Related article on Democracy Now

*promote the media's obvious absolute bias against Sanders and their continuing attempt to sabotage his campaign by not covering it at all.
On the 'second super Tuesday' when it looked like he might win 2 states, I watched every channel report that Clinton won 3 states, and that's it, never once mentioning the other two states, or even saying the name "Bernie Sanders". I'm not sure how they get away with that, there's a law requiring equal coverage that's being completely ignored by all parties.
This election has been so incredibly outrageous, I've never seen such criminal actions ignored or even lauded by those claiming to love the country. Stupid know nothing cheerleaders that exaggerate their opponents flaws and ignore their own shouldn't be allowed to participate.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, March 21st, 2016 10:47am PDT - promote requested by newtboy.

Agreed, It's bad enough that politicians engage in the corruption, but the Media joining in takes it TOO FAR.

The people rely on the media to give non-bias, usable information in which to make decisions on.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when the US news media is controlled buy the same corporations that buy off the politicians.

No idea how the people of the US will stand against this - rally the public outcry, but do it soon.

When we can't even count on PBS to be in any way unbiased, we're screwed. As far as I can tell, there is NO unbiased news to be had anywhere today. It's ALL opinion, one sided 'reporting', and pure commercial posing as 'news'. Anyone calling themselves a reporter these days should be ashamed of their profession.
I fear the people wont stand against this. We're too placated by 1/2 truths that fit our narrative, and all too willing to listen to our cheerleaders and ignore the other side's cheerleaders, and not even notice than neither of them are offering facts or specifics.
We're hosed. Incredibly sadly, that means the planet is hosed, as we control so much of the planet's resources.
Where's a black plague when we need one?

This is precisely why a large part of me actually wants Trump to win.

We're way too complacent. There has been a slow, steady, gradual decline that has lulled us into apathy -- even though the state of politics and "democracy" in the US (and arguably globally as a result) is absolutely pathetic and appalling at this point.

It is looking more and more likely that the general election will be Trump vs Clinton.

First of all, that alone demonstrates just how fucked we are. Our final two choices are likely to be the two people with the highest negative opinion numbers out of all the candidates. The cream didn't rise to the top, and instead the two biggest turds managed to avoid being flushed. South Park seems oddly prophetic; we have really ended up with turd sandwich vs. giant douche. I just can't tell which is which.

Second, I notice that a LOT of people (including "establishment" Republicans) are scared shitless by the prospect of a Trump presidency. In a Trump vs Clinton election, they say that they would easily prefer to vote for Clinton -- perhaps couched with the "lesser of two evils" descriptor, but still vote for Clinton.

I agree with the idea that Clinton is the lesser of those two evils. But that, in combination with our current level of apathy, makes me MORE afraid of a Clinton presidency than a Trump one. Clinton is a slick, dirty politician. People think they are going to dodge the Trump bullet by voting for her, but she is the archetype of what got us into this situation. She tells people only what she thinks they want to hear, while doing exactly what her donors (megacorporations) want her to do whenever the camera isn't on. A Clinton presidency will keep the masses just placated enough to NOT boil over.

Meanwhile, Trump seems like enough of a perfect storm that he could actually screw things up bad enough to make the masses stand up and take notice. Maybe that kind of slap in the face is what we need.

Clinton presidency: "Fuck it."
Trump presidency: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"


In a hypothetical scenario where the general election was Trump vs Sanders, it would be much harder for me to be "pro" Trump. Because Sanders seems like maybe he's got the right mindset to change things for the better the *right* way. On the other hand, I kinda felt the same way about Obama. So, even in a Trump vs Sanders scenario, a big part of me would be "hoping" for Trump to win. Because *something* has got to snap us out of our apathy.

If I believed it would have that effect, I could support that.
Unfortunately, I don't believe Americans would ever get off our swollen asses, turn off our TVs, and actually DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE, even while our country disintegrates around us.
And even if we could manage it, we are so fractured as a society, the end result at best would be somewhere between 4 and 50 new countries, most of them with despotic leaders and draconian theocracies, and all born from a devastating civil war. There no way in hell we could manage to have a revolution that ends with a single, unified country.

In reality, what's more likely to happen if he's elected is a few large protests that get broken up violently with many protesters 'disappearing', new harsh anti-protesting laws, and President for Life Trump will become the richest man in the world while we become a third world country, bringing the world economy into the toilet with us, which is what the Economist warned against when they just listed him in the top 15 most pressing dangers to the world, ranking a Trump presidency just as dangerous to the planet as fundamentalist terrorism.

Holy crap! I just saw that the NY Times has studied TV coverage, and Trump has been given free coverage that would have cost almost $2 BILLION if he paid for the air time like other candidates have to. In fact, he's received almost exactly the same amount of free air time as ALL the airtime, both free coverage and paid air time, for ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED!
That's insane, both for the unequal treatment and the idea that this election will end up having $4 BILLION worth of TV coverage soon, with lots more to come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0

As disparate and fractured as US society is, I think that one good catastrophe could still unite us.

Politicians used 9/11 that way, and we actually did come together quite a bit. They turned that unity into terrible purposes, (unnecessary and idiotic wars, Patriot Act, torture programs, stomping on constitutional protections, mass surveillance, etc.) but a lot of stuff got done.

I'm more optimistic (if that is at all the right word) about the unifying power of a Trumptastrophe, AND optimistic about our ability to spin a reaction to a Trumptastrophe in a more positive direction than what happened after 9/11, but I can easily understand your reservations also.

Sadly, PBS reporting has been biased as long as I can recall. It's just always been the least biased reporting that takes place in our own news. Sometimes I have to go to other countries news to get an semi-objective viewpoint.

That's the price of having a free press. Free from government interference and free to print what they like.

Good journalism is rare now. But I'd rather have a free press and have to hunt to find good journalism than to have a North Korean style propaganda machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

"There are four exceptions to the equal-time rule. If the airing was within a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event, the equal-time rule does not apply. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered "news events," and as a result, are not subject to the rule. Consequently, these debates may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates. Talk shows and other regular news programming from syndicators, such as Entertainment Tonight, are also declared exempt from the rule by the FCC on a case-by-case basis."

Well, that quite effectively negates the rule.
There should be no exception/exemption, because, as Drumpf has proven clearly and incontrovertibly, it's simple and easy to game those rules and get billions worth of free coverage just by consistently saying something insane daily.
Also, the exemptions on their face negate the spirit of the law, as it clearly favors the craziest, best connected, and/or most popular candidates to the exclusion of less popular, less connected, and/or less crazy candidates. Why bother enacting the law at all if the exemptions it contains negate it thoroughly?
That sucks.

I'm thinking the way politicians abused the sentiment after 9/11 is a big part of why it would never work again. People as a group are dumb, but they can remember how our 'unity' was abused, and can see how that abuse has come back to haunt us today. That means the 'unity' is not seen as a positive, but rather as a huge negative.
I'm not optimistic about the unbrotherly, thoughtless, or panicked reactionary actions of Americans. I see us as FAR more fractured today than on 9/10, with many not just disagreeing with their other Americans, but actively hating them and wishing them harm.
I wish that was not the case, but it is how I see us today.