Page 4 of 72
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:44 pm
by Malcolm
The media isn't as big a problem for the pachyderms as the pachyderms themselves.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:45 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:But it doesn't matter. No under the age of 50 pays any attention to old media. And everyone over 50 votes whatever gives them the best Social Security and Medicare. Media has become irrelevant.
People vote for whoever they are told to vote for. Media is the constant background noise, and "new media" is owned by the youth... who have been told all their lives that republicans are evil and bush is hitler, and anyone who tries to argue is either a racist, a moron, or paid by the republican party to repeat the talking points.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:52 pm
by Malcolm
"new media" is owned by the youth... who have been told all their lives that republicans are evil and bush is hitler, and anyone who tries to argue is either a racist, a moron, or paid by the republican party to repeat the talking points.
I'm fairly certain the Republicans think the same thing, which might be why the media fucking hates them.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:57 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:"new media" is owned by the youth... who have been told all their lives that republicans are evil and bush is hitler, and anyone who tries to argue is either a racist, a moron, or paid by the republican party to repeat the talking points.
I'm fairly certain the Republicans think the same thing, which might be why the media fucking hates them.
I dont want their opinions, i want the news.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:08 pm
by Malcolm
I dont want their opinions, i want the news.
News doesn't sell as well as mass hysteria. Joe Pulitzer and Billy Randy Hearst figured that out years ago. Objectivity simply won't turn a profit.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:10 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:Original point was that the media will play up a republican's weaknesses and ignore a democrat's weaknesses, and even report them as strengths, and that republicans have no chance to win anything important in the foreseeable future.
Oh. Okay, sure, I guess I can see that. My crazy hippie aunt does the same thing.
Well, as long as you make an exception for Fox news, who do the same things in the other direction. Like the rest of my family.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:12 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:..."new media" is owned by the youth... who have been told all their lives that republicans are evil and bush is hitler, and anyone who tries to argue is either a racist, a moron, or paid by the republican party to repeat the talking points.
Well, clearly you haven't been watching much "new media", Grandpa.
The ones with the vast majority of viewers claim to think that both Democrats and Republicans are nearly equally full of shit and that they're just going to stop voting until a viable third party comes along.
I dont want their opinions, i want the news.
You are watching the wrong thing, then, they don't do journalism anymore and haven't for a very long time. There are plenty of other good sources for news that don't involve your television, go try them.
But whining about how they don't do news on TV anymore is not going to get you anywhere.
Edited By TPRJones on 1365794077
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:41 pm
by GORDON
YOU PEOPLE keep confusing things I say for my own feelings on the matter. All I am talking about is why republicans aren't going to win any more.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:47 pm
by TPRJones
Oh. Yeah, they're going to have a rough time, although not for any reasons you've mentioned yet.
They're big problems are they are pretty much completely opposed to everything that blacks and hispanics care about, and that whole gay marriage thing pretty much ensures they can't get any young people interested except for the really extreme Christian youth. Their stances on most issues are locking them into an aging and dying demographic who are increasingly unable to understand modern issues due to technological ignorance.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:50 pm
by Malcolm
Their stances on most issues are locking them into an aging and dying demographic who are increasingly unable to understand modern issues due to technological ignorance.
Technology is only one of the things they don't understand.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:54 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:Oh. Yeah, they're going to have a rough time, although not for any reasons you've mentioned yet.
They're big problems are they are pretty much completely opposed to everything that blacks and hispanics care about, and that whole gay marriage thing pretty much ensures they can't get any young people interested except for the really extreme Christian youth. Their stances on most issues are locking them into an aging and dying demographic who are increasingly unable to understand modern issues due to technological ignorance.
And I am saying that a candidate could come along that supports EVERYTHING blacks and hispanics want, and everything else that your typical liberal wants, but if he is a republican, and trying to reform the republican party, the media will never report a thing that would help him get elected.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:10 pm
by Malcolm
Who the fuck is trying to reform the Republican party? I've seen nothing but them going backwards ever since their Messiah, Reagan, left office. If a reformer ever comes along and gets that party's nomination, let me know.
Edited By Malcolm on 1365797441
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:42 pm
by GORDON
Nobody, nothing, never mind. Media is awesome and/or old and irrelevant.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:02 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:And I am saying that a candidate could come along that supports EVERYTHING blacks and hispanics want, and everything else that your typical liberal wants, but if he is a republican, and trying to reform the republican party, the media will never report a thing that would help him get elected.
Possibly. Although the odds of something that crazy happening are right up there with the odds of getting honest reporting out of the old media. So as long as we are in fantasy-land, I could also see it being properly reported as a possibility.
But yeah, I generally agree with you. I just see it as being less relevant than you do.
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:16 pm
by Malcolm
Chris Christie getting surgery. Why?
Observers said that whatever his motivation, losing weight could help Christie overcome what has been seen as one of the most significant barriers to a run for the presidency - the health concerns associated with obesity.
Of all the concerns I have about who runs the White House, "body weight" has to be somewhere towards the bottom near "have they ever broken the speed limit?" Then again, it's no coincidence JFK started trouncing Nixon in the polls after the first televised debate.
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:23 pm
by TheCatt
People care. Whether they say it or not.
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:25 pm
by GORDON
I don't care. I'd love to see a big fat dude in office. With a massive beard.
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:27 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:People care. Whether they say it or not.
I know they do. But better looking pachyderms than Chris have been destroyed in elections. You have to look good and be able to lie smoothly at the drop of a hat.
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:51 pm
by TPRJones
Bullshit, no one cares about "health" as in "we need to be sure not to elect someone that might die in office". They care about how thin and fuckable someone is, and whether they have nice hair and a gleaming smile.
For example, Dwight Eisenhower wouldn't be able to win today just because he was bald. Yet as far as I know being bald is not a danger to "health".
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 4:52 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:Bullshit, no one cares about "health" as in "we need to be sure not to elect someone that might die in office". They care about how thin and fuckable someone is, and whether they have nice hair and a gleaming smile.
Or he has the same color of skin.