Progressives, part 3...

posted by Heretic

Seems like it to me. As someone who watches none of the above, most of the talk I hear/read about any of them comes from people opposed to their political slants looking to bitch about them. It's a lot more rare to see someone talking about how much they love the shows/personalities on Fox or MSNBC and can't get enough of their viewpoints.

Either this is true, or it just the squeaky wheel gets the grease mantra. We only hear the ones that are adamant about complaining. Maybe its only 10% of MSNBC watchers are Rs looking for something to bitch about and the other 90% are Ds who just agree and don't say anything. Vice versa for Fox.

posted by Heretic

Seems like it to me. As someone who watches none of the above, most of the talk I hear/read about any of them comes from people opposed to their political slants looking to bitch about them. It's a lot more rare to see someone talking about how much they love the shows/personalities on Fox or MSNBC and can't get enough of their viewpoints.

Agreed.  I can't remember a time when I heard anyone seriously cite a "great piece" on MSNBC.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

This thread always seems to reinforce my impression that a huge chunk of left-wings media’s audience is angry /bitter conservatives looking to fuel their outrage.  Maybe I’m wrong, but the only time I hear about the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. is when conservatives bring them up in discussions like this.  My opinion is perhaps these outlets peddle in these kinds of stories the keep the outrage brigade as loyal followers.  

Yes, it must be your assessment instead of the fact that left wing media comprises almost all of the media, except FOX and *New York Post, therefore that is what most people see and hear about. 

*I add the NYP because their reporting (later discovered to be factual) is considered extreme right wing. So much so that their articles have been censored and banned with government direction and enforcement.

Yes, it is definitely all for shits and giggles from pointing at the other side.

posted by CenterBHSFan

So NYC has brought in military to basically stop and frisk everyone on the public transits. 

Does this mean that NYC is no longer a sanctuary city? If it still is, sanctuary from who, exactly?

Bringing in the National Guard so people can get on the subway.  The city has been lost.  Hard to believe this is happening in America.  Leftists destroy everything they touch. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

So NYC has brought in military to basically stop and frisk everyone on the public transits. 

Does this mean that NYC is no longer a sanctuary city? If it still is, sanctuary from who, exactly?

I spent 4 days there this week on business.  Stayed on West 54th , traveled all over Manhattan and twice to Brooklyn via subway.  I’m not saying that the National Guard story isn’t true or that the fact that it’s happening isn’t terrible.  But I never saw any of this, nor felt any different than every other time I’ve been there.  I walked around several areas at night, traveled on the subway a lot and never had a problem nor saw any problem.  What I saw there seemed to contrast with what I’ve read about before and since going.

posted by CenterBHSFan

Yes, it must be your assessment instead of the fact that left wing media comprises almost all of the media, except FOX and *New York Post, therefore that is what most people see and hear about. 

*I add the NYP because their reporting (later discovered to be factual) is considered extreme right wing. So much so that their articles have been censored and banned with government direction and enforcement.

Yes, it is definitely all for shits and giggles from pointing at the other side.

If you think Fox and the NYP are the only two media options that aren’t left wing, I’m not sure what to tell you.  

And I still have no recent memory of anyone citing MSNBC, CNN or the NYT who isn’t an angry right winger.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

If you think Fox and the NYP are the only two media options that aren’t left wing, I’m not sure what to tell you.  

And I still have no recent memory of anyone citing MSNBC, CNN or the NYT who isn’t an angry right winger.

So everybody on this site who has ever posted about the media being almost completely dominated by the left is an angry right winger in your estimation?

That's pretty much everybody who has ever posted in the politics forum since Justin started it. 

Your two steps away from calling all of those same people white Christian nationalists, and fuck if I'm not enjoying this!

posted by CenterBHSFan

So everybody on this site who has ever posted about the media being almost completely dominated by the left is an angry right winger in your estimation?

That's pretty much everybody who has ever posted in the politics forum since Justin started it. 

Your two steps away from calling all of those same people white Christian nationalists, and fuck if I'm not enjoying this!

I know a lot of the media is left wing crap.  I also believe a lot of the audience of left wing outlets are people who aren’t left wing, but are looking to be outraged.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I know a lot of the media is left wing crap.  I also believe a lot of the audience of left wing outlets are people who aren’t left wing, but are looking to be outraged.  

Ok

So now medias are feeling the need to call the Haitian cannibals as 'non-substative cannibals'.

I'm guessing because it's rude to just call them cannibals, the distinction has to be made that they eat other meats too.

Ben Shapiro, who probably has the softest hands on YouTube, is now also calling to raise the retirement age past 67; barring physical ailments. 

The total disregard for the blue collar class by people with soft hands is catching like wildfire until even Contards have picked it up. While I agree with Shapiro on a few topics, this is the drop off point where he loses favor with people like myself. It's a classism that captures the elite and those with pretensions of elitism.

Imagine telling mechanics, nurses, plumbers, garbage men, the service industry, all the people whose health takes a direct hit way before they even turn 60, that they must continue marching like ants because the people with soft hands won't have the same problems that they do and said so. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Ben Shapiro, who probably has the softest hands on YouTube, is now also calling to raise the retirement age past 67; barring physical ailments. 

The total disregard for the blue collar class by people with soft hands is catching like wildfire until even Contards have picked it up. While I agree with Shapiro on a few topics, this is the drop off point where he loses favor with people like myself. It's a classism that captures the elite and those with pretensions of elitism.

Imagine telling mechanics, nurses, plumbers, garbage men, the service industry, all the people whose health takes a direct hit way before they even turn 60, that they must continue marching like ants because the people with soft hands won't have the same problems that they do and said so. 

How will Ben Shapiro affect this change?

I’m not against retirement moving back as life expectancy changes.  Retirement was never part of the human experience until well into the 20th century.  This business of 20-30 year retirements is only a few decades old.  

I’m clouded by personal opinion as I think retirement, unless very carefully filled with meaningful activities, is extremely unhealthy. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

How will Ben Shapiro affect this change?

I’m not against retirement moving back as life expectancy changes.  Retirement was never part of the human experience until well into the 20th century.  This business of 20-30 year retirements is only a few decades old.  

I’m clouded by personal opinion as I think retirement, unless very carefully filled with meaningful activities, is extremely unhealthy. 

This is a useless and rather stupid question since nowhere in my post did I suggest that Shapiro made policy. I did, however, give my opinion on the IDEA. See how those two things are not the same? 

Ok, good. Now we can move forward utilizing a message board in the manner it's normally used. I gave my opinion and then after a moment of fuckery, you gave yours. 

YAY!

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I know a lot of the media is left wing crap.  I also believe a lot of the audience of left wing outlets are people who aren’t left wing, but are looking to be outraged.  

LOL, I think a LARGE percent of both audiences are people on the other side looking to be outraged.

On a related note, I remember reading some far left loony who happened to watch the same segment I did on Fox.  This was about Russia Collusion, which obviously was bullshit [for context].  Anyway, they had a panel of 3 discussing the left, right and center take on a particular aspect.  The right wing take went first.  Actually had some good points, nothing overly outrageous.  This dude flipped his lid and didn't hear, or at least didn't comprehend, anything else that was said.  It was a fine example of TDS where daring to question the CNN narrative somehow means you're defending Trump.  You even frequently see that, to lesser degree, on this very board.  People just can't separate their hatred for Trump from facts and logic.

Unfortunately, the left has taken over most of the major news outlets, so unless you choose to live in the Fox bubble, you can't escape the leftwing bullshit.  That would be fine if the BS was confined to editorials, but it's entirely pervasive.  "Journalists" now seem to think you're not smart enough to have your own opinion based on the facts, they have to manipulate and steer you toward the "correct" view.

Anyway, I'm trying to watch NewsNation more.  Seems pretty decent, even Cuomo now that he no longer has to toe the company line at CNN.  Years ago, I liked CNN (back when they covered actual news outside of politics).  Now there's not a single person on that network that can give a straight news piece.

I think MSNBC is almost completely comprised of former government officials (lol). CNN has a bunch and even FOX has some. I'd like to know who was the first person who thought that former government officials were the perfect choice to be an employee of any type of news network. It immediately, imo, eradicates the idea of a free press.

When I first read your post, I thought what a crock of partisan shit. Then I went back and read it, and I thought to myself self there’s some validity to this.. it seems as though they are hiring these people to add credibility to something that has no credibility. So I apologize for thinking that you were an asshole when I was reading it like one..

posted by Devils Advocate

When I first read your post, I thought what a crock of partisan shit. Then I went back and read it, and I thought to myself self there’s some validity to this.. it seems as though they are hiring these people to add credibility to something that has no credibility. So I apologize for thinking that you were an asshole when I was reading it like one..

I suspect it has little to do with credibility and everything to do with access, and some quid-pro-quo.  You just knew Jen Psaki was going to end up on CNN or MSNBC - she's a partisan hack, but she's sharp.  Dana Perino was W's press spokeperson, and she's probably one of the better straight news people out there (one of the few).

But you're right - it's incestuous and has corrupted whatever remained of the free press.  Just outlets for party propaganda.  Fox has maybe 4-5 hours in the afternoon of decent coverage.  CNN has none, but Fox prime time hacks kind of balances the scales.

While we're on the subject, how about the hate for Joe Rogan?  I think his show is entertaining, sometimes informative, and often interesting.  He likes hunting and MMA, so he gets branded with "toxic masculinity".  He's had Neil degrasse Tyson on several times, but you only hear about ivermectin and RFK Jr.  But you have some controversial folks on and you have to be lumped in with Alex Jones.  Rogan doesn't claim or pretend to be a journalist - there's a lesson there.

I'm capable of fact checking myself, but the Left really wants to silence his "disinformation".  Maybe if they'd focus on cleaning up their own house we wouldn't have gotten Trump in sort of reflexive push back.

It's all really about silencing the opposition.  Forget about facts, they don't even want you to have a choice of narratives.  The right wing plays the same game, but their echo chamber is a lot smaller.  And, really, cable news audiences are relatively small.  Fox has maybe 20M occasional viewers, and so much gets made of that but CNN and MSNBC split a similar sized audience.  Fox just doesn't have the luxury of NYT and WaPo to whitewash their disinformation.

posted by CenterBHSFan

Ben Shapiro, who probably has the softest hands on YouTube, is now also calling to raise the retirement age past 67; barring physical ailments. 

The total disregard for the blue collar class by people with soft hands is catching like wildfire until even Contards have picked it up. While I agree with Shapiro on a few topics, this is the drop off point where he loses favor with people like myself. It's a classism that captures the elite and those with pretensions of elitism.

Imagine telling mechanics, nurses, plumbers, garbage men, the service industry, all the people whose health takes a direct hit way before they even turn 60, that they must continue marching like ants because the people with soft hands won't have the same problems that they do and said so. 

To be fair, in the 1940s-1960s when the full SS retirement age was 66-67 life expectancy was 63-69 (increased from early 1940s to 1960).

So when they created the retirement age for SS they assumed you'd be dead, right or wrong, within a year or 2.

Now the life expectancy is 79/80 in the US. Originally SS was modeled to only have to be paid for a couple years on average, now its supposed to average paying for nearly 15 years.

Something has to change, right or wrong, the system we have all paid into (I'm 45) won't exist by the time we retire if things aren't changed.

I see 1 of 3 things changing in the next few years (maybe 2 of these) to make SS "solvent".

1. Drastically raising the retirement age as discussed above.

2. Means testing, even if you paid in your whole life, if you have a decent amount in a 401k or just money in general, you get $0.

3. Eliminating the salary cap on taxing for SS, but keeping the maximum benefit cap. Currently the amount of SS you get is based off what you made while you were contributing (average). The current maximum is around $4800/month. This is capped so rich people aren't taking home a crap ton from SS. For that same reason, you stop paying SS tax on any income above $168,600 (this goes up each year for inflation). So if you make $250,000 you pay SS tax for the first $168,600 but every $ after that is not taxed for SS (just federal, state, local, medicare, etc). This has been already talked about going away. They want to still cap the max benefit, but eliminate the income level where the "rich" stop paying.

posted by CenterBHSFan

So now medias are feeling the need to call the Haitian cannibals as 'non-substative cannibals'.

I'm guessing because it's rude to just call them cannibals, the distinction has to be made that they eat other meats too.

The left will like this behavior since there are 8 billion people on the planet, thus it is a "sustainable" diet.