@vil
here is the thing though,and it is something that i find very disappointing.

when maddow came over from air america radio,who worked with such hosts as thom hartman,sam seder,lawrence odonnell,al franken,laura flanders.she was fantastic.

yes,she was a tad biased and the political points she chose to cover tended to lean liberal democrat,BUT her analysis and her ability to break down complicated and complex political issues into easily digested and understood nuggets,was a talent i truly admired in her.

in my opinion,she was the best host MSNBC had on their channel,and proved time and time again just how political saavy she was,and her ability to expose political shenanigans was unmatched by any other host..again..my opinion..but then obama won his second term,and i noticed a shift in her show.

she slowly stopped being so voracious when it came to exposing the more...shall we say..venal and destructive policies obama was beginning to execute,and started making excuses for those activities.apologizing in essence.

ok..ok..she was becoming an apologist for the highest office in amercia.there..happy?

to say that watching this transition bummed me out is a understatement.for years i could always count on maddow to break down and disseminate political talking points,partisan wordplay and reveal the bullshit behind the polished turd.

then here comes the run up to the 2016 election,and i watched maddow,in real time,go from a part-time apologist for obama to a full time apologist for hillary clinton.

you can watch her actively cheerlead for clinton against sanders.even when the DNC was caught RED-HANDED fucking sanders over,maddow downplayed the entire mess,and focused on debbie wasserman shultz,while giving clinton a pass.as if debbie wasserman shultz was in no way connected to hillary..even when the evidence plainly proved that there WAS a connection.

so you are right @vil .
much of how maddow disseminates political situations is eerily similar to RT,when it comes to state sponsored cheerleading.

host:the problem we are being faced with is:apple or oranges.

viewer: but what about those bananas over there? and those cherries.

host:there are NO bananas or cherries!
there are ONLY apples and oranges!

viewer:but i am pretty sure i see bananas and cherries.

host:you are being a pinko commie,and why do hate america? are you a sympathetic terrorist? or just simply a racist?

viewer:sorry i asked.i don't want to be called an unpatriotic racist.

at least that is how i see it.
not saying my opinion amounts to anything more than screaming into a wind tunnel,but i used to really admire maddow.

blame?

i don't know if i would use such a charged word to describe a very and nuanced question.i think there is plenty of blame to go around,and it is never quite as simple as the media soundbytes we are all subjected to on a daily basis.

who do i blame most?
democrats..hands down.

but there are other factors that all served to produce this circus of an election cycle.

1.the failure of the left to actually understand just how frustrated and angry the working class had become.those people may be politically unsophisticated,but they are not dumb.

this really had very little to do with republican vs democrat.this was a large portion of the american population that had simply become fed up with a system that they finally understood had thrown them overboard decades ago.many of the people who voted for trump also voted for obama..TWICE..because they wanted to see "change" and what they got nothing,zip,zilch,zero,nada.

they simply refused to play charlie brown to the democrats lucy.

2.the DNC and debbie wasserman shultz,may she burn in hell for eternity.
this woman singlehandedly secured the nomination for clinton,while blocking a sanders nomination.

remember laurence lessig?
well,don't feel bad if you don't,because wasserman and the DNC kept changing the rules of application so lessig couldn't even get on the primary ballot.

the DNC basically said to the sanders supporters "sanders? fuck you! you get hillary and will like it".

3.the ultra left liberals,for being so sensitive and touchy (don't get mad,you guys are way too soft skinned) that they restrict their interactions in these weird,singular echo chambers.where everybody is agreeing with each other and nobody is challenging anything,no critical examination.

so when trump won.
they damn near lost their minds in shock!
because anybody who may have shed some actual light on the situation was already blocked or on ignore.

4.the republican party,who hated trump but allowed him to fan the flames of dissent with his bombastic speeches,emotionally charged rhetoric and divisive language.

they let this go on for almost a year,and while publicly denounced trump,privately sought a way to capture his thunder.

want carson?.....nope
cruz?...nope.
kasich?..nope.

because just like the left,they too,had misjudged just how pissed off people were in regards to our political system,and their plan backfired.

5.the democratic party for allowing such a shit candidate,and just like the republicans,not fully understanding just how pissed the electorate was.

6.the corporate media,who sought solely to profit from the election by giving us all this mish mash of reality tv,wrestling and days of our lives.they didnt report the issues,they fed the drama.

and every political pundit,every pollster,every opinion news mrs mcprettyface,got it FUCKING WRONG.

7.bernie bros who stayed home in protest,but this entire election was a protest vote.

so,
yeah..a lot of mitigating factors went into trumps win.

i didn't think he was going to win but i knew it was going to close,but i sure as fuck was not surprised.i was actually laughing at loud.

would you look at that...
my fellow countrymen just hit the nuclear option.
i didn't want a trump victory..no sir..but i have to admire the audacity of my fellow citizens to hit that shiny red button.

fuck you washington!

we live in interesting times my friends.
interesting and terrifying times.

and really...what would clinton have given us?
more of the same?
more wars and regime change?
more tax breaks for the super rich while children starve and more people become homeless?

i may find my fellow americans choice horrifying,but i have to respect it.
either way kids...something is gonna change.

That's why I said IF they go along with any stupid thing HE does....also....I was clearly talking about Republicans, who are much better at being united and playing follow the leader.

Because she hired Shultz as quid quo pro for clearly "cheating" (flagrantly being biased, contrary to the conditions of the job and repeated statements to the contrary) to steal the nomination for Clinton, she's corrupt. Beyond that, you've gone into ridiculousness with your basketball analogy. There aren't ethics rules in basketball, or a duty to serve your fans ethically, or a duty to be nice to your opponent, or a way to fight over a ruling that he fouled another player....and there's instant redress for a foul.
This is just one more instance, the latest in a never ending string, showing her contempt for the rules and laws, and showing that she rewards breaking the rules if done for her benefit. That's reason for disqualification in my eyes.
You are welcome to your opinion. I strongly disagree, and your insistence that she's the best candidate, contrary to all evidence and strong public opinion, is why Trump will win. Thanks a bunch.

We wouldn't know if Bush was worse than Clinton until after her presidency. I contend you can't have a whit of an idea how she would operate, as her positions change with the wind and she'll do whatever suits her on the day she makes a decision, not the right thing, not what she said she would do yesterday.

The Democratic Party having control of both the executive and legislative branches does not mean Congress will go along with whatever the president says. Do you remember Obamacare at all? Was Obamacare what Obama wanted? No. It was a center left compromise to keep Democrats in the fold to vote for it. The Democratic Party still has a significant number of moderates within it.

Do you honestly think Obama got whatever he wanted his first two years in office with control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate? Absolutely not.

In fact, because of filibusters and polarization of the electorate, you can't get much of anything done anymore without control of the house and a supermajority in the Senate.

And the Shultz thing is hilarious to me. Clinton hired a high up skilled Democratic Party political operative for her campaign, and that means she's corrupt? Because Schultz favored a candidate who has always been a strong party candidate over another candidate who only caucused with the Democrats, and wasn't actually a Democrat himself? Yeah, she shouldn't have done what she did. Dennis Rodman shouldn't have done what he did to Scottie Pippen in the playoffs, too, when he was with Detroit. And who thought Rodman should have been brought in to help the Bulls? Pippen. Clinton is trying to win an election. If that's the kind of thing you consider as proof of actual corruption, I don't know what to tell you.

I am not voting against Trump. I am voting for the most competent, experienced candidate who I think will do the best job out of this lot of candidates. She is the only candidate who is extremely qualified.

Is she perfect? Hell, no. She isn't particularly inspiring. She's not very good as a politician at persuading people to her side. She panders too much. Sometimes she plays political games too much, like with the email fiasco.


But you can do a lot worse than Clinton. You don't have to go back far to find an inept president.

The president also has the power to sink us if his party is in control of congress and goes along with any stupid thing he does, and so does the Supreme Court (which will essentially belong to whoever is the next president).
If Clinton only worked within a broken system, she might be forgiven, but she doesn't. This latest DNC collusion fiasco is just the latest shining example of how she and her team flagrantly disregards the rules if they aren't convenient for her. She just gave Shultz a nice position in her campaign and you can bet she'll have a cabinet position if Clinton wins for blatantly rigging the primary for her, which is not the action of someone who values ethics.
Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but by someone that believes that rules and laws apply to everyone including them, not someone who's an expert at slipping through loopholes and skirting the rules if not breaking them outright then lying about it....which is either major party candidate.
IMO, Clinton is the fairly competent but corrupt one, Trump is fairly incompetent and corrupt and pathological and racist and narcissistic and just a terrible human being. I'm not certain which is more dangerous, because I can't tell what either of them will actually do in any situation beyond whatever appears to benefit them most at the time.

I, for one, am glad we don't have a two party system and I have other choices. I will only vote for someone I want to be president, and refuse to cast a vote against someone. That's what has us in this mess.

Can we all just hope that Sanders will now run as a third party candidate?
It's depressing that he's still supporting the DNC after the proof of what he's said all along came to light.
They have ensured that people who care about ethics won't vote for them...just listen to them when it's suggested....they booed it even coming directly from Sanders, their Obi Wan.
Shultz already has a job with Clinton as quid pro quo for rigging the primary for her. That's proof positive that this unethical, dishonest behavior will be the MO in her administration.
Why on earth are they so intent on throwing this election to Trump?

I would boo him saying that too. I would never under any circumstance vote for that underhanded unethical candidate. Clearly, they were booing his suggestion that they vote for Clinton, not booing Sanders himself. And so we get more misleading information coming from Clinton supporters.
Clinton is a non starter for those that find morals and ethics important. She's proven time and time again to be completely untrustworthy. Not a single 'mea culpa' or even 'I'm sorry' from them over the clearly biased disaster of a 'primary' where the DNC did everything possible to dissuade and hinder potential Sanders voters.
Clinton is also a bully and a demagogue....one that was just caught in ANOTHER scandal, this time for illicitly colluding with her cohorts in the DNC to marginalize Sanders from the onset and deny his supporters the ability to vote for him.
If you supported her from the start, believing the lies she and the DNC fed you, and continue to support her after the truth has come out, you are the problem.
She should be disqualified for what she and Wasserman Shultz did together. Instead, she's already given Wasserman Shultz a cushy job, and a promise of more if she wins.

Oh yeah, and as for the tag...most of Bernie's supporters AREN'T Democrats...something that's clearly been missed by Clinton and her supporters that expect them to vote for her. Dems aren't eating their own, Independents are walking away from Democrats, which means they lose the election.

Thanks DNC, you just elected Trump by cheating for Clinton.

More endless cranial rectosis from these idiotic Clinton (and therefore in reality Trump) supporters that would rather put her up as the nominee and lose to Trump than be honest, follow the rules, and have a fair election.

He didn't lose....there was never a contest, it was totally rigged for her in every way possible, and now we have MORE proof of that. Where's the apology from all the asshole Clinton supporters that were angrily and snidely deriding and denigrating Sanders supporters for the claim there was collusion and unfairness in the DNC? Haven't heard a single 'mea culpa' from anyone, just attempted deflection of 'The Russians did this to help Trump' but not a single 'this is really bad and unacceptable from a political party' or even a BP style "we're sorry". Fuck you braindead underhanded people. You are handing Trump the presidency with your bullshit lies and cheating.

Clinton should be disqualified for cheating, and anyone involved should be barred from politics for life. Instead, she's already given Shultz a cushy job for handing her the nomination.

My problem with Cenk is that he pretty obviously cut his teeth on talk radio. It's why I'm not too fond of Ed Shultz, either.

Everything Cenk says is just whatever his gut feeling is, and anything that contradicts his preconception is just never mentioned (when it's just him onscreen), or railroaded aside (when he's got other people around).

A lot of times I sympathize with what he's feeling. He's mad at Obama for not being a partisan progressive ideologue, he's disgusted with Republicans for being fascists, etc.

It's just that he's constantly going off half-cocked, and not really interested in reflection or discussion. At all.

I'm still watching his show on Current (or at least letting it play in the room I'm in), but it's rather quickly losing my interest. He's never covered some topic I hadn't heard about elsewhere (except for the non-political "isn't that weird" stuff Ana covers), nor does he present some fresh way of looking at an issue that I hadn't considered. He doesn't even seem to be able to condense down the liberal argument on the topic of the day in a clear, concise, resonant way, which is usually the main thing I look to get out of liberal cable TV.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?
This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.


I took that from this, starting around 0:53:

The more liberal stations some of them wouldn't dare want to talk to me because their agenda is Democratic party politics and they're not for liberty, they're just for Democratic party politics and big government. But even on those stations, you will have a few very honest people.

Which is followed by his comments about Stewart being "honest" because "when the left really messes up, he loves to go and get 'em." Because apparently it's rare that liberals ever deviate from just toeing the line on "Democratic party politics".

Because, you know, nobody like Olbermann, or Maddow, or Cenk Uygur, or Ed Shultz, or Lawrence O'Donnell, or Sam Seder, or Thom Hartmann, and nobody on blogs, or anywhere else has ever "gone after" Democrats for screwing up.

Granted, I didn't get my entire view of Ron Paul from this video alone. I've been listening to this guy off and on for years now.

I guess I know Paul best from the Campaign for Liberty e-mail list. See, way back in 2007, I used to think Paul was a different kind of Republican -- a softer, kinder, more honest sort, who would be willing to work with liberals on important issues, so I signed up for his e-mail list. Back then, the e-mail he sent out matched that first impression.

At least, they did right up until Obama became President. Ever since it's been 3 years of pure vitriol and hatred. Here's some highlights from one from earlier this year:

Fellow Patriot,

Big Government took a huge leap forward in 2010. And you and I will suffer the consequences unless we take action today.

You see, the statists look for every opportunity to gain more power over our lives – and they found another one in the ObamaCare scheme.

It is a huge step toward a full takeover of our personal medical decisions, as well as a massive tax increase and a huge loss of liberty. It will also cause further destruction to our already fragile economy.
...
Please read the email below from Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. Campaign for Liberty has a great plan to help me win this fight, but they are going to need every Patriot in our Revolution to join them.
...
[Letter from John Tate that Paul wants us to read]
Dear NetRunner,

The ObamaCare scheme is designed to do two things statists love more than anything else: vastly increase the size and power of government and give our federal masters more control over our personal business.

Power over our very lives.

It's getting harder and harder for them to conceal their true intentions - and people are waking up to it.

You and I saw the results of this in the recent elections, giving us an opportunity to take action.

Ron Paul has a plan to fight back and END THE MANDATE, but Campaign for Liberty needs your help today to get the battle really moving.

You see, the debate over nationalized health care isn't about what Congress wants to "give" Americans.

It's not even about health care at all.

It's about power.

It's about what THEY take.

It's always been about what they take.

And their "take" is staggering.

Delightful bunch of two-faced psychopaths, if you ask me.

Thanks mate, haven't heard of them but I'll go check some out now

In reply to this comment by radx:
That would be Matt Shultz of "Cage The Elephant".

That would be Matt Shultz of "Cage The Elephant".

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Duckman33:
Wonder if Cenk will get his slot.

The new lineup is supposedly:
6pm Cenk Uygur
7pm Chis Matthews (unchanged)
8pm Lawrence O'Donnell
9pm Rachel Maddow (unchanged)
10pm Ed Shultz
Which give us, as someone at Balloon Juice put it, "FDL-style nonsense at 6pm, Beltway Spazz and nonsense at 7pm, Arrogant Insiderism at 8pm, Rachel at 9pm, and Angry Dude at 10pm".
In the short run, I just wanna know about what's happening to Keith because I like the guy, but in the long run I wanna know if MSNBC intends on being a real liberal voice, or just a caricature of liberalism that the media uses to perpetuate false equivalencies with Fox.
Choosing Cenk as their backfill for Keith has me worried they're going for the latter. Give Chris Hayes or Sam Seder a show instead, bitches.


Hey. I like Cenk, or at least the stuff that gets sifted from him.

>> ^Duckman33:

Wonder if Cenk will get his slot.


The new lineup is supposedly:

6pm Cenk Uygur
7pm Chis Matthews (unchanged)
8pm Lawrence O'Donnell
9pm Rachel Maddow (unchanged)
10pm Ed Shultz

Which give us, as someone at Balloon Juice put it, "FDL-style nonsense at 6pm, Beltway Spazz and nonsense at 7pm, Arrogant Insiderism at 8pm, Rachel at 9pm, and Angry Dude at 10pm".

In the short run, I just wanna know about what's happening to Keith because I like the guy, but in the long run I wanna know if MSNBC intends on being a real liberal voice, or just a caricature of liberalism that the media uses to perpetuate false equivalencies with Fox.

Choosing Cenk as their backfill for Keith has me worried they're going for the latter. Give Chris Hayes or Sam Seder a show instead, bitches.

I know it wasn't fair. That's why I did the winky emoticon. I agree with your decision to ban him, even though it was an unpopular one (based on the number of downvotes your comment got). If I was having a party at my house and some stranger sauntered in and said "I can't wait to fuck this place up," I'd throw his ass out, even if my friends assured me he was only joking.

NOW, this guy bobknight33, from the moment he came crashing out of the gate here, started flaming by calling us dumb fucks. Not enough for a ban, IMHO. Still, for a guy with a P for "probation" next to his name, he's off to a very bad start in a community that's supposed to have discourse a few notches above 4chan. Am I wrong about that?

Like I said, I wouldn't have banned him, but I see can see where Issykitty was coming from on this. We all think we know what 'fair' is, but rarely will you find two people who look at fairness in the exact same way. That's probably why your ban of nerbula was met with so much disapproval. And that's also why I wanted to point it out for comparison, because what Issykitty thought was fair, some others obviously did not.

Don't read me the wrong way on this, amigo. I ain't looking to stir shit up. However I obviously misfired with my remark, because schmawy apparently took away the same meaning from it that you did. My apologies.



In reply to this comment by dag:
That's hardly fair - that dweeb was vowing to work at deliberately "fucking shit up" on the Sift. P is for "probation" and those intentions displayed at that level should be bannable- purely from a housekeeping standpoint. We don't want to clean up this guy's poop.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
We have no precedent for this, brother schmawy, so I'm not sure how to proceed. However I will point out this instaban, just for comparison:

http://www.videosift.com/member/nerbula#comment-796139

Can we temp ban the Emperor himself?