yea but why did she get more votes mister anderson whyyyy
Terrorists
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Democratic primary voters wanted a Democrat as their nominee.
JS: You know, this is the latest in what I think is clearly a pattern of MSNBC using its airwaves to smear and attack Bernie Sanders, on the one hand, but also to run defense for anyone that is not Bernie Sanders. You also had Chris Matthews who, you know, famously said he had, you know, a tingling in his leg listening to Obama speak recently saying:
Chris Matthews: I remember the Cold War. I have an attitude towards Castro. I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War, there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed and certain other people would be there cheering? OK. So, I have a problem with people who took the other side. I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years. I don’t know what he means by socialism.
JS: Talk about the role of the so called liberal media in playing defense on the one hand for Michael Bloomberg or, you know, more right of center Democrats and also smearing Bernie Sanders.
Intercepted Podcast: “It’s Armageddon Time for the Democratic Party”
LF: Well, look, these cable news programs, television broadcast news companies, these are for profit corporations that are trying to sell ads. They’re not interested in a thoughtful conversation around the complicated political and policy issues at play here, what’s before voters. They’re trying to dive into the most sensationalist tabloid-esque aspects of the presidential race to get a lot of viewers without pushing the party or the country to the left.
Look at 2016, CBS you know, we did a story showing that at their own investor conference, their CEO had been cheering on Donald Trump. They said, look, we’re going to make so much money from Donald Trump running just in terms of ratings and selling TV ads to Super PACs. They were cheering on Donald Trump and just in the same situation here with the Democratic primary, Comcast, which owns MSNBC has, through its PAC and through its executives have given a lot to Donald Trump, given a lot to the centrist candidates. Joe Biden launched his campaign with a fundraiser at the home of Comcast’s chief lobbyists.
You know, if you’re, if you’re watching MSNBC, you’re not getting a detailed explanation of what’s going on in Congress of the regulatory moves of the Donald Trump administration, really diving into the actual policy impact on any economic policies with what Donald Trump is doing. You’re getting this kind of tabloid treatment of the race, and many of the hosts here are just so clearly biased against any candidate that proposes a structural economic change. They can be very progressive on social issues, on immigration, on issues that don’t affect the bottom line of big business, but when it comes to changing the economic order, raising taxes, reeling back American empire, the MSNBC hosts, with some notable exceptions are certainly to the right.
this has been covered by chris hedges on his tv show, michael moore put it in his documentary, ralph nader mentions it, im sure the intercept has covered it. 2016 democratic primary was a total sham operation and america should have been invaded and democracy restored.
as ive stated the DNC has currently changed the rules to accomodate michael bloomberg. perez is totally corrupt and should step down. gabbard dissociated herself from the DNC in 2016.
right now youve got a situation where the candidate who recieves the majority of votes can still lose to someone who gets less votes and is appointed by elite cronies.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Yup. Democratic voters want a democrat. The parties are private organizations.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Oh well, they're going to get a communist.
How far Left do you have to be to think any MSNBC host is on the Right? That's the same kind of bizarro world I hear on the Right claiming FOX News is too liberal!
i know its hard to imagine but these networks are owned by rich
s who dont want many left wing economic policies like wealth redistribution, media regulation, pro worker laws.what democratic voters want and what they get are 2 separate things
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Yes people who own things are typically against the government confiscating their property. Communism is tyranny.i know its hard to imagine but these networks are owned by rich
The only good commie is a dead commie.
Fren.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
They get some things they want and some things they don't. Politics is not a zero sum game. Grow up.
no because when you factor in global warming everyone ends up losing except the rich
s that blast off on the moonrakerthey are also against workers getting a bigger share of the income / weatlh.
ahh speak of the devil first chris hedges article i read in a while and hes talking about democrats anti democracy efforts to preselect corrupt candidates like al gore, kerry, obama, clinton. and hes saying if bernie gets the nomination then the media will prefer trump over bernie. its looking like the 2016 republican primaries:
"The Democrats, especially after Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential run, have erected numerous obstacles to block progressives inside and outside the party. They make ballot access difficult or impossible for people of color. They lock third-party candidates and often progressives in the Democratic Party, such as Dennis Kucinich, out of the presidential campaign debates. They turn campaigns into two-year-long spectacles that cost billions of dollars. They use superdelegates to fix the nominating process. They employ scare tactics to co-op those who should be the natural allies of third parties and progressive political movements."
and this part he goes into why liberals keep supporting democrats:
"The repeated cowardice of the liberal class, which backs a Democratic Party that in Europe would be considered a far-right party, saw it squander its credibility. Its rhetoric proved empty. Its moral posturing was a farce. It fought for nothing. In assault after assault on the working class it was complicit. If liberals — supposedly backers of parties and institutions that defend the interests of the working class — had abandoned the Democratic Party after President Bill Clinton pushed through the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Trump would not be in the White House. Why didn’t liberals walk out of the Democratic Party when Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership, including Biden, passed NAFTA? Why didn’t they walk out when the Clinton administration gutted welfare? Why didn’t they walk out when Clinton pushed through the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which abolished the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis that trashed the global economy in 2008? Why didn’t they walk out when year after year the Democratic Party funded and expanded our endless wars? Why didn’t they walk out when the Democrats agreed to undercut due process and habeas corpus? Why didn’t they walk out when the Democrats helped approve the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? Why didn’t the liberals walk out when the party leadership refused to impose sanctions on Israel for its war crimes, enact serious environmental and health care reform or regulate Wall Street? At what point will liberals say “Enough”? At what point will they fight back?"
The Democratic elites scrambled, successfully, to deny Sanders the 2016 nomination.
The last desperate gasp of the Democratic Party establishment is to buy the election."
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Man up buttercup.
If you need the government to hold your hand and force someone to pay you well, you don't deserve it.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Fake news.no because when you factor in global warming everyone ends up losing except the rich
who do you think the capitalists run to for bail outs or to make their workers conform?
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Obama DHS whistleblower found dead with gunshot wound in California
Philip Haney, a former Homeland Security Department official during the Obama administration who blew the whistle on his own agency, was found dead Friday with a gunshot wound about 40 miles east of Sacramento, California.
The Amador County Sheriff's office confirmed to the Washington Examiner that deputies and detectives responded to reports Friday morning at 10:12 a.m. of a male subject on the ground with a gunshot wound in the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth, California.
"Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time," the sheriff's office said in a statement
The Washington Examiner received a text message from Haney on Nov. 11 which mentioned plans to write a sequel to his first book, See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government's Submission to Jihad, which described his experience at DHS.
"Odd (surreal reality) that I was a highly visible whistleblower ... that virtually no one listened to, while this guy remains invisible, but is treated like an anointed oracle from above," Haney said in the Nov. 11 text, referring to alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella. "However, my story is still live, i.e., there's still more to come. It'll be called 'National Security Meltdown.'"
Haney added, "I have a severely hyper-organized archive of everything that's happened since See Something, Say Nothing (SSSN) was published in May of 2016. The National Security Meltdown sequel will pick up right where SSSN left off. My intention is to have it ready by early-to mid-Spring of 2020 (just before the political sound wave hits), then ride that wave all the way to the Nov. elections.
Philip Haney, a former Homeland Security Department official during the Obama administration who blew the whistle on his own agency, was found dead Friday with a gunshot wound about 40 miles east of Sacramento, California.
The Amador County Sheriff's office confirmed to the Washington Examiner that deputies and detectives responded to reports Friday morning at 10:12 a.m. of a male subject on the ground with a gunshot wound in the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth, California.
"Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time," the sheriff's office said in a statement
The Washington Examiner received a text message from Haney on Nov. 11 which mentioned plans to write a sequel to his first book, See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government's Submission to Jihad, which described his experience at DHS.
"Odd (surreal reality) that I was a highly visible whistleblower ... that virtually no one listened to, while this guy remains invisible, but is treated like an anointed oracle from above," Haney said in the Nov. 11 text, referring to alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella. "However, my story is still live, i.e., there's still more to come. It'll be called 'National Security Meltdown.'"
Haney added, "I have a severely hyper-organized archive of everything that's happened since See Something, Say Nothing (SSSN) was published in May of 2016. The National Security Meltdown sequel will pick up right where SSSN left off. My intention is to have it ready by early-to mid-Spring of 2020 (just before the political sound wave hits), then ride that wave all the way to the Nov. elections.
Similar threads
