The Rotting of the Republican Mind

[Saruku]

You will never be able to compromise on any issue with a base of voters who believe in conspiracy theories. Most of which are quite moronic. 

These people are most definitely not the heirs to Western civilization and its emphasis on logic and reason.

Scratch a liberal, find a white supremacist.

[John Dule]

You will never be able to compromise on any issue with a base of voters who believe in conspiracy theories. Most of which are quite moronic. 

These people are most definitely not the heirs to Western civilization and its emphasis on logic and reason.

Scratch a liberal, find a white supremacist.

"Logic and reason are racist."

[Badger]

Trump's supporters have a large number of people who have gone down crazy conspiracy theory rabbit holes. This is related to both the reception of propaganda and mistrust in institutions. I want to make that clear from the outset. Now, one of the problems is that in general trust is earned. And most institutions in the US frankly don't deserve it right now. Over the last 6 months of a presidential campaign, almost every mainstream institution in the country acted with a level of political bias far beyond what I have ever seen before. From the media to the presidential debate commission to my local foodbank to half of Trump's own federal bureaucracy, almost all of them decided that ridding the US of Trump as president needed to be their top priority. In doing so, while they have achieved their objective, they have also damaged their own objectivity in a way that will take a very long time to heal. Many of these institutions have had a Democratic lean for ages, but there was always some sense of neutrality in the ways they acted. That is gone. Now, you can say Trump is an exceptionally evil enemy or that his own behavior merits such a response because he did not treat those institutions with the type of conduct becoming of the president. While those are valid criticisms, the people running so many institutions failed to realize that does not justify institutions that are supposed to be objective taking sides in political disputes. Regardless of the circumstances, a non-partisan institution has to actually be non-partisan, lest it just becomes another partisan hack group half the country immediately dismisses.

Don't try to absolve Trump or his supporters by guilt-tripping the companies that are trying to protect their business.

Trump attacked and dismissed the integrity of the news that doesn't bootlick his Dear Emperor status since the onset of running for the office. What do you expect the media to do, stay nonchalant? Even friendly? Any rude customer in a restaurant is subject to getting a nice spitting in the food for the same reason despite the notion that restaurants are supposed to serve all customers equally.

At the end of the day, institutions are about making money. If they want to strike back someone that attacks their business, all the more power to them. GOP believes in eye for an eye; they just don't like it when it applies to them.

Would you like all the media to turn into FOX news? Some Trump supporters are even condemning FOX news, proving that the problem lies within them and not the institutions. They just don't like anything that delivers the harsh reality to Dear Emperor, even if it means he lost the election. That's not something that will be solved by making institutions non-partisan or neutral.

There's also a generational effect at play here, too. Nixon and Agnew attacked the media in the 60's and 70's, but there wasn't the kind of media push-back that we see now. Back then most people were getting their national news from the oligarchy of the big three TV networks. The nature of the oligarchy was such that they could maintain advertising revenue and they didn't need to return the attacks tit-for-tat to make money.

The generational issue is that there is still a lot of older voters on both sides of the political divide who don't understand why that style of reporting is gone when they turn on the TV. They assume that the media has been taken over by partisan bias of which ever sort. They don't want the media to turn into Fox News, they want it to turn into the CBS of Walter Cronkite or the ABC of Peter Jennings.

Younger voters grew up with the fractured and siloed news media of this century, so they see media responses to attacks as more natural. If the response jives with their world view then the response is deserved. If the response contradicts them their personal view they write it off as the inherent bias of that source and presume not to trust them. As long as they can latch onto a stream that they like, they'll go with that.

This is part of what Brooks was getting at in the OP article. If voters aren't willing to consume facts from a trusted source, they will consume whatever comes at them from a source they do trust. Trust cannot be created by denigrating the sources of the other side without a sincere replacement that speaks to the audience in words that feel like they can be trusted by that audience. It doesn't happen in one election cycle, just as the fragmentation of the news media happened over many cycles. Brooks' contention is that without such an effort the polarization of the body politic is not likely to change.

I'm sorry guys. But ultimately this so-called media pushback is the media reporting a dumpster fire of a presidency as being a dumpster fire.

No dispute from me that this administration has mostly been a mess and the news media should report it. The Carter presidency was pretty much a mess (especially with domestic policy) and the news media called him out during his administration, too. There was a huge difference in tone though in how the networks handled the mess back then and how cable and other outlets express it today.

Two points to why there was "a huge difference in tone":

1.  Times change. We are talking 40+ years between Carter and trump.
2.  And more importantly, the difference between Carter and trump, is night and day. trump would Tweet and re-Tweet not only BS and lies, but sadistic comments about others. Reporters are human like you and I. They can interpret someone who basically conducts himself like an a$$hole on a daily basis (just a clue ... this was not Carter). trump can easily be interpreted to being Evil, while Carter more like Mr Mother Teresa.

Let the "tone" in the media match the character of their target, in their stories.

I agree with 1, and as has been pointed out the economic drivers of the news media are very different than 40 years ago and the media corporations need an audience to make money.

I also agree that there is a huge difference between the two presidents in terms of conduct. I don't think the second part of number 2 follows from that. VP Spiro Agnew had a hostile relationship with the press and was involved in criminal conspiracies that led to his resignation. Given the times, Agnew met many people's definition of evil. However, the tone of the press did not match the character as you suggest it should.

Oh please. Comparing Spiro Agnew and Donald Trump in terms of General BS and divisiveness is comparing raisins to watermelons. You're damn right the tone was different. Because the tone coming out of the White House was a thousand times different. And worse. As was tge corruption.

[Santander]

You will never be able to compromise on any issue with a base of voters who believe in conspiracy theories. Most of which are quite moronic. 

These people are most definitely not the heirs to Western civilization and its emphasis on logic and reason.

Scratch a liberal, find a white supremacist.

"Logic and reason are racist."

Racism is logical. *

[pbrower2a]

Part of the problem here is that the Republican Party does not and has not had responsible leadership for years.

There are basically four groups of people.

1. Cocktail Party Attendee - Typically people glued into a neoliberal mindset and cannot comprehend that things need to change in a way that won't be popular in this circle of friends.

Cocktail parties? Do people have those any more? Maybe the middle-aged set in the time when Ronald Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter... I doubt that many of them are alive. Those are the founders of neoliberalism.

2. The Big Brain Think Tanker - Basically Paul Ryan. Has a set policy agenda that is built academically and philosophically, and doesn't really benefit the cultural units that support the party, but nevertheless refuses to entertain any other conceptualization of how conservatism or conservative policy should look. This agenda is backed by a lot of money and is able to command the support of purity enforcement mechanism (see below)

Mirror-image Marxists, the sorts of people who have to be bribed to hold and promote the beliefs that they have. These are the sorts who can ponder endlessly on why  the most wondrous thing that a worker can do is to work to exhaustion for very low pay in This World for delights in Heaven, with the fear of eternal damnation for any sign of slacking or rebellion. The think-tanks in which such people operate are practically stereotypes of the proverbial ivory tower in which they have no contact with the Real World. They are paid well in cash and perquisites, far better than academics who might study the prosody of ancient Akkadian. They are the intellectual equivalents of prostitutes.

3. The Establishment Manipulator - Basically Mitch McConnell. Someone who knows things are spiraling out of control but will manipulate it to enact the agenda, without really addressing the underlying problem. The big difference is that he is flexible enough to survive where the Think Tanker cannot.

Mitch McConnell... old enough that when things go really, really bad he will be really, really dead. The others are feathering their nests so that they can buy some castle in Slovenia or Slovakia or wherever when the Revolution comes here.

4. Duplicitous Back Stabber - Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows. Since the movement enforces unity around typically the same out of touch agenda, the duplicitous back stabber is the primary method for such enforcement. Taking the place of Lenin's firing squads is the doctrinaire primary opponent coming to dismantle you as a traitor for daring to challenge the donor/think tank agenda.

This is the "Viktor Ippolitovich Komarovsky" character out of Doctor Zhivago, the sort of person who plays both sides in a polarized society (which makes his role simple). who has the dirt on both sides and can pick the winner. He is useful to the winner because he can sacrifice his old friends, whether reactionary or revolutionary, to the winners to whom he has attached himself. He believes in nothing other than power and survival. He will get his reward from whatever cut-throats end up with his services. If the tsarist system prevails after a brutal creackdown he will be raised to a prince while Minister of the Interior or head of the tsarist secret police. If the Bolsheviks win, then he will live well as a traitor to his old class... and even if the Bolsheviks offer no noble titles he will be able to live like an aristocrat in some palace that the Bolsheviks confiscate tor themselves and their enforcers.   

Virtually every Republican politician falls into one of these categories and that is why we ended up Donald Trump as the nominee and the President. At the same time it is why Trump became a part of the very same thing that in contrast to made him so appealing.

Unlike the usual conservatives who have some ties to elite culture, who hold mobsters and scammers in contempt while having some pride in an expensive, elite education.... Donald Trump is a vulgarian who exploits such as an alleged 'common touch. This is a sham, of course. Truth be told, most people who appreciate great music, art, and literature have no need to lord it over others.

Trump made the mistake of trying to lord it over the well-educated American middle class, and that created resentments among people who usually have little to resent.

What the Republican Party needs is a new establishment, that is qualified and credible, but at the same hostile to globalism/neoliberalism and actively working to construct an agenda that like say the American System of the early 19th century, is aimed at uniting the country and ending the divisions. The problem is that this requires putting down theoretical concepts like "not picking winners and losers" and "let the market decide" and accept that doing nothing is also picking a winner (Areas already doing well internally, China externally) and a loser (most of the areas that actually vote Republican) and letting the market decide is always relying on a tilted field against your own people.

It even more needs a soul. Neoliberal economics is itself soulless, and all it has to offer the common man is pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die... even to people educated well enough to recognize such an offer as an unattractive swindle. Conservatism did far better when it promoted mass virtues instead of vices. Thrift, skill, learning, dedication, sobriety, and integrity fit a system in which the common man has a stake in the system even if a truck driver or assembly-line worker. In a culture that sees workers as disposable and expendable, the common man is tempted to goldbrick, cheat, steal, and go on binges. Capitalist productivity is far stronger when mass virtues are the norm instead of a culture of apathy or victimhood.

The current situation right down to everything Trump is doing right now is precisely the result of having a Republican Party whose nationalist membership despises its own neoliberal leadership and whose neoliberal and libertarian leadership structure that in many ways resents its own nationalist rank and file. The reason I have included libertarians is a nod to the statement made by Massie in 2016 when he lamented that many of his supporters had become Trump supporters, indicating what is historically always the bane of the ideological purist. They win based on a connection with voters on a particular issue, or two or three and presume that that there are vast hordes of people that agree with them across the board.

I post heavily in a history forum that tries to some extent to predict the future by seeing patterns in the past that have a basis in the lifecycles of generations. Some patterns of thought lose their constituency as their believers die off, and some deeds become possible when the people who can say no and mean it to some tempting folly are either deceased or out to pasture. It is hardly coincidence that the real estate bubble that required shady lending practices that led to the Panic of 2008  happened about 80 years after the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929, and the Crash of 1929 following the Panic of 1857 by 72 years -- long human lifetimes, and basically the time necessary for the extinction of memories. Follies are tempting, but not to those who have been burned even if they were children at the time.

Neoliberal economics is in many ways a revival of the economic theories in vogue in the 1920's, a last hurrah of the ideology of the Gilded Age. It is roughly what the "economic royalists" of the 1930's, who hated "That Man" who was an alleged traitor to his class, believed in but could not enforce. In the 2010's they had the funds to revive that ideology with modern garb.

Trump knows how to exploit mass resentments in a political campaign. He showed no means of resolving those resentments. Thus he failed as President.     

The problem here is that there isn't really a great term for what is happening here that doesn't bring with it misleading or mistaken connotations yet I am forced to use them in this context because that is what everyone else uses. Such terms include nationalism and populism.

Nationalism in the context of the whole country would certainly be alarmed at the growing divide in the country and be mindful of strengthening and unifying the country. At the same nationalism can also imply centralization of money and power, or it can be used on a lower level to indicate division and separatism, such as Southern Nationalism, both of which are problematic and not likely in the cards. Though at one point gov't centralism was very much in the cards to achieve these ends of unification.

Capitalism obviously works best when it serves people other than the elites, when it offers opportunities to people not born to wealth and privilege and people not the ones most able to charm the rich-and-powerful into receiving a start on the fast track. (If you will notice, honest people do not charm their way into getting breaks; they earn those through their efforts. Narcissists and sociopaths turn on the charm because they could never get their way if their genuine, ugly persona were known. Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy were both extremely charming.   

Populism is extremely dangerous, often majoritarian and very much hostile to conceptualizations of rule of law and gov't of law and not of men, which are paramount conservative philosophies. For some reason populism has come to derive a specific definition on a set of issue positions, when in general it just means opposition to the establishment and the reason it connotates such is because of what the establishment itself is seen to be promoting or dedicated to.

Populism is not so dangerous when the humanists and liberals guide it so that it is more universal in its intended service. Populism is completely incompatible with conservatism, the latter usually connected to traditional values that include the entrenchment of class privilege. When populism isn't so universal in its appeal it becomes racist and ultra-nationalist.   

Establishments are temporary aggregations made to reflect a given ascendancy and the ability of such to possess longevity derives from their dynamic ability to adapt to a given situation as it is. The current establishment of the right has completely failed at this for the reasons stated above, that is why it is necessary for it to be forcefully induced to adapt or to be replaced by one that will. For my view, the establishment is not worthy of opposition because they are the establishment, they are worthy of destruction or replacement because they have failed to adapt and be an effective representative of the kind of conservatism that this era calls for, still clinging to 1985 like its going to come back along with Duran Duran topping the charts.

Check out the Skowronek cycle. The neoiiberal phase of American history begins with Ronald Reagan introducing neoliberalism as a practical means of getting economic growth that requires lower taxes to reward people for being rich and that young adults accept lowered expectations for the benefit of us all and due to some inescapable realities (such as that America had too many people with college degrees for the sorts of jobs that typically required a college degree... so take your bachelor's degree to the shopping mall and work for the minimum wage in a department store at the mall, and if you think that work too unrewarding for your needs -- then take a second such job to supplement your starvation pay! I can say this: in the early 1980's we had some of the best store clerks ever, and that got people buying stuff at full retail, which creates prosperity that gets the factories going again. We have gone as far as we can with that, and by now the shopping malls are a dying institution.   

We are on the brink of a new era, but hardly anyone can define what that is. "More of the same" is the surest wrong answer.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's going to be VERY hard to rebuild trust with the Trump cult, because a large amount of them LIKE not trusting the media and aren't interested anymore in trusting a hypoethetical "honest media".

They SHOULDN'T trust the media.  The media misrepresents THEM as well as Trump.

We have people on this forum who assert that anyone who merely voted for Trump is a horrible person by definition.  They get this from media accounts, multiple sources, over and over.  Trump is NEVER right (according to the mass media) and their Worldview is presented, putting forth the urgency of not only ridding ourselves of Trump, but of his supporters as well.

I would very much like an "honest media".  An "honest media" would have already required Joe Biden to clarify his statements that he knew nothing of his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine when there is clear evidence that he did.  A routine inconsistency; why won't mainstream reporters bring clarification?  (Biden hasn't denied it yet, he just blasts the reporters as "smearing" him.)  That's a small bit of honesty, but we don't even get that.  An "honest media" would certainly confront Trump, and Trump has certainly done things that merit confrontation, but so had Obama.  The title of Bernard Goldberg's book, A Slobbering Love Affair, was an accurate description of the media's treatment of Obama.  If Goldberg wrote a book about the media's treatment of Trump, it would be The Granddaddy Of All Beatdowns.  

Actually Fuzzy the reason we think Trumpers are bad people is not because of “the media” but because of the rest of your post. You’ve been defending Trump’s corruption for 4 years now jumping through hoop after hoop to defend him and then without any shame have gone on and on about how Hunter Biden’s Ukraine business is the most corrupt thing ever shows how much of a bad faith hypocrite you are. Which you aren’t alone with it’s been 4 years of constant trolling and bad faith arguments in defense of a moral repugnant man who launched an all out assault on our democratic norms from Trumpers that definitely lead one to the conclusion you’re not good good people. CNN or MSNBC didn’t lead to this conclusion. You all did that to yourselves.

Other than the fact that Hunter Biden is presumed innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how this post is aging well.

Anyone calling out Hunter Biden in the media, on social media, etc. has been right to do so.  Those condemning us for do so only wished to deflect that legitimate bad press that he's getting today.  Hunter Biden has been under investigation for two (2) years.  Given what is "leaked" on a daily basis, it's kind of hard to believe that actual confirmation of this by the MSM hasn't occurred until just now.

[7,052,770]

Other than the fact that Hunter Biden is presumed innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how this post is aging well.

Because you live in a #FakeNews media bubble that's totally out of touch with reality.

[Progressive Pessimist]

This forum would be such a better, more enriching place if it would just ban the bad faith actors constantly poisoning the discourse.

Blame the GOP for that. They are an entire political party who stand for nothing but acting in bad faith now. Truly our politics is actually at the simplest form it ever has been, somewhat surprisingly. Everything involving politics these days can be distilled into good faith versus bad faith, and the Republican Party monopolizes the latter.

[Calthrina950]

It's going to be VERY hard to rebuild trust with the Trump cult, because a large amount of them LIKE not trusting the media and aren't interested anymore in trusting a hypoethetical "honest media".

They SHOULDN'T trust the media.  The media misrepresents THEM as well as Trump.

We have people on this forum who assert that anyone who merely voted for Trump is a horrible person by definition.  They get this from media accounts, multiple sources, over and over.  Trump is NEVER right (according to the mass media) and their Worldview is presented, putting forth the urgency of not only ridding ourselves of Trump, but of his supporters as well.

I would very much like an "honest media".  An "honest media" would have already required Joe Biden to clarify his statements that he knew nothing of his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine when there is clear evidence that he did.  A routine inconsistency; why won't mainstream reporters bring clarification?  (Biden hasn't denied it yet, he just blasts the reporters as "smearing" him.)  That's a small bit of honesty, but we don't even get that.  An "honest media" would certainly confront Trump, and Trump has certainly done things that merit confrontation, but so had Obama.  The title of Bernard Goldberg's book, A Slobbering Love Affair, was an accurate description of the media's treatment of Obama.  If Goldberg wrote a book about the media's treatment of Trump, it would be The Granddaddy Of All Beatdowns.  

Actually Fuzzy the reason we think Trumpers are bad people is not because of “the media” but because of the rest of your post. You’ve been defending Trump’s corruption for 4 years now jumping through hoop after hoop to defend him and then without any shame have gone on and on about how Hunter Biden’s Ukraine business is the most corrupt thing ever shows how much of a bad faith hypocrite you are. Which you aren’t alone with it’s been 4 years of constant trolling and bad faith arguments in defense of a moral repugnant man who launched an all out assault on our democratic norms from Trumpers that definitely lead one to the conclusion you’re not good good people. CNN or MSNBC didn’t lead to this conclusion. You all did that to yourselves.

Other than the fact that Hunter Biden is presumed innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how this post is aging well.

Anyone calling out Hunter Biden in the media, on social media, etc. has been right to do so.  Those condemning us for do so only wished to deflect that legitimate bad press that he's getting today.  Hunter Biden has been under investigation for two (2) years.  Given what is "leaked" on a daily basis, it's kind of hard to believe that actual confirmation of this by the MSM hasn't occurred until just now.

The majority of voters, as shown by last month's election, didn't care about, or were ambivalent about Hunter Biden and his misdeeds-if they even know who he is to begin with.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's going to be VERY hard to rebuild trust with the Trump cult, because a large amount of them LIKE not trusting the media and aren't interested anymore in trusting a hypoethetical "honest media".

They SHOULDN'T trust the media.  The media misrepresents THEM as well as Trump.

We have people on this forum who assert that anyone who merely voted for Trump is a horrible person by definition.  They get this from media accounts, multiple sources, over and over.  Trump is NEVER right (according to the mass media) and their Worldview is presented, putting forth the urgency of not only ridding ourselves of Trump, but of his supporters as well.

I would very much like an "honest media".  An "honest media" would have already required Joe Biden to clarify his statements that he knew nothing of his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine when there is clear evidence that he did.  A routine inconsistency; why won't mainstream reporters bring clarification?  (Biden hasn't denied it yet, he just blasts the reporters as "smearing" him.)  That's a small bit of honesty, but we don't even get that.  An "honest media" would certainly confront Trump, and Trump has certainly done things that merit confrontation, but so had Obama.  The title of Bernard Goldberg's book, A Slobbering Love Affair, was an accurate description of the media's treatment of Obama.  If Goldberg wrote a book about the media's treatment of Trump, it would be The Granddaddy Of All Beatdowns.  

Actually Fuzzy the reason we think Trumpers are bad people is not because of “the media” but because of the rest of your post. You’ve been defending Trump’s corruption for 4 years now jumping through hoop after hoop to defend him and then without any shame have gone on and on about how Hunter Biden’s Ukraine business is the most corrupt thing ever shows how much of a bad faith hypocrite you are. Which you aren’t alone with it’s been 4 years of constant trolling and bad faith arguments in defense of a moral repugnant man who launched an all out assault on our democratic norms from Trumpers that definitely lead one to the conclusion you’re not good good people. CNN or MSNBC didn’t lead to this conclusion. You all did that to yourselves.

Other than the fact that Hunter Biden is presumed innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how this post is aging well.

Anyone calling out Hunter Biden in the media, on social media, etc. has been right to do so.  Those condemning us for do so only wished to deflect that legitimate bad press that he's getting today.  Hunter Biden has been under investigation for two (2) years.  Given what is "leaked" on a daily basis, it's kind of hard to believe that actual confirmation of this by the MSM hasn't occurred until just now.

The majority of voters, as shown by last month's election, didn't care about, or were ambivalent about Hunter Biden and his misdeeds-if they even know who he is to begin with.

That's because the story was stated by the MSM as being "debunked", "Russian disinformation", a conspiracy theory" and such.  The MSM ignored the issue, never questioned Biden about it, and ratpacked the one reporter (Bo Erickson of CBS News) who actually asked Biden about the question.

Since the story has made it to the MSM, polling has indicated that 10% of Biden voters would have switched their vote if they had been aware of the story and what it entailed.  Is that unreasonable to believe?  Certainly not, given what Hunter Biden has allegedly done.  Certainly not, given the FACT that Hunter Biden is, and has been, under a criminal probe (actually two (2) separate criminal probes at this writing).  Facts change things.  The voters SHOULD have known who Hunter Biden was.  The MSM should have told him.  That they didn't, that they chose to be activists rather than reporters, is why voters are in this position.

[7,052,770]

That's because the story was stated by the MSM as being "debunked", "Russian disinformation", a conspiracy theory" and such.  The MSM ignored the issue, never questioned Biden about it, and ratpacked the one reporter (Bo Erickson of CBS News) who actually asked Biden about the question.

Since the story has made it to the MSM, polling has indicated that 10% of Biden voters would have switched their vote if they had been aware of the story and what it entailed.  Is that unreasonable to believe?  Certainly not, given what Hunter Biden has allegedly done.  Certainly not, given the FACT that Hunter Biden is, and has been, under a criminal probe (actually two (2) separate criminal probes at this writing).  Facts change things.  The voters SHOULD have known who Hunter Biden was.  The MSM should have told him.  That they didn't, that they chose to be activists rather than reporters, is why voters are in this position.

Again, you are out-of-touch with reality. Everything you posted is fake and made up by someone who wrote it to dupe you.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That's because the story was stated by the MSM as being "debunked", "Russian disinformation", a conspiracy theory" and such.  The MSM ignored the issue, never questioned Biden about it, and ratpacked the one reporter (Bo Erickson of CBS News) who actually asked Biden about the question.

Since the story has made it to the MSM, polling has indicated that 10% of Biden voters would have switched their vote if they had been aware of the story and what it entailed.  Is that unreasonable to believe?  Certainly not, given what Hunter Biden has allegedly done.  Certainly not, given the FACT that Hunter Biden is, and has been, under a criminal probe (actually two (2) separate criminal probes at this writing).  Facts change things.  The voters SHOULD have known who Hunter Biden was.  The MSM should have told him.  That they didn't, that they chose to be activists rather than reporters, is why voters are in this position.

Again, you are out-of-touch with reality. Everything you posted is fake and made up by someone who wrote it to dupe you.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/24/poll-one-in-six-biden-voters-would-have-changed-their-vote-if-they-had-known-about-scandals-suppressed-by-media/

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/11/24/special-report-stealing-presidency-2020

This lack of information proved crucial: One of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories. A shift of this magnitude would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden, and Donald Trump would have comfortably won a second term as president.

Is this unreasonable?  How many Democrats for Nixon would have voted for McGovern had Watergate been aggressively reported BEFORE the 1972 election?

Here's a little history about Wabergate:  Rep Wright Patman (D-TX) proposed that the House Banking Committee investigate Watergate prior to the 1972 election.  Despite the partisan makeup of the committee, the committee fell 5 votes short.  Four (4) of the six (6) Democrats who voted to not investigate were Southern Conservative Democrats, but one of the Democrats was liberal Frank Brasco (D-Brooklyn) who was under investigation by the FBI and was convicted of a felony in the next Congress.

Trump's been investigated to the Heavens.  Why wasn't Biden even mentioned by the MSM?  He was under investigation the entire time; are our reporters that deficient in investigative skill?

[7,052,770]

"You are out of touch with reality because you've gotten sucked in by right-wing #FakeNews."

"No, that's not true, check out these articles from The Federalist and Newsbusters."

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Rs believe in cutting social programs when they support people like Chris Sununu who vetoed the minimum wage, and believe in tax cuts for the Rich in 2017 tax cuts. But, they get full benefits from the Cares Act of Stimulus and unemployment checks and they receive a hand out from that.

That's why the topic exposes the R mind set and Fox news and his hypocrisy when it comes to Don Jr and Hunter Biden.

Hunter didn't go to our nemist and get dirt on our Politicial opponent when it came to Wikileaks

[Fuzzy Bear]

"You are out of touch with reality because you've gotten sucked in by right-wing #FakeNews."

"No, that's not true, check out these articles from The Federalist and Newsbusters."

You're denying the fact that the MSM simply failed to investigate and report legitimate stories such as Hunter Biden's story.  You're OK with the story being censored on SOCIAL media.

The task of the left is to stifle discussion of how Biden was elected.  Creating a completely pro-Biden activist MSM was part of that strategy.  To say otherwise is gaslighting.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To say otherwise is gaslighting.

oh dear God he's learned how to speak woke

[Hindsight was 2020]

It's going to be VERY hard to rebuild trust with the Trump cult, because a large amount of them LIKE not trusting the media and aren't interested anymore in trusting a hypoethetical "honest media".

They SHOULDN'T trust the media.  The media misrepresents THEM as well as Trump.

We have people on this forum who assert that anyone who merely voted for Trump is a horrible person by definition.  They get this from media accounts, multiple sources, over and over.  Trump is NEVER right (according to the mass media) and their Worldview is presented, putting forth the urgency of not only ridding ourselves of Trump, but of his supporters as well.

I would very much like an "honest media".  An "honest media" would have already required Joe Biden to clarify his statements that he knew nothing of his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine when there is clear evidence that he did.  A routine inconsistency; why won't mainstream reporters bring clarification?  (Biden hasn't denied it yet, he just blasts the reporters as "smearing" him.)  That's a small bit of honesty, but we don't even get that.  An "honest media" would certainly confront Trump, and Trump has certainly done things that merit confrontation, but so had Obama.  The title of Bernard Goldberg's book, A Slobbering Love Affair, was an accurate description of the media's treatment of Obama.  If Goldberg wrote a book about the media's treatment of Trump, it would be The Granddaddy Of All Beatdowns.  

Actually Fuzzy the reason we think Trumpers are bad people is not because of “the media” but because of the rest of your post. You’ve been defending Trump’s corruption for 4 years now jumping through hoop after hoop to defend him and then without any shame have gone on and on about how Hunter Biden’s Ukraine business is the most corrupt thing ever shows how much of a bad faith hypocrite you are. Which you aren’t alone with it’s been 4 years of constant trolling and bad faith arguments in defense of a moral repugnant man who launched an all out assault on our democratic norms from Trumpers that definitely lead one to the conclusion you’re not good good people. CNN or MSNBC didn’t lead to this conclusion. You all did that to yourselves.

Other than the fact that Hunter Biden is presumed innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how this post is aging well.

Anyone calling out Hunter Biden in the media, on social media, etc. has been right to do so.  Those condemning us for do so only wished to deflect that legitimate bad press that he's getting today.  Hunter Biden has been under investigation for two (2) years.  Given what is "leaked" on a daily basis, it's kind of hard to believe that actual confirmation of this by the MSM hasn't occurred until just now.

There is nothing that’s been reported on the Hunter Biden story that Trump himself and his family have been also accused of the past 4 years which you have been completely fine with. So my point of my post which is that you’re a shameless partisan hypocrite has held up quite well

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is nothing that’s been reported on the Hunter Biden story that Trump himself and his family have been also accused of the past 4 years which you have been completely fine with. So my point of my post which is that you’re a shameless partisan hypocrite has held up quite well

Trump was impeached because he wanted Hunter Biden investigated. Surely the Democrats could have found a better reason to impeach him.

[Hindsight was 2020]

There is nothing that’s been reported on the Hunter Biden story that Trump himself and his family have been also accused of the past 4 years which you have been completely fine with. So my point of my post which is that you’re a shameless partisan hypocrite has held up quite well

Trump was impeached because he wanted Hunter Biden investigated. Surely the Democrats could have found a better reason to impeach him.

Just change your avatar to blue Jfern your brand of Glenn Greenwald style “leftism” isn’t fooling anyone

[pbrower2a]

"You are out of touch with reality because you've gotten sucked in by right-wing #FakeNews."

"No, that's not true, check out these articles from The Federalist and Newsbusters."

It may seem paradoxical, but the most troublesome news sources are not in the "very low" category, which would include the laughable "news" coming out of Iran or North Korea or the tabloid schlock from the Globe or the National Enquirer, the supermarket tabloids that work upon the curiosity of not-very-bright people. Mercifully the 'journalistic' product of such tabloids is of little relevance. A few years ago the National Enquirer advertised that it was fun to read, as opposed to drier media (the ones that actually have news, like the Wall Street Journal)

A "Mixed" rating on factual content is the typical level of propaganda, and it is likely intended to distort reality while conforming existing biases. among existing readers or listeners... or to befuddle people on the Other Side.

[7,052,770]

You're denying the fact that the MSM simply failed to investigate and report legitimate stories such as Hunter Biden's story.  You're OK with the story being censored on SOCIAL media.

The task of the left is to stifle discussion of how Biden was elected.  Creating a completely pro-Biden activist MSM was part of that strategy.  To say otherwise is gaslighting.

I deny that whatever drivel duped you is a "legitimate story." You have been gaslighted by garbage "sources" like the ones you linked. These sources prey on the gullible people to make money. They aren't reporting facts or truth.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

"You are out of touch with reality because you've gotten sucked in by right-wing #FakeNews."

"No, that's not true, check out these articles from The Federalist and Newsbusters."

You're denying the fact that the MSM simply failed to investigate and report legitimate stories such as Hunter Biden's story.  You're OK with the story being censored on SOCIAL media.

The task of the left is to stifle discussion of how Biden was elected.  Creating a completely pro-Biden activist MSM was part of that strategy.  To say otherwise is gaslighting.

Hey, Fuzzy, when does someone become president-elect?

[ProudModerate2]

You're denying the fact that the MSM simply failed to investigate and report legitimate stories such as Hunter Biden's story.  You're OK with the story being censored on SOCIAL media.

The task of the left is to stifle discussion of how Biden was elected.  Creating a completely pro-Biden activist MSM was part of that strategy.  To say otherwise is gaslighting.

I deny that whatever drivel duped you is a "legitimate story." You have been gaslighted by garbage "sources" like the ones you linked. These sources prey on the gullible people to make money. They aren't reporting facts or truth.

Funny that Fuzzy is trying to get us to believe anything he says about "Hunter Biden."
Just before the primary elections started, he is on record here in Atlas saying that there would be no way Biden would be the Dem candidate because of "the stories" regarding Hunter Biden.
Well here we are today, with Joe not only the Dem candidate in 2020, but our newly elected next President. HaHa.

[ProudModerate2]

Hey, Fuzzy, when does someone become president-elect?

He will get back to you soon.
He needs to check his answer with the ever-so-popular, and very-factual ... Newsbusters.org

(PS: Fuzzy posting a "Newsbusters" link in this thread titled "The Rotting of the Republican Mind" is just so Rich.)

[SteveRogers]

It's going to be VERY hard to rebuild trust with the Trump cult, because a large amount of them LIKE not trusting the media and aren't interested anymore in trusting a hypoethetical "honest media".

They SHOULDN'T trust the media.  The media misrepresents THEM as well as Trump.

We have people on this forum who assert that anyone who merely voted for Trump is a horrible person by definition.  They get this from media accounts, multiple sources, over and over.  Trump is NEVER right (according to the mass media) and their Worldview is presented, putting forth the urgency of not only ridding ourselves of Trump, but of his supporters as well.

I would very much like an "honest media".  An "honest media" would have already required Joe Biden to clarify his statements that he knew nothing of his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine when there is clear evidence that he did.  A routine inconsistency; why won't mainstream reporters bring clarification?  (Biden hasn't denied it yet, he just blasts the reporters as "smearing" him.)  That's a small bit of honesty, but we don't even get that.  An "honest media" would certainly confront Trump, and Trump has certainly done things that merit confrontation, but so had Obama.  The title of Bernard Goldberg's book, A Slobbering Love Affair, was an accurate description of the media's treatment of Obama.  If Goldberg wrote a book about the media's treatment of Trump, it would be The Granddaddy Of All Beatdowns.  

Actually Fuzzy the reason we think Trumpers are bad people is not because of “the media” but because of the rest of your post. You’ve been defending Trump’s corruption for 4 years now jumping through hoop after hoop to defend him and then without any shame have gone on and on about how Hunter Biden’s Ukraine business is the most corrupt thing ever shows how much of a bad faith hypocrite you are. Which you aren’t alone with it’s been 4 years of constant trolling and bad faith arguments in defense of a moral repugnant man who launched an all out assault on our democratic norms from Trumpers that definitely lead one to the conclusion you’re not good good people. CNN or MSNBC didn’t lead to this conclusion. You all did that to yourselves.

Other than the fact that Hunter Biden is presumed innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how this post is aging well.

Anyone calling out Hunter Biden in the media, on social media, etc. has been right to do so.  Those condemning us for do so only wished to deflect that legitimate bad press that he's getting today.  Hunter Biden has been under investigation for two (2) years.  Given what is "leaked" on a daily basis, it's kind of hard to believe that actual confirmation of this by the MSM hasn't occurred until just now.

Fuzzy, you understand that Trump actually pockets the profits from businesses run by his children who peddle his name to do business overseas, right?

No one is claiming to be able to prove that Hunter Biden has lived a squeaky clean life, but your hypocrisy in asserting “but Hunter Biden!” To try to impugn his father in the face of the Trump family’s flagrant conduct over the last four years has reached comical levels.