Ten oz

For starters take a lot of media figures for Foxnews and then compare them to MSNBC. You are arguiing that constant negative media against Hillary from the right is not relevant because MSNBC treats her good. That is nonsense. Foxnews has triple the audience, triple the cultural influence, triple the impact. More over "liberal/democrats" do not follow MSNBC as their primary source of news. Liberal actually are more likely to watch CNN and NPR than MSNBC. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/ Who pushes the narrative, capitalism!!! The media is a business. Feel good Clinton stories don't go viral. Write a reasoned Clinton op-ed or tweet and it doesn't get shared a million times over. People want numbers. Clinton has a whole party (GOP) that have been foaming at the mouth waiting to combat her since 2004. I recall the day after Bush was re-elected Hannity telling his audience to not celebrate Bush's win for more than a day because Hillary was coming and they had to get ready to defeat her. Clinton also has enemies on the left. She was already defeated in a primary back in 08'. If you don't understand how much more time, money, energy, and effort there is out there that is and has been going into beating Clintion that you simply have not been paying attention. White water, Filegate, Vince Foster's death, Travelgate, Emial server, Benghazi, etc, etc, etc. How many "scandals" how many conspiracies? All of those stories sell. All those stories drive media numbers. That is why the narrative continues. Yes, the are members of the Democratic party that do not like Hillary Clinton. I do not like Hillary Clinton. I support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. I think Hillary Clinton is far to hawish on foriegn policy and criminal justice. However that doesn't make me blind to reality. That doesn't mean I allow myself to buy into conspiracy. Bernie Sanders has been treated fair and is losing this primary fair and square.Hillary is winning more votes, winning more earn delegates, winning over more super delegates, and is do all that under a much higher level of scrutiny and attack than Sanders has dealt with.

Nixon was a parnoid sociopath but also a shrewd politician who was basically a centerist Democrat by todays political standards. I think the Cruz comparison is actually rather insulting to Nixon.....hahaha

In my opinion this thread may as well ask us to pick between Sanders and Clinton. Neither Cruz or Trump are electable. Despite that most media coverage of any primary candidate in history and numerous reports from Feb-Mar declaring his the victor Trump is not on pace to get the delegates needed to win the Republican primary. If Trump can not win more than a third support within a partisan primary I see no reason to assume he'd be able to win a general election. Same applies to Cruz. Neither has quality support even amongst registered Republicans and both are polling to lose to either Clinton or Sanders by double digits. So the question here is Clinton or Sanders.The answer is Sanders.

I don't understand why you pointed this out. Clinton has gotten two and a half million more votes. Why would we subtract ones by specific racial groups and say Sanders is even? Clinton has many detractors and negative Clinton naratives are better click bait than real or positive ones. Sanders benefits from this in that Clinton's detractors like the narative that she is in the fight of her life against Sanders so that is the narrative the media is pushing because it is the one that sells. Between the email scandal, Bernie or bust, and the notion that she is unlikable Clinton is mostly stuck is a negative media loop. Yet, she still is still leading and will be the nominee. Bernie has down well but is not on pace to win. This whole primary the media has been bad as I have ever seen. They kicked the year off declaering Trump the GOP nominee. They listed multiple precedents Trumps was said to have already achieved which assured he'd be the nominee. We spend months reading that no one every won NH and SC without being the nominee, No one ever polled so well ahead of supertuesday, Trump's record ratings for debates, Trump, Trump, Trump. I have been pointing out for months that Trump was under performing his poll numbers, failing to win delegates at a good enough clip, and wasn't on pace to win the nomination. Yet because the media was so overwhelming in their Trump is winning narative everyone looked at me like I had 3 eyes or was just a purely partisan Trump hater. I had a close friend (liberal) even tell me that I wasn't seeing the forest through the trees. Now, finally, as the races draws closer to its end the narative is slowly turning and then media is finally reporting on the fact that Trump isn't on pace to win the needed delegates. For Sanders it has been the oppisite. The media has been slowly spooling him up. I like Sanders and would prefer him over Clintons but it is late in the race and he isn't winning. Yet the media is working this down to the wire narrative where by Sanders will/would win if not for XY and Z tactics by Clinton supporters. It only serves to divide the deomcratic base.

I like Sanders. I would be happy if he were the nominee and vote for him. That said Sanders is being treated fairly in my opinion. The reality is he does better in caucus states and Clinton is beating him fair and square in primaries getting more votes. She's gotten over 2 million more votes than Sanders to date. She also leads in both earned and super delegates. She is winning. While there is an argument to be made that if the media would do ABC Sanders would be doing better but I also think there is an equally stronger argument to be made that media in general is more negative on Clinton than they are dismissive on Sanders. Clinton is under constant attack from right wing media and amongst the GOP. Sanders is not. The lack of negative Sanders media has been as helpful to Sanders in my opinion than a little extra positive media would be. Far more energy is going into demogouging Clinton. She is battling multiple fronts. Sanders is just battling her.

I believe Sanders could beat any GOP ticket. Honestly I believe any Democratic ticket would win this year. The domographics are against the GOP. A majority of Women, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians presently identify as Democrat and the GOP has done nothing to make any gains with those groups. Actually they have done the opposite. So Sanders would win if nominated hands down in my opinion. That said I think the email stuff is a lot to do about nothing. Even if Clinton voilated some obscure law, which I haven't seen anywhere that she clearly did, wouldn't it be the IT's departements fault? The State Dept was aware and it isn't like Clinton took a weekend off and installed the servers herself. Working from home is a very common thing. I believe the whole email "scandal" is just the GOP wanting to read Clintions emails in hopes of finding something to attack her with.

@ Sirona, I appreciate the response. I think we both agree on a few things. Where we differ on this specifc topic is on the influence on manipulation vs natural growth or decline of an industry. The market collapse in 2009, from which mant indrustries and countries never recovered, was cause purely by market manipulation that would completely avoidable had the gov't not so great greatly deregulated the banking industry. The choices we make matter. How we respond matters. The governement could have allowed GM to fail for example and chose not. Money is a representation of resources and value. While technology alters our ability to use, maintian, and monopolize resources value is subject to choices, manipulation, and the human condition in general. For example look at Africa, very resource rich. Africa has it all titanium, diamonds, gold, lush landscapes from high value crops, and so on yet Africa has been improverished since the day they were introduced the money vs a barter system. Africa has be exploited. They have resources by manipulation has left most countries in Africa without any value. Economies are growing faster in emerging markets. That is not purely a winds of capitalism lift them up. The end of British soverneignty in Hong Kong just came in 1997 (less than 20yrs ago). During the cold war especially China was often manipulated by the west do to our combative view toward communism. China is emerging today in part because they are finally being allowed to. Have you heard how Trump has said he'd deal with China if elected? What impact on their emerging economy do you imagine that might have? India is in a similar position. Only recently have they been treated fairly enough to build there economy. If our leaders wanted to they could invest in jobs programs to build our infastructure: high speed trains, repair roads, upgrade our power system, etc. That is what drove the middle class in the 1950's. Things like Eisenhowers interstate highway system. Instead we choose to spend trillions destorying Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions putting millions of working age men in prison. Technology and changing trends in skilled vs unskilled labor is not the issue. Our choices are the issue.

Technology doesn't eliminate jobs. the invention of the combustible engine and AC power generation displace some types of tasks but ultimately heralded in a new era of jobs. So did micro chips in the 80's and internet in the 90's. There are very few jobs/tasks a person did in 1916 that are still done the same way in 2016. That is not a bad thing or something that has a negative impact on society. Money is a representation of resources that is weighed against value in an often egocentric way. Which is why basic supply and demand doesn't always hold. Everyone needs resources: food, water, shelter, warm, protection, and etc. Most everyone who can will pay for extras like: entertainment, comfort, beauty, convenience, and etc. So the basic market for resources is alway present. Technology changes the deliver, accessability, and capability but doesn't displace those needs. It is the egocentic side of weighing value that most times tips the scales. Somewhere people are being greedy, selfish, and manipulating the system. For example, perhaps a poor one but the one I thought of first, agriculture labor is hardwork that requires experience to be efficient at. Even with technology many crops are still very labor intensive. So one would assume rules of supply and demand would mean ag laborers would make good money. They supply one of the most in demand and most needed resource, food. Do a tough job that takes time to get fast at and is hard to find applicants for. So obviously companies up the wage to entice people to apply and learn.....NOPE! In many countries they still use indentured servants. In the United States we exploit our immigration laws to funnel immigrants into the industry. Rather than following any standard supply and demand model the market is just manipulated. Despite great and obvious value agriculture is egocentrically weighed very low. We need it but simply are unwilling to pay much for it.

I agree with the sentiments but they are more philosophical than they need to be. If one is poor or low on the resources they need/desire they waste a lot of time an energy on that challange. If one is wealthy with over flowing resources they waste a lot of time and energy on managing the excess. The sweet spot is obviously to have just enough of what you need so not to require extra efforts but not so much as to require extra efforts.

I have never even seen a gun control discuss able to keep guns as the centeral focus. Freedom, Gov't authority, War for Independence History, Kings and Queens of England, and etc always seem to be as prominent. I would like to believe that if a conversation could focus on guns in isolation most people would agree that as a tool guns are dangerous and like any dangerous tool should require a modicum on oversight.That may be too hopeful though.

Unfortunately the answer is no. At least not in our current climate. With the help of a willing media pro hun advocates have done a great job creating various focus points that distant from guns. When a person dies from a gun the death is categorized by something other than gun related.Terroism, Street violence, Mental Health, Suicide and Accident are the categories: Terrorism - We are said to be at war. Gun policy is view as a different issue than the politics of terrorism. Street Violence - That is treated as an issue of drugs, criminal justice, poverty, single mothers, welfare, etc. Numerous topics get tied up with a fat racist bow and guns become an after thought. Mental Health - Bullying, violence in video games, prescription drugs, and what warning signs may or may not have existed. Suicide - person had hang themselves or jump off a bridge. The gun wasn't the issue. Accident - accidents are acidents; no one or thing is at fault. If anything could have done it Newtown should have but clearly didn't. There are simply too many distractors. Gun advocates have flooded the issue with too many red herrings. You say lets talk about gun deaths and they say lets talk about black on black crime. You say lets talk about mass shootings and they say lets talk about mental health. Then if by some chance you are able to focus a gun related conversation on guns they just pull out the 2nd amendment and treat it like a religious artifact that fell from the heavens.

Good point. A step further; is there true morality or is it purely a social construct based of culture and need within society?

Those are fast and loose concepts within religion though. Some religions demand women accept a submissive role in life and demand they forgive men who lord over them with misogynist world views. Other religions refuse to accept gay people and demand they change their ways and ask for forgiveness. Demanding people to ask for forgiveness is contradictory to the meaning of forgiveness.

Trump has had more media exposure than the other GOP candidates combined but has failed to win 50% of the vote in a single state yet and isn't on pace to get the need delegates. It is actually a hopeful thing. Even within the GOP and amongst their primary voters the last 6 months of continuous media focus on how great Trump is doing hasn't been able to make it so. Which implies most people are thinking for themselves to an extent. That is good.

I don't believe in God(s) which is different than than affirming that one believes there must not be God(s). For example; I do not believe in bigfoot. They theoretically could exist. I have just never seen any good evidence and don't believe they do. There is no associated leap of faith made in that assessment.

Moral fortitude, progress, good vs bad; do any of those have natural truths? To an extent this things is asking what is the purpose of life. Is there any inherent natural value in humans ability to produce technology; if not than any answer is a self-indulgent one? Many of our greatest accomplishments have come at great cost. Our study of atoms birther quantum mechanics yet that study also produced bombs which have already killed people and have the potential to kill us all. What is the net value of such progress?

unday marked the 286th day of Trump’s campaign, which began June 16. From the start, he’s been a media phenomenon. According to The New York Times, Trump has received the equivalent of $1.9 billion in television coverage while having spent only $10 million on paid advertising. By contrast, Trump’s Republican rivals combined have received slightly less than $1.2 billion worth of television coverage, meaning that Trump has been the subject of the clear majority (62 percent) of candidate-focused TV coverage of the Republican race. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/

During Katrina I saw live breaking news feeds where reporters said there were rover gangs murdering people in the Superdome. False reports of people being murdered, raped, and shot at actually impacted the response. Those reports where pure fiction. The argument can be made the that journalists were just reporting what they were being told by "sources" and that it isn't their fault it was not true but it was still fiction. Thinking a lie might be true doesn't make that lie true. I understand that during various events many facts are unknown. That the media is just out there trying to get information out quickly as possible but they should have some responsibilty to not make matter worse? During an emergency shouldn't they encourage people to remain calm? After the Boston Marathon bomb there were early reports that ciculated various images of "suspicious" people with backpacks that later turned out to not be involved. How is that time of speculative reporting any other than fiction? Just a editing room pulling up video of the crowd and saying 'maybe this guy, oh, maybe this other guy". I could be mistaken but I think journalists use to have better internal working relationships with police, fire, and other first responder departments. Newspapers, Magazines, local news channels, and etc use to employee full time journalist that specialized in specific fields. They were subject matter experts that could report intelligently on how the local Police or whomever may handle an event. Their speculations were based on personal insight developed from knowing the people involved and following them for years. As the print media died and 24/7 cable news eclipsed local news less and less news media sources employee such journalists. It is just more cost effective to have some pundit in a news room a few hundred miles away with no relationship to the situation speculate than it is to find someone who might know something.

Sadly there are some things covered so poorly that even 3-4 articles from different sources don't cut to the facts. I have found that often times we don't get the truth for at least a month after a story breaks. Initial reports often tend to be extrapolations, exaggerations, or so lacking in facts that they are works of pure fiction influenced by current events.

No one here is saying freedom of speech is a bad thing. The regulations being discussed would only apply to specific forms of media. Twitter, Facebook, Forums, and pundits on cable news and talk radio would not be impacted at all. You seem to be ignoring that there is a difference between punditry and journalism, opinions and facts. Freedom of speech is very important but also has limits. Professors at accredited Universities don't get to teach that the world is flat or that men have one less rib than women just because they choose to. Free speech and free expression doesn't mean freedom from information one doesn't like. We all learned to count, leanred our ABCs, learned not to bite, and to call our teachers ma'am or sir. When I was in grade school the fact that we had 50 states wasn't an opinion the first admendment empowered me to challange. There are some basic structures and truths society needs. As an adult if I want to argue that there are actually 51 states or 27 letters in the alphabet I am able to. I can take to the public square, print flyers, or tweet up a storm about it. I have that freedom. No one here is saying I shouldn't.

Supreme Court did not strike down the laws we had in place. We just sat back and allowed politicians to change them. We could elect other politicians to change them back.

Money is far more than just a representation of resources. In the minds of many there is almost a religious like quality to money; where it is responsible for the motivation and character of people. A person with lots of money is thought to be very smart, have strong character, and work very hard. A person without money is thought to be stupid, weak willed, and lazy. When debating capitalism, socialism, or anytype of economic/political concept it is often that religious spirit of money that is being discussed. The greatness bestow onto one with money by society vs the failure preceived by those without is what's being discussed 9 times out of 10. Socialism, in my opinion, seeks to treat money purely as a resource. It also seeks to share key resources. However feelings like ego, pride, greed, thirst, and etc are antithetical to sharing. The U.S. will need a long term philisophical shift before Socialism can be understood and experienced as a form of economic/political management of the countries resources.

Companies spend billions on advertising. They have advertising departments that create multi phase ads and are constantly evaluating the success of their marketing. CEO's are paid millions on top of millions and graded against their ability to make stock values move. Yet I often see it pointed out how conspiratorial it is to assume these conglomerates have a strategy or plan. As if it is unreasonable to assume that professionals tasked with influencing the image and perception of people, places , or things are successful in doing so. Marketing campaigns are campaigns. They have objectives and goals which they actively work to achieve. There is nothing conspiratorial about pionting that out. There really are Energy companies funding climate change denial research for the media to air along side honest climate research. It isn't all just a conspiracy.

Oliver North was indicted on 16 felony counts. Later given immunity for his testimony before Congress: George H.W. Bush granted pardons to 6 others involed. The investigation by Independent Counsel Lawrance Walsh was stonewalled. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB462/ Reagan's admin broke the law. That is a fact and not a nuanced political opinion or fluid definition.

A 7/11 clerk takes a robber holding a gun serious too.