Goodspeed wrote:Yeah when the media reports something you don't like, it's not true. Classic. From where I'm sitting it's not looking good for him, and I don't get my news from places that are in any way anti-Sanders. Extremely biased in favor of him, if anything.
For the record, betting markets don't like his chances either. That's people who put their money where their mouth is, unlike you or I.
Bernie is the only candidate that gets press coverage saying he should drop out even though he consistently polls in 2/3 place and an occasional first. He has the most money and donors, he has the biggest email lists, and he does well in all polls against trump. Yet, you never hear anything about Pete should drop out, Beto should drop out or Kamala should drop out. So, while I don’t see your coverage, the coverage I see is certainly suspicious.
@n0el Yeah all of those should drop out except Pete, he still actually has growth potential unlike every other name you mentioned including Bernie. It's just not his year. Warren and him were competing for the same voters and Warren won that battle.
bittersalt123 wrote:The media is the United States at least is never reliable and is mostly driven by emotions rather than fact.
Not emotions, I would bet on the money, the add money There is actually no independent mainstream press in the USA, only Youtube. They are also biased, but at least they will tell you where their bias is, and then report the news, and as they see it.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Goodspeed wrote:Yeah when the media reports something you don't like, it's not true. Classic. From where I'm sitting it's not looking good for him, and I don't get my news from places that are in any way anti-Sanders. Extremely biased in favor of him, if anything.
For the record, betting markets don't like his chances either. That's people who put their money where their mouth is, unlike you or I.
Bernie is the only candidate that gets press coverage saying he should drop out even though he consistently polls in 2/3 place and an occasional first. He has the most money and donors, he has the biggest email lists, and he does well in all polls against trump. Yet, you never hear anything about Pete should drop out, Beto should drop out or Kamala should drop out. So, while I don’t see your coverage, the coverage I see is certainly suspicious.
Confirmation bias, you can call it whatever you like @Goodspeed
I just feel like this is the chance for many generations to come, - to really change the broken system in the USA. It will also have a very big ramifications for the rest of the world, bringing more justice and sanity back to all of us.
So, yeah, I am a BIG Bernie supporter, and I really think (or hope?) he will win in 2020.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Goodspeed wrote:Given your reponse to things you don't agree with, it makes sense that you're optimistic about Bernie's chances. Confirmation bias indeed.
what? lol
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
iwillspankyou wrote:what is the use of mosqitoes anyway, are they there just to annoy us, like Frenshy is? or do they keep us on alert? or make us angry and sharpen our points of view? Maybe mosquitos are needed in the chain of events/things. Hmm, frenshy lol
I get bitten my mosquitos all the time. I'm not one
It’s vastly different. There’s people who think we should be the police and have troops there and support “democracy” and there’s people who think we should get the fuck out.
Googol wrote:What's the stance of dems on Syria and ME as a whole?
I think the dems approach is a mostly bi-partisan one, but one that is also out of touch with almost all voters. I think most voters want out, of course there are more nuanced positions on how to get out and time frames etc. but nonetheless they don't want to police the world anymore. However I think many people believe the "establishment" and the bureaucrats want to keep them in there. And they do want to stay there and I think they make some good arguments why they have to be the world's police but it is a complicated area, one that most foreign policy experts don't agree on.
To me this is one of the reasons Trump was so popular albeit through the stupidity of voters. His own personal view and rhetoric was draining the swamp, getting out of the Middle East and no more endless wars. And this aligned with voters. Problem is that he offered no real solutions to the problems foreign policy experts highlight when people say they want out. It was all rhetoric. At least it was until he's done it anyway but has royally fucked over a huge amount of people in the process. And now you have a serious crisis where foreign policy which was often necessarily bipartisan isn't anymore. It will result in a massacring of a group of people and the crumbling of America's standing with its allies. Now many ambassadors will chalk it up to Trumpism to the countries they have to communicate with, but if he is elected for another 4 years, then you could have already given yourself enough rope to hang yourself with.
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
Don't you get it? He wants the world to show its true face. Let them go at each other's throats, so that everyone can see how "civilised" they are and how the world would look like if the USA weren't policing it. Then maybe everyone would realise they should have been thankful. Or start paying from their own pockets if they want the world to be stable and nicely kept in order by someone else. It's Trump's transactional idea of security: if you want stability and you want us to secure it, why don't you pay our military expenses?
"Because you keep criticising us for being the big bad wolf who spends too much on its military, but then you start whining when we pull out. So there you go, we're gonna spend less on our military and let you set your house in order in your region."
That's basically his line of reasoning. Yes, you need a few PhDs in Middle Eastern topics and a few stints at the US Department of State to be able to gain such insight. You can't just use your brain.
That reaction came later, once the media and pundits started making a big fuss about the whole thing. It's pretty much carrot and stick diplomacy. The decision was announced on the 6th, then the media, Dems and some Repub started foaming about the whole thing for a few days. Eventually Trump issued this letter to save face.
And Erdoğan proceeded to ignore his threats and launched the offensive that led to some casualties. That letter came out on the 9th of October, now it's the 17th. The offensive and casualties happened in the meantime.
So I don't think there's any misalignment between my take and his actions.