Go babble your deranged shit to someone else.
The media wants Biden out so that.....
- Thread starter Nomad
- Start date
Sorry, I shouldn't have used sarcasm with you. It is dumb to assume party leaders "might engage in political machinations" that would hurt
the party, and to assume it because you disagree with them. This whole discussion is like fifth grade, including its "thanks for helping Trump"
rejoinders, but then much of this forum is like fifth grade.
Don't know about the media in general but the NYTimes, WAPO and MSNBC have been focusing on reactions coming out of the national party and what the Biden campaign currently is doing, which is news.
cawacko
Well-known member
My unasked for observation. Politics can be a very personal and emotional thing. Each party has plenty of ride or die types who support it. These are the folks for whom their political party is a big part of their identity and if someone else puts down their party it is the equivalent of attacking their family.
But each party has the more big picture types who leave emotion out of it. And we're seeing this play out now among Democrats between those who are in the don't question anything Biden does camp and those whose sole desire is to win and are willing to look at other options if they feel that is what it will take.
To me, we could all see this coming. Polling has shown there have been questions about Biden's age all along (including among Democrats). But many didn't want to acknowledge or address it and instead focus on Trump.
Well after the debate you can't hide from it anymore (even though some would like too). Yes the media loves ratings but to me it's the ride or die types who think this topic shouldn't be discussed. There's no way to hide from it any longer. Something is going to have to be done. Either Biden steps down or he does something (a test or something else) that reassures people. But the hoping it goes away could conceivably work (it is Trump he's running against, that guy could shoot himself in the foot at any time) but is really almost a head in the sand prayer.
Well TBH, you're engaging in pretty much the same thing.
If someone disagrees about Biden dropping out, they "want to hurt the party".
And again, if replacing Biden would hurt the party, (bold text) why are they and you endorsing it?
I feel replacing Biden would hurt our chances of beating Trump.
You feel that keeping him on the ticket would hurt our chances of beating Trump.
Just two different POVs.
My questions about their motives was just ruminating about a possibility.
My take:
If they replace Biden before November, Kamala Harris will be the nominee.
If Biden stays in and wins, everybody knows that if he can't finish his term, Kamala Harris will step into the job and take over.
Same outcome either way, so why worry about it?
I think that's the way Dem voters should look at it.
I’m not that foolish to think a mistake means you want to hurt the party.
moon
Satire for Sanity
You obviously ain't getting laid.
Oh but you guys are such sore losers. It's fun to see your hurt reactions. Poor babies.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
That’s a line Trump could’ve used at the debate.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
The only news we watch on TV is NBC Nightly News, with the rare exception of CNN if there's some interesting breaking news story, like Beryl for example. I have noticed that they make an effort to have diverse on-the-scene reporters -- females, people of color, etc. When interviewing people at a news location they do the same thing. I see this as an agenda but not the way you apparently do. They are trying to attract viewers in those demographics with both their choice of stories (a Gay Pride celebration, a HIspanic family whose home flooded out, and so on) and their choices of which local people to interview. It's no different than Fox showing stories of white, often lower-income, people being affected by illegal immigration or inflation at the grocery store. They are appealing to their chosen demographics.
It's all about the $$. IMO broadcast and cable news networks are fighting an uphill battle. Most younger citizens get their news from the Internet these days, rather than TV broadcasts.
I have no problem with any TV news media company hiring a handful of non-white/female reporters and anchors.
My problem is their apparent lack of ability to know where the line is.
It's gotten to the point where it feels like we're having DEI crammed down our throats.
Keep in mind, the US is still 60% white and 50% male.
The on screen media personalities do not seem to reflect that demographic anymore.
The discussion panel on Meet The Press yesterday, was mostly Chatty Cathy's chirping about how Joe Biden needs to step down.
My belief is that they want Harris to step in so their dream of a female POTUS can finally be realized.
I'd vote for her, BTW so my issue is not with her.
It's with the pandering, agenda pushing media trying to shape and steer social trends when that's not their job.
JMO.
OH MY GAWD! Over there! It's... it's... DIVERSE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T LIKE ME!
I really don't know any people that would like to be her.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Watching talking head shows is going to get you exactly what you got -- partisanship. If you don't like that flavor of bias, I would advise you to watch something else. It's no different than the talking heads on Fox. It's all opinion meant to attract those who feel the same way. It is not news.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
That's nice, Legion. Does Topsy know you're talking to the enemy again?
This is not really even about political bias.
It's about networks giving in to woke/feminism.
Virtue signaling their pro feminist agenda.
NBC replaced white male Chuck Todd with dark skinned female Kristen Welker on Meet The Press.
Not all of the female panelists they feature are liberal or pro-Democtat, either.
Women like Sarah Isgur, Danielle Pletka to name two, are conservatives.
Isgur actually worked in the Trump administration.
So it's not about political bias.
My personal issue is about TV networks pandering to popular opinion for Brownie points.
serendipity
Verified User
I remember talking to you a while back at Jimmy Savile, it's a fact that Starmer was the one that allowed him to slip through the net. He l:s appalling and his deputy Angela Raynor is far worse. I really don't see them lasting very long to be honest.
New research has revealed that last week’s election saw the lowest turnout by British adults since the advent of universal suffrage in 1928.
The shocking information confounds previous claims that turnout was the lowest since 2001, which was made by measuring turnout as a proportion of those registered to vote.
‘Shocking’ election revelation raises further questions about Keir Starmer's win
New research has uncovered a shocking fact about the election that shows widespread despondency towards democracy.
www.express.co.uk
serendipity
Verified User
serendipity
Verified User
I remember talking to you a while back at Jimmy Savile, it's a fact that Starmer was the one that allowed him to slip through the net. He l:s appalling and his deputy Angela Raynor is far worse. I really don't see them lasting very long to be honest.
New research has revealed that last week’s election saw the lowest turnout by British adults since the advent of universal suffrage in 1928.
The shocking information confounds previous claims that turnout was the lowest since 2001, which was made by measuring turnout as a proportion of those registered to vote.
‘Shocking’ election revelation raises further questions about Keir Starmer's win
New research has uncovered a shocking fact about the election that shows widespread despondency towards democracy.
I cannot seem them lasting very long before the loony Left attempts to make a return.