them not very "progressive" about such issues, even if they agreed on most of the remaining agenda.

In most respects, the best modern parallel would be to compare how the Chinese Communist Party operates and how Nazi Germany operated as I think about it. Organizationally, they're essentially the same thing at this point. Only the CCP isn't trying to exterminate the Jews, although they have their own "inconvenient" ethnic groups that have legitimate cause for concern about being "erased" by one means or another.

There also is something to be said about the CCP's efforts to foster both Chinese Nationalism within their own borders and abroad, and their attempts to "brand" the CCP as embodying all things Chinese. So that anything that is critical of the CCP can be declared as "racist against persons of Chinese descent."

But that just increases the irony that the Democrats are trying to bill the first President in over 50 years to stand strongly against the CCP as "being the next Hitler" while the CCP has turned itself into the modern incarnation of the Nazi Party.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #85 on: April 18, 2020, 08:38:51 PM »

wmLambert


"Donald Trump is the first racist in history to have"

This next one is not a first so doesn't make the list but it's also worth pointing out that he is married to an immigrant.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #86 on: April 18, 2020, 08:50:07 PM »
This next one is not a first so doesn't make the list but it's also worth pointing out that he is married to an immigrant.

So he makes a lousy nationalist too.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Dem debates
« Reply #87 on: April 18, 2020, 09:17:07 PM »
... he is married to an immigrant.
Not just an immigrant, but a legal immigrant who became a naturalized citizen. A beautiful, successful woman who speaks five languages, and is so jealously hated by the left-wing media that she has never been put on a magazine cover, or covered fairly by any of them.