Willie71

Same with the Paris attacks. Home grown, at least in the EU sense.

Why politician is relevant is unclear to me. I brought up the right wing terrorist. Maybe there was an assumption that right wing meant politician?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html It's been known for a long time.

Right wing terrorist. Substitute radical Muslim for right wing or conservative. Same idea. Are you an Isis recruiter?

You are correct. One of the best predictors that someone will kill someone or a group of people is that they know they will likely die during the attack. They also get the martyr status and passage to rewards in the afterlife. Considering consequences is not a reasonable deterrent. Especially when many turn to radicalization AFTER they have suffered great losses at the hand of western imperialism.

For every Muslim terrorist act there are 1.5 to 2 right wing terrorist acts in the US. Conservatives. It's getting tiring. Why can't they learn to be human? The attack in Orlando was horrific. Regardless of the ideology of the shooter, so much suffering and misery. My heart goes out to all those affected.

You cannot stop terrorism while confirming multiple reasons why the should hate us. Something the conservatives I've talked to on this issue never seem to understand is that they are just as justified by their rhetoric as to why it's ok to kill others as we feel justified in killing them through our rhetoric. It's a feedback loop that results in profits for those selling religion or weapons, or both.

In closed primaries, independents are ignored, as are voters who would vote contrary to their party affiliations.

Obama gave up on his supporters and did the pro corporate dance. Not to mention the republicans were outraged with a black man in office. Of course the rallies don't translate to election results, but think for a minute if those young voters could have voted for Sanders in New York. His campaign has been built on the idea that the presidency isn't enough, and that people need to stay involved in local, state, and mid term elections, he's speaking a new political language. We won't know how successful he would have been, since he won't get the nomination. As an aside, Clinton had 2000 supporters show up for an event today, and was interrupted by protesters several times. It's a far cry from inspiring.

I think the media is ignoring the massive support from independents and Millenials who are showing up in very large numbers. A 74 year old socialist gets more people to a rally than a charismatic first black president hopeful? I think Sanders has a better shot at motivating grassroots for downticket elections. With that movement, Sanders' plans are more doable than Clinton's if she doesn't swing congress. Clinton has an enthusiasm problem. It seems to me it matters less to the oligarchy if it's Clinton or Cruz in maintaining the status quo. What is important is preventing Sanders, and to a lesser extent Trump from overturning the apple cart. It seems they are playing the short game to keep the established powers where they are. Sanders is not one of them in any way other than being to the left of the republicans.

I think the democrats are facing a similar problem as the republicans are. In economic terms, democrats are right wing, but socially they are progressive. I think Sanders supporters want center left economic policy, and voting Clinton is not consistent with that. I think Sanders supporters would see a sanders Clinton ticket as selling out. It's ideologically inconsistent. Sanders supporters know Clinton's shaky history inside and out. My gut feeling is that whoever wins the general, Clinton, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, will implement a shift to the right economically, and be more hawkish, resulting in massive disillusionment on the American left. There is no reason to think that Clinton will, or even could govern left of where she has thus far. If Clinton is the president, it will probably be only one term, handing the next 8 to the republicans, unless there is a strong populist challenger in 2020. She will not likely govern to her campaign promises. Wealth inequality will grow, and the allegiance to her donors will become transparent, especially if there is another Wall Street crash. If one of the republicans wins, it will only be one term, handing the next 8 years to the democrats. The clown car has no business trying to run a school council, let alone a country. That would be an obvious disaster. This is assuming there isn't a new left wing party formed. There are increasing protests, democracy spring, wolf pac, the massive Sanders rallies. These are showing momentum. A few years ago, there was Occupy Wall Street, but the movement wasn't part of a bigger movement. Add Black Lives Matter, and the escalating outrage over election fraud, the movements are converging, and Sanders has provided a focal point. All that needs to happen is Elizabeth Warren to take the helm, or a young guy like Canova in 2020. The republicans will likely find some charismatic "outsider" as well. For the Republicans, I think they go with Kasich. A recent poll show him beating Clinton, but only one that I've seen. I'm not confident that Clinton could win a general against Trump, or Kasich. Cruz is a loser in any scenario. Clinton doesn't do well with independents, moderate republicans, and only has the support of 1/2 of the mainstream democrats. Many will vote for her anyway, but Kasich doesn't seem so negative unless you dig.

Fair enough. All good points. I disagree with a bit of it, but in the grey areas. I agree that at this point, people know who Sanders is, especially after New York. It might have made a difference early on, but informed voters know what is up now.

Ten Oz, I agree with what you are posting, but I think it's more complex. When looking at the voting break down by age, you see older people, watching cable news voting for Clinton, and new media viewers voting for Sanders. You can certainly break each demographic down from there, but this is the most consistent split. This seems like clear evidence that media definitely influences elections. In American politics, the candidate with the most money usually wins. Presidential elections have a lower correlation for this than local elections, but it's still there. Money buys ads, staff, and an effective campaign schedule. These all affect outcomes. Is it the only variable? No, of course not, but it's important. Right wing media has been very hard on Clinton. I agree with that. She will have trouble with any segment of the republican electorate because of that. MSNBC and CNN have been pretty darned good to her, and until recently for MSNBC, very hard on sanders. I've been watching the media influence for a while. It's interesting to me. I actually was considering the influence of media for my masters thesis. I'll likely go with visual spatial learning, or rural community engagement instead. I don't see sanders peaked. He keeps polling better and better as time goes on. It's likely too late to make up the deficit, but I'm hoping for the upset. I'm realistic about his chance though. It's gotten to the point that the latest New York polls have been exposed in only calling democratic regions she won the largest margins in 2008. Anyplace she got less than 60% wasn't polled. Unbelievable. Manufacturing consent. Trump is a perfect example of media influence. In spite of all the negatives, he has amassed a large amount of support. Without the free coverage, where would he be?

Some politicians are simply doing the bidding of the donors, but the evangelicals and dominionists truly believe God controls the environment, not man. It's a scary thought.

Time warner is the 7th largest donor for Clinton's campaign. Time Warner owns CNN. CNN has been very pro Hillary and dismissive or outright negative regarding Sanders. The Daily News interview was a total hatchet job. The owner of the Daily News would personally lose 100 million per year with Sanders tax proposals, or 400 million over one term. I read the interview, and sanders could have been a bit more direct, but all of his answers were correct. You wouldn't get that from the media summary, would you. The interview was fact checked and the fact check said Sanders was correct. In 2015 Sanders got a total of 10 minutes coverage by the major networks. He was basically ignored. Look at the breakdown of the coverage which was reported recently. Trump got almost 2 billion in free coverage. Sanders now has the equivalent of 300 million. Clinton was in between, but I don't remember exactly where she was. By any objective measure, Sanders has not been treated equally by the media. Chris Matthews wife is a politician, and they have many shared donors. Notice the difference in how Matthews interviews Sanders, and how he interviews Clinton? Have you seen how Matthews treats Sanders surrogates? It's an embarrassing conflict of interest. The coverage would be quite funny if they had to disclose donors or conflicts of interest. The feel of the reporting would be very different. Don't forget that Chelsea Clinton is on the board of Directors for the daily beast. Look at their coverage of Sanders. At one point 16 negative Sanders articles in a 24h period. This is an absolute embarrassment to journalistic standards. Outside of new media, the first I saw of the mainstream media treating Sanders legitimately was strangely a couple weeks ago on Morning Joe. They spent 20 minutes discussing Sanders following, and how he is a legitimate contender. Sanders is nip or likely to win the nomination simply because of the math. There would need to be a lot of "ifs" happening for him to come out on top. The biggest hurdle us the closed primary structure. This disenfranchises independents and youth inexperienced with the electoral system. It favours the status quo, and it does so on purpose. The vote tally is simply bad math. Sanders did better in caucuses than primaries. Caucuses have much lower turnout just by their nature. Correcting for the app,Es to oranges comparison, scaling the caucus numbers to be equivalent to primaries, Clinton is ahead bu about a million votes. She's still ahead, but the gap isn't as big, and the delegate math is about right. 538 has been very pro Clinton. They have a bias. 538 list my respect with a few of their op eds, including the one you listed. Clinton is winning, you don't need to embellish it. Just stick to the facts.

I have spent years assessing fitness to stand trial, criminal responsibility related to mental health, and certifiability. All of the candidates appear to pass the most basic tests for "sane." Of course I haven't formally assessed them, but there are no indications they wouldn't pass these legal standards, if they were all Canadian, like Cruz.Personality disorders, now that's a different kettle of fish.

Good timing: Thom Hartman commenting on the state of the media. He's calling for a return of the fairness doctrine. Critique of Anderson Cooper for not having journalistic ethics/standards.

The issue, more simply put, would be the lack of transparency in terms of conflicts of interest. Did CNN or MSNBC disclose their parent companies donated heavily to the Clinton campaign, for example? If they had to show the conflict of interest at the start of every segment, the bias would be very apparent. Same with disclosing climate change deniers sources of funding.

I think the issue is that there needs to be a return to watchdog status for the media. It will never be truly unbiased, such as giving communism a fair shake because the western world rejects communism, for many legitimate reasons. What the media isn't doing is pointing out the flaws in unchecked capitalism, and the corruption it brings. Markets do not correct themselves when monopolies are at play. The rise of new media shows that there is a market for quality programs funded through subscriptions. TYT is the biggest at this time. They are clearly progressively biased, but they aren't shills. They praise and criticism anyone who deserves either. The Ring of Fire is a bit more biased, but they link up with Thom Hartman. I just watched a clip this morning regarding Sanders' failure to connect with the progressive, and progressive black hosts, even with these programs reaching out to him. It took a petition to get him on the Young Turks. These are legitimate criticisms, and show poor management of Sanders' campaign at this level. The media has incredible power shaping public opinion. People are easily swayed by things we have no conscious awareness of, such as the color or shape of a logo, or the temp of a drink when we make a decision.

I have vacationed in Cuba several times. I have relatives who lived there in the winter, and Canada in the summer. Cuba is not some evil empire. Yes there is extreme poverty, but with the tourism industry and the marketing of professionals, life is much better for Cubans now than it was decades ago. The issue of dealing with "terrorists" isn't that we do, but that republicans say we shouldn't. Reagan should have dealt with terrorists, but he shouldn't have funded them, or upset the power balances. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the Reagan myth, which republicans worship, which in reality did more to strengthen terrorism than Obama did. progressives are internally consistent. Conservatives agree or disagree with policies based on who is proposing them. And Isis markets themselves as freedom fighters rebelling against the oppressive western forces. It's all bullshit. Empires invade, the powerless use terrorist strategies. They do this because they don't have access to a navy, Air Force, or hundreds of thousands of troops. Modern day issues are just the current spin. We are at war with Eurasia and all that. Every new group of local thugs is the biggest threat to our way of life.

But if guns make you safer, everyone should carry, including the candidates. It's just hypocrisy again. We all know guns don't make you safer, there is too much evidence to the contrary. Well, some people believe the John Wayne myth, but most of us don't.

I have to admit I'm getting quite tired of the bigotry and racism being sold as "safety" or "patriotism." It's just racism and bigotry.

People seem to forget that radical Islam was supported by Reagan. They were seen as anti communist during the Cold War. Another great byproduct of American imperialism. http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/ What would the media say today if Obama was in this picture?

I suppose some think we should turn these people away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AaN-kUucF4 Because they are just migrating from here: I personally think we have an obligation as HUMAN BEINGS to not turn our backs on the suffering we created.

I was referring to Clinton.