Its unfortunate that's for sure. Makes it difficult to have reasonable discussions since some are locked into their reality.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bernie Sanders will Run Again in 2020
- Thread starter RDreamer
- Start date
- Status
Its unfortunate that's for sure. Makes it difficult to have reasonable discussions since some are locked into their reality.
Why do you expect a coronation primary? It's His Turn!
It's a place for people who don't like Bernie to try to convince everyone else why we should not like him too.
Seemed to swing from anti to pro Bernie in the last day.
You've summed up the mainstream Democrats nicely.
I didn't learn about Donut Twitter until this thread. Christ on a bicycle white feminism is corrosive and toxic!
Tulsi ain't it. Look to Warren, especially if you want anything resembling justice for the housing crisis.
Is $6 million in 24 hours a lot?
I'm genuinely asking, I don't know anything about past fundraising.
I'm genuinely asking, I don't know anything about past fundraising.
He is a Tulsi stan. Meaning he doesn't give a shit that Tulsi hates gay people. There is no way to reason with these people.
imagining giving this much of a shit about what other consenting adults do, insane
i'll be charitable and just chalk it up to wanting to gatekeep marriage
Yeah the past page or so has mostly been Bernie supporters. Maybe the centrists are asleep? Personally I'm waiting for Coo or whoever to come and post about (((B*rnard))) so we can have some balance
Edit: oh never mind, I posted too slowly
Edit: oh never mind, I posted too slowly
this is really not true, but then again so is the whole "you can't even talk about bernie sanders on era!!!" stuff people keep posting here in the "bernie sanders announces a bid for presidency" thread that's nearly 80 pages ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not trying to be a shit poster but the last page of his thread has been extremely entertaining lol
Nah, Tulsi has used anti-gay slurs and while in the state house in Hawaii pushed for legislation so schools couldn't teach about any gay historical figures because she was concerned it would cause kids to turn gay. She was just all out full on hateful of gay people.
And then in 2016 doubled down saying her personal views on gay people have not changed just her views on the role of government in enacting laws for her views lol.
These cries of whataboutism that popped up on recent pages when someone brings up US atrocities in comparison to Russia really miss a crucial point: not only are the US's problems relevant to the topic, they are crucially necessary to understand why Russia is engaged in these activities. And it doesn't stop at US/Russia. Understanding historical context is crucial to come to an understanding of something like Japanese atrocities in WW2 did not make the dropping of atomic bombs by the US morally right. If we are to escape received narratives, these "whataboutisms", which are actually bringing up historically relevant contexts, are crucial. Russia pointing out the hypocrisy of America's civil rights conflicts doesn't mean they actually care(d) about those movements, but it is also wrong to dismiss what is at the heart of that criticism and misses why civil rights activists might be willing to get any help they can from anywhere when it's a matter of life and death.
Chris Hedges had a nice answer to being asked about why he's on RT and he said "In terms of RT, look, if we had a functioning public broadcasting system, critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism would have a voice. But PBS in particular, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers. And the destruction of public broadcasting, in the 60s you could watch Baldwin, Malcom, Zinn, Chomsky,etc... it's vanished. Critics such as myself are being pushed to the margins, not only of the electronic media landscape, but the internet." He also talks about how algorithms push what he has to say about certain key words like "imperialism" out. He finished by saying that RT allow him to express those kinds of views and he'll take whatever he can get even if he disagrees with them on a lot of issues. He cited how Eastern Europe's Vaclav Havel spoke on Voice of America despite him having problems with American Imperialism, as that was the only space he was allowed to voice his opinion.
That's fucked up to think about but I don't necesarrily disagree with the sentiment. I would feel a bit better about Bernie if he chooses a relatively young VP. Just in case, you know. But I support Bernie in the primary and hope they make the right call with their VP pick. The bigger concern IMO is if Bernie dies during the campaign after the primary. That's the worst case scenario and I hope he is in good health.
RT is a propaganda arm of Putin. Period. There is no nuance here, there is nothing else to be said. Every single person who is on RT and hired by RT is done so to help the Putin regime and destroy American democracy.
Every single thing and every single person on RT is there for that purpose and that purpose alone.
Every single thing and every single person on RT is there for that purpose and that purpose alone.
That's not a nice answer, that's an excuse for allowing yourself to assist a state-run propaganda news channel that's actively interested in pushing fascist authoritarians into power worldwide. Russia is not a democracy, it's a mafia state.
The internet is a wide-open place, it's easier than ever to create your own platform.
edit: And holy crap, PBS is not a "Wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers"- that's an insane conspiracy theory to justify the existence of a state propaganda network.
Last edited:
Yeah, the problem people have with Tulsi's LGBTQ stances (amidst many other issues) is how it was a big part of her family's political platform. It went beyond milquetoast garden-variety homophobia. Her father pretty much admitted that he only switched parties and became a Democrat to stay relevant.
Yeah, there are no excuses to ever EVER go on a state-run propaganda outlet ran by a mass murdering evil dictator.
LIke really, do we even need to say this?
LIke really, do we even need to say this?
Right now, his age is my biggest issue. Poking around on some actuarial charts, a 77 year old man (79 when he would take the Presidency) has more than a 50% chance of dying before the end of a second term (and that's completely ignoring the stress of being President). Sure, Bernie's healthier than the average 77 year old, but the possibility is definitely there. If he gets the nomination then I'll gladly vote for him in the general, but he really needs to pick a VP who's at least somewhat ideologically aligned and young enough to serve out the remainder of the Presidency if needed.
It's waaaaaaaaaay to fucking early to tell, but I can feel it in my bones, Bernie is going to win the primary. He's got the name recognition now that he didn't have before.
And how does this relate to Chris Hedges, and his criticism of America? Or for that matter anyone that has something to say against the US? Him going on RT doesn't mean you need to make RT your only news source, nor does it mean that RT's agenda automatically makes certain criticism invalid. It also doesn't mean you support Russia.
I and many people like to listen to certain individuals, and they might pop up on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, RT, or internet podcasts to give interviews. I just think it's healthy to not be a drone for a single news outlet. People that only watch RT, or MSNBC, or Fox, or CNN, are probably more liable to spout propaganda.
Come on man. There's context to everything. Not everything is so black and white.
I shall go onto RT and state that the sky is blue, capitalism sucks, and racism is horrible and some people will be like "that's fucking Russian propaganda"
RT should not be a news source you use for anything because it is not a news source! It was banned on the old forum for a very good reason- it's a state propaganda network peddling bullshit, you might as well be watching Infowars. If you are watching it and treating it as a legitimate organization with legitimate news, you are demonstrating that you lack the ability to actually discern real sources from propaganda, much like many people can't tell the difference between normal articles and sponsored content. And while watching RT, picking up arguments from there, then spreading them may not mean someone is intentionally support Russia, doing so makes them an unwitting tool for RT,, as they're con artists and you're the mark.
There IS context to everything, and that context is why RT is not a legitimate news network. Plenty of news networks have biases and blind spots. But places like Fox News and RT are fundamentally uninterested in objective truth, they are interested in shaping narrative to benefit their preferred political goals (the GOP and Putin, respectively.)
And I edited it in above, but your conspiracy theory that PBS is puppeteered by the Koch brothers is absolutely ridiculous and only serves as a wild whataboutism in order to justify that
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that yet since the candidate pool is much bigger than it was in 2016. He certainly still has enthusiasm going for him, but it's too early to tell whether that will be enough long term with as many as a dozen others vying for the role.
Deflecting criticism of a dictator's propaganda channel to own the libs.
RT wouldn't let you on there unless having you on there and what you were saying was to the benefit of Putin and to the detriment of America.
Yeah, I know. But that doesn't mean that what I'm saying isn't true.
You can say it somewhere that doesn't involve you having the blood of the people Putin murders in the media on your hands. Anyone going on RT is complicit in the actions of Putin in controlling media.
Giving legitimacy to RT is bad though, that's the whole point of why they'll do things like buy syndication rights to Larry King. You'd be given crap for it.
Like, the only person I can think of who does anything like that where it's not really that problematic is Austan Goolsbee's appearances on Hannity, which he seems to do to both get actual economics knowledge out there to any viewer who might be persuadable and because he really, really enjoys trolling angry fox news viewers on twitter after his appearances.
Because the other poster was implying that someone appearing on Russia Today makes them untrustworthy. That's the problem. People use appearances on Russia Today to discredit people even if they are totally legit people who are making sense.
I think there is a fair difference between appearing on an organization as a guest, and working/having worked for them.
The post in question you replied to.
If you are legit then don't work for the propaganda arm of a mass murdering dictator. Is it really that hard?
I was bringing up that three of those four people worked for RT. (and the fourth is now writing for The Federalist.) They were not just making a bad decision to appear on it, they're actively crafting and spreading propaganda.
Yeah, it's almost as if going on a dictator's propaganda channel shows bad judgment.
His original post only mentioned Michael Tracy. I guess he edited it. Michael Tracy has never worked for RT to my knowledge.
- Status