REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is The Atlantic the first of the shill legacy media to finally "get it"

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2019 17:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 145
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:24 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


TRIGGER WARNING: You're not going to enjoy this read if you aren't voting for Trump... Particularly considering the source.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trump-could-win/5963
89
/


Quite a few of the things I read in there make me wonder if they've got an actual journalist on staff. Some of it sounds like somebody who works there reads the firefly RWED forum and lifted stuff that I've said and put it into print.



I'm wondering if we might see a trend of lefty news articles doing an about face on Trump, even going so far as to somewhat support him albeit with a very Trump-negative tone like there is in this article. They need to be subtle about it. They need to retain their viewership, but they know they need another four years of Trump.

They would actually have to, yanno, do some work if he loses.

Captain knows exactly what I'm talking about here, being the guy that puts money and ad revenue as the justification why censorship is happening left and right and why it's okay. Why stop there, bud? Why don't we see if I'm right and you start seeing your beloved MSM favorites start turning coat on you in the name of God Money too, shall we?

And there's layoffs left and right as it is. You're going to see most of the Voxes and the MotherJoneses completely closing up shop after 2020 if Democrats win. They'll be left without any fuel for their Pretty Hate Machine they just love firing up every day.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Their most salient point I think it's that the Dems have made this all about Trump and identity politics, and quite frankly I can't see how that would be a reason to vote for anybody.

If they come up with a reasonable platform I'd be astonished

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:17 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Sure, but you'll notice that the article admits no such thing on either count, does it?

Hence the "subtle" way I predict the media will start getting behind Trump, while still not calling out Democrats for any of their legitimate faults and still not coming off as if they're not fully on board with attacking Trump everyday so they can keep their idiots subscribing.



For instance, one paragraph almost reflects what I've said quite a few times verbatim:

Quote:

By contrast, so far Republicans have not had the need or the occasion to concentrate their attacks on any one of the 16 Democrats running for the party’s nomination. Once they do, they are likely to decrease the popularity of whoever ends up emerging as the victor.


When I say "almost" verbatim, you'll notice the subtle way they absolve the Democratic candidates here of any of their actions or words by putting the onus here on "they [republicans] are likely to decrease the popularity of whoever ends up emerging as the victor", instead of just saying that the winning candidate will slide in popularity in a head-to-head against Trump because they will be a singular candidate that does not speak for the very diverse and fractured Democratic voting base.

But then they get the reason wrong. They don't go on at all about how the Democratic party is split to the core and how a growing part of the Democratic voting base are so far left now that they're just about as far from the rest of the Democrats. They don't do this, because they would lose subscriptions AND it would undermine the general narrative.

Instead, this is how they reason it away...

Quote:

This is especially true if the eventual Democratic nominee has come to national prominence only over the past few years—for instance, Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg.


Wrong.

Not only is it wrong because it ignores the real problems in the Democratic party in 2019, but it's an entirely false statement.

Kamala Harris is just an absolutely terrible and devisive candidate that has a long and troubled history that will not play well with the Democrat's black voting base when Trump undoubtedly rails on her for propping up the for profit corporate prison system for decades.

And on the reverse side, Buttigieg is the only real chance the Democrats have. He's the only one besides Biden who doesn't have to walk a million miles back to the center after the Primary is done. He's also young and charismatic. He's gay, which will play well with a good portion of the younger far left segement of voters that will likely just stay at home when Biden gets the nomination, and at the same time he's the only one that isn't telling you everyday that he's gay.


The Democrats are going to lose badly in 2020 because they've learned nothing in 4 years. Or, probably more accurately, they believe they learned but their takeaways are far off from reality.

I see no signs of this actually changing in the near future. Not only will Trump be re-elected in 2020, but I'm starting to think that it's pretty possible that another Republican will be voted president right after he finishes his 8 years as well, which is something that I've never seen since I've been old enough to vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:30 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Captain knows exactly what I'm talking about here, being the guy that puts money and ad revenue as the justification why censorship is happening left and right and why it's okay. Why stop there, bud? Why don't we see if I'm right and you start seeing your beloved MSM favorites start turning coat on you in the name of God Money too, shall we?



Dude, I didn't justify it, I explained it because you clearly didn't understand how private media companies work.
I never said it was okay, either. It's not ok and it's not not ok. It is what is is.

And clearly you still don't get it - too many feelz getting in the way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:


Captain knows exactly what I'm talking about here, being the guy that puts money and ad revenue as the justification why censorship is happening left and right and why it's okay. Why stop there, bud? Why don't we see if I'm right and you start seeing your beloved MSM favorites start turning coat on you in the name of God Money too, shall we?- SIX

Dude, I didn't justify it, I explained it because you clearly didn't understand how private media companies work.
I never said it was okay, either. It's not ok and it's not not ok. It is what is is- CC

And then you turned around and said that the NYT published ... not "facts"... but "TRUTH", which is a higher category than "facts"!

Quote:

This is why you'll get two entirely different bullshit stories of an event after the fact if you read about them on CNN and Fox News. - SIX
It's really easy: One's the truth and the other is Fox's. -CC


http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63225

So which is it? Does the media publish what sells, or does the media publish the "TRUTH"?

As you say CC, it is what it is.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 22, 2019 5:08 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


BINGO!

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Impeachment Investigation Is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says
Sat, September 21, 2019 13:00 - 97 posts
Intercepted communications between Russia, Trump
Sat, September 21, 2019 12:21 - 38 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, September 21, 2019 11:14 - 2725 posts
U.S. Navy officially confirms ' tic tac ' encounters are real. Now what ?
Sat, September 21, 2019 10:44 - 34 posts
Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Accused of Molesting, Is Charged with Human Trafficking of Minors
Sat, September 21, 2019 10:00 - 93 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Sat, September 21, 2019 08:30 - 2830 posts
Joe Rogan on Leftists Socal Retards and Pihranas
Sat, September 21, 2019 01:08 - 1 posts
LOL
Sat, September 21, 2019 00:05 - 1 posts
jawn
Fri, September 20, 2019 20:50 - 4 posts
President Trump: good, bad, and ugly
Fri, September 20, 2019 20:47 - 175 posts
Who Is Running In 2020?
Fri, September 20, 2019 20:22 - 227 posts
Brexit is official: Article 50 is invoked.
Fri, September 20, 2019 18:56 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL