Quote:We're on the same page regarding 1 and 2.
As for 3. It's complicated. We should be marching the streets as working people against the wealthy that the politicians are actually representing, you're right. But we are divided. It's important to find things we all agree with. But America, despite what trump thinks is not going to be destroyed under a Clinton presidency. I would argue that one cannot say the same thing with a trump presidency.
The fact that trump supporters think that Hillary Clinton is a traitor, but cannot provide actual proof shows how insane the whole thing is. Politicians are politicians, but because they have been bought by the wealthy doesn't mean we need to destroy the whole system. I have faith in the system that we can change it from within. You won't be able to do with with trump.
You may be able to do that with Clinton. And if she fails to make the push towards Bernie after she's elected, she'll be a 1 term president.
Either one is a one term president. Hillary to me represents EVERYTHING wrong with politics today. You can continue to lament that Trump would be anti-Christ however what legislation could he get passed when both parties are against him?
Quote:Either one is a one term president. Hillary to me represents EVERYTHING wrong with politics today. You can continue to lament that Trump would be anti-Christ however what legislation could he get passed when both parties are against him?
It's the foreign policy with trump that I fear.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have high hopes for a Clinton presidency. But I think she stewards the US through the muck of international relations better than trump.
On top of that, I think the minorities of the USA would have a very hard time for 4 years under a trump presidency. You're right, policy issues would probably not move one way or the other. But, I personally don't want to deal with how trump would handle issues regarding race, religion, and social justice in the USA along with international affairs with our allies and adversaries under that crazy person in the White House.
I just don't see that has a good time for anyone, really. trump is unstable. Too unstable.
Quote:It's the foreign policy with trump that I fear.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have high hopes for a Clinton presidency. But I think she stewards the US through the muck of international relations better than trump.
On top of that, I think the minorities of the USA would have a very hard time for 4 years under a trump presidency. You're right, policy issues would probably not move one way or the other. But, I personally don't want to deal with how trump would handle issues regarding race, religion, and social justice in the USA along with international affairs with our allies and adversaries under that crazy person in the White House.
I just don't see that has a good time for anyone, really. trump is unstable. Too unstable.
I see them both as equally deplorable. I see no redeeming quality in either one of them. I keep hoping I wake up and this was all a bad dream.
Quote:Have certain individuals in the media sold out for one side or the other through out history? Certainly. Never in history of a free country has the sell out been this bad. The media used to be about informing the common man so he could be well informed about the issues that affected him. Not so much these days. The fact that you not only give this a free pass but defend it is alarming. I am going to guess you never heard Walter Cronkite live have you?
Yes, I was young when Conkrite retired. To be fair the news rarely reported in controversy back in the day.
Quote:Yes, I was young when Conkrite retired. To be fair the news rarely reported in controversy back in the day.
It was not controversial because it was right down the middle and just the facts. You would have never known Chronkite was a liberal because of he delivered the news.
Quote:It was not controversial because it was right down the middle and just the facts. You would have never known Chronkite was a liberal because of he delivered the news.
The Fairness Doctrine was mostly responsible for that. More so than anything else.
Quote:The Fairness Doctrine was mostly responsible for that. More so than anything else.
That... And there was actual regulations about the public airwaves and these corporations (abc, nbc, cbs) that were running a profit had to provide news as a public service. The news divisions of these broadcasters were money losers. They were created and run to inform, not make money and entertain.
When that regulation was removed, it forever changed the drive of the news. As we see.
Buuuuullllll [BLEEP]. Stupid [BLEEP] revisionists.
Quote:Buuuuullllll [BAD WORD REMOVED]. Stupid [BAD WORD REMOVED] revisionists.
Lol. You can't refute it, so you whine like an orange baby and throw a trump tantrum.
A tantrump, if you will.
Quote:Lol. You can't refute it, so you whine like an orange baby and throw a trump tantrum.
A tantrump, if you will.
I've already schooled you on this topic once on this forum, you need to start retaining what I teach you.
Quote:Buuuuullllll [BAD WORD REMOVED]. Stupid [BAD WORD REMOVED] revisionists.
Agreed.
The "Fairness" Doctrine was pretty much telling a private business what it had to do. By all accounts much of the media already does what the "Fairness" Doctrine mandated.
Quote:Agreed.
The "Fairness" Doctrine was pretty much telling a private business what it had to do. By all accounts much of the media already does what the "Fairness" Doctrine mandated.
And there is the problem. You cannot just assume that everything is a private business. It's very complicated.
Do you think that 1 person owns the ability to control the processes that allow information to enter everyone's home? And if so, do you think that's conducive to a democratically represented society?