I've never seen an election this polarized. I guess in the eyes of the NYT and WaPost they are somehow preventing Hitler from rising and nobody can say they didn't try if he wins but at the same time their goal is the public interest not to spin a narrative towards one person. I have seen no stories deeply investigating Hillary's mistakes just "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID NOW" as half their stories, not even the editorial section. And I say this as a former democrat and long time loyal reader. Apart from boomers and educated yuppies they are alienating their userbase. What's the point of (((free))) media if it essentially functions as state-sponsored propaganda after the current president has literally anointed Hillary his successor? On the chance he wins how will they spin this? What point is there to ruining their credibility over an election?
I've never seen an election this polarized...
Other urls found in this thread:
thedailybeast.com
cnbc.com
salon.com
twitter.com
fuck off faggot
But lgbt is all tripfags and trannies.
Only we can stop the trannies. I hope you're doing your part.
I tell them they are autistic self-hating gay guys. They have no logical opposition but to name-call me.
>What point is there to ruining their credibility over an election?
They probably won't get hammered for it. They won't have to spin it either. When Trump wins, they will continue their attacks with greater strength. When Trump wins, they'll demand recounts or that the election was rigged or that most Americans are dumber than they realized.
*or claim that the election was rigged (etc)
Rigged how exactly? The supreme court tilts left rn and is against voter id laws (so far). The real victory of this election will be whoever wins can appoint people to replace aging Supreme Court members because we have given entirely too much power to our judiciary branch.
This place is degeneracy itself.
I turned all my female friends against trannies using an appeal to emotions. I would eventually like to see them unwelcomed from gay bars.
They aren't especially welcome as is. I can't remember hearing really much about trans when I came out in 2005. It was a pretty minor thing until say 2012 or so. I buy into the conspiracy theory that after Occupy failed they needed another wedge issue so they pushed trannies. Also its somehow socially acceptable for people to be into men, as long as they look like women which is so backwards but is "le progressive and tolerant" meme.
I thought it was all fun and games until recently
>so what if he builds a stupid wall?
>so what if he is an idiot?
>maybe it would be a funny four years...
>won't change shit or really be that different...
until he started talking about nukes
If he 100% thinks he can start using nuclear weapons unprovoked then he could mean the end of civilization as we know it, and I am serious
If he uses nukes it will be a matter of hours before Russia uses them, people think MAD ended, no, the number of nukes went down but you won't know any difference between 50k nukes and 10k
every city over 100k population, 100% rubble with scant survivors, those few who survive would have little access to food and infrastructure for supplies
I don't think Humanity would be totally lost, people would find a way to survive but it would be extremely bleak, basically starting over from middle age levels of civilization
Its ironic that he is seen as unstable given nuclear launch codes when Hillary literally sold weapons to Muslim countries because they paid her enough and doesn't mind war as long as she profits from it whereas Trump already HAS all the money he needs.
The feds get more power every year. With more power concentrated on a couple elections there is a big incentive to become polarizing because you desperately need that power and you might as well go whole hog.
That is why the feds are supposed to be relatively small and elections aren't supposed to be the end of the world.
no way would he want to start a nuclear war, he's not a retard.
Also we would be starting from stone age not middle age levels.
>secular jew
I suppose seeing this as the natural result of the post-war federalized power is the best way to go. Still they are making themselves look foolish by not even giving lip service to pretending to examine both candidates' flaws.
>no way would he want to start a nuclear war, he's not a retard.
then why did he talk about using nukes? it was not a joke, he asked why we don't use them now
anybody who has studied history or politics knows that our stockpile is used as a deterrent and nothing else, we have nukes and others have nukes, if no one uses them first then they don't get used
if he goes and uses them ANYWHERE it will be a short while before they are used everywhere
>they
I suppose you mean the media, right?
There are a few reasons for that. A lot of it is the federal concentration of power. When you build a castle you need defenses. Since it's largely unnatural for the feds to be so powerful they need to actively defend their power.
Beyond that, their role as the traditional gate keepers are falling apart because of alternative media. If they gave fair coverage, no one would watch them. This is a problem with newspapers and cable news alike. They have to be biased or else they're competing with news aggregates, forums, blogs, and podcasts. It's easy to notice when you step back, the cable news has themselves become news. Countless headlines are literally what someone said on another news station.
Why did May talk about it? Why does any politician talk about it?
If people don't believe you will use them, a deterrent does fuck all.
The media said the same shit about Romney. I didn't notice because I didn't like Romney and didn't care. Now it just seems ridiculous.
thedailybeast.com
who else has talked about using nuclear weapons first?
We have always had a policy of using them as a retaliatory strike, but never as a first strike
Trump is talking about using them unprovoked, that breaks the whole system
Well not all of it but like NYT and Wapost I used to read every day and now I feel ashamed of them. I read the comments section and its like bizarro world fox news. People who are wealthy and don't want to/need to think things through.
I didn't like Romney though. There were a ton of legit deep critiques of Romney whereas for Trump most things other than alarmism "He's Hitller!" is just assails on him being a novice. Paul Krugman is awful and always have been. What gets me is David Brooks is supposed to be their token conservative and he's just as anti-Trump. They aren't even TRYING to pretend to be balanced. They don't even have ONE editorial or opinion writer explaining why people like Trump. If anything, its the Streisand effect and gives him coverage Romney could have only dreamed of .
Cite sauce to where Trump said he will use nukes unprovoked please.
If you want the news you can't depend on the msm anymore. Most people don't realize that, the older generations still watch the evening news as their news source. Meanwhile what they're broadcasting broke eight hours ago and without any spin.
cnbc.com
asking why we can't use nukes implies he would like to use them
If he doesn't understand the concept of deterrence then he has an 8th grade level understanding of international politics
source: I learned about MAD and the cold war in 9th grade
There were a few articles trying to understand the Trump phenomenon. Coincedentally, they were all written by gentiles. Meanwhile, fully half the articles calling Trump a racist and bigot were written by Jews.
MSNBC says so it must be true
There's no reason to take MSNBC seriously when they take marching orders from the DNC
salon.com
Leftists were hystrionic about every previous election. Stephen King essentially tried to do a "Daisy," a la Johnson to Goldwater, on Reagan in "Dead Zone," it had no effect becaise nobody else shared King's lunatic political thinking. Now the mainstream media is sharing the insanity, but nobody listens to them.
mmm lefties eating themselves
then you're going to bet all of civilization based on your theory that Scarborough is lying
I think he is telling the truth, and I would not bet on it if the stakes are that fucking high
Kek, I do security for a bar that has gay nights on Thursday. Very few trannys show up because fags aren't interested in fucking dudes in dresses.
Fags are degenerate as fuck but they only really care about themselves and the fag community, they don't seem to be pro tranny like pol thinks.
They will spin pretty hard about it, but it does not change the result. Much like the elections before, there will be doomsayers, armchair strategists pointing out trivial concerns as the "defining moment", and headlines a-plenty to keep the news fresh for months to come.
Keep in mind that most of the corporate media has to turn a profit at the end of the day, and if they alienate half of their readership in the process, they have to either have to pocketbooks to deal with a long campaign hoping that they win or eventually start getting their readership back.
Fag here
The conflation of trannies with gays under the label "lgbt" is bullshit. I'd like to meet whoever decided this on our behalf so i can punch xir in the face.
Theory? They lie constantly. Trump has an estimated IQ in the 150s, and probably went to a much betters school than you, and has expert foreign policy advisors. Suggesting he doesn't know about deterrence is ridiculous.
Good. We still have drag night at my local bar.
>Trump has an estimated IQ in the 150s
According to who?
> the corporate media has to turn a profit at the end of the day
As long as they're the only ones with press credentials for most elected officials, that'll be easy to do.
I really don't mind drag, most of them are fully cognizant they are putting on dresses to make money its the ones who think that its "born that way" that make gay guys look bad and set the gay rights movement back. You can still be denied housing or a job for being gay and a lot of people assume because we have gay marriage that magically all gay issues are solved so its time to help trannies now.
are you a white fag?
You're next on the sjw hitlist; can't let you faggots be successful degenerates, oh no.
I love my gays. We need them for the homosexual arts, like clothing design and interior design.
>I'd like to meet whoever decided this on our behalf so i can punch xir in the face.
I have no idea who pushes it but I'd take working with fags over working with trannys any day. Gays are actually pretty easy to work with and man do you fuckers attract some hot bitches for some reason lmao.
kek, I've grown to like fags too.
They are degenerate as fuck but a lot of them are actually really nice. When my mom passed a bunch of the regulars including the fags at my bar brought me cards and were really fucking nice.
Warmed my damn heart because I loved the fuck out of my mom. Hands down best woman I ever knew.
That's nice of the bar regulars, and the gays.
My mom is a controlling bitch who has bossed my dad around my entire life. I thought this was normal relationship behavior until a couple years ago. They're all women to me.
Most women are like that, my mom was an exception but my step mom is just like your mom. A manipulative cunt who plays the fuck out of my dad.
Even my sisters are like how you described. Truly believe my mom was just an exceptional woman and far from the norm. Only reason my old man got remarried was because he thought all women were like my mom kek. He's miserable now.