What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Sinclair Broadcast Group - Mass Propaganda (1 Viewer)

Dedfin said:
Okay, I dig that.  So you have a problem with the party that however it does, it fails to protect you.  So why don't you just have a problem with the Rs here?  Maybe you could just be frustrated that we lack a true progressive, champion of the people party?  Because if so, I 100% agree.  I'm frustrated at that too.
Click to expand...
Dems are not a labor party as is now.  I agree.  

 
Dedfin said:
Okay, I dig that.  So you have a problem with the party that however it does, it fails to protect you.  So why don't you just have a problem with the Rs here?  Maybe you could just be frustrated that we lack a true progressive, champion of the people party?  Because if so, I 100% agree.  I'm frustrated at that too.
Click to expand...
I am skeptical that he is really a Democrat or a progressive, as I don't recall anyone who identifies as either taking shots like that against both groups, while at the same time not having one negative word to say about Republicans or conservatives.

 
squistion said:
I am skeptical that he is really a Democrat or a progressive, as I don't recall anyone who identifies as either taking shots like that against both groups, while at the same time not having one negative word to say about Republicans or conservatives.
Click to expand...
I see no difference between corporate D's and R's.

 
squistion said:
I am skeptical that he is really a Democrat or a progressive, as I don't recall anyone who identifies as either taking shots like that against both groups, while at the same time not having one negative word to say about Republicans or conservatives.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with being at war, big military, corporate loop holes, loose gun laws to name a few.  But this is what Republicans are for, no use in trying to change their POV. 

Now Democrats that get elected that are for these things are much worse.

They gave away a SCJ seat without a fight, many jumped on board with bank deregulation, no fight over the military budget and didn't even fight for DACA when it had an 85% approval rating.  Why the hell are these people democrats, and why do I want them representing the working people?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IC FBGCav said:
I don't agree with being at war, big military, corporate loop holes, loose gun laws to name a few.  But this is what Republicans are for, no use in trying to change their POV. 

Now Democrats that get elected and are for these things are much worse.

They gave away a SCJ seat without a fight, many jumped on board with bank deregulation, on fight over the military budget and didn't even fight for DACA when it had an 85% approval rating.  Why the hell are these people democrats, and why do I want them representing the working people?
Click to expand...
That is not true. Senate Republicans refused to hold a confirmation hearing or a vote on Garland and was nothing Democrats or Obama could do about it. And the Democrats hands were pretty much tied with DACA too after Trump ended it.

Now I am sure you are not a Democrat nor have ever been a supporter of the Democratic Party.

 
squistion said:
That is not true. Senate Republicans refused to hold a confirmation hearing or a vote on Garland and was nothing Democrats or Obama could do about it. And the Democrats hands were pretty much tied with DACA too after Trump ended it.

Now I am sure you are not a Democrat nor have ever been a supporter of the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
Let's bet 10k.  I got proof birdman.

 
Cav has a point.  When is the last time we had a true progressive party?  1940?  I really don't know.  I do know that it does seem that unions never get properly defended by the Ds, which at least has contributed to why we are in the poopstorm we are in now.

 
squistion said:
Yeah right. And who would be dumb enough to bet $10k (or any amount of money) against some internet alias for something that can' be proven or disproven?
Click to expand...
I am known.  Met over 100 FBG's IRL including some mods.  They will prove my identity.  At least one been to my house and stayed in Vegas with another less than a year ago.  So your argument doesn't hold water.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i hope i am known here as a friendly brohan who would help out any brohan from another mothran take that to the bank bromigos 

 
If you don’t think that a lot of the DNC leadership over the years has been corporation shills then you are just as blind as Trump supporters.  Just because a large number of the Republicans do it AND are also horrible people doesn’t make it any better.  How about we elect people who aren’t huge greedy #######s.

 
squistion said:
That is not true. Senate Republicans refused to hold a confirmation hearing or a vote on Garland and was nothing Democrats or Obama could do about it. And the Democrats hands were pretty much tied with DACA too after Trump ended it.

Now I am sure you are not a Democrat nor have ever been a supporter of the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
The Dems did virtually nothing to counter the Republicans on Garland.  They should have burnt #### down.

But I think since Hillary was such a mortal lock to win, they allowed a ridiculous precedent to be set.

 
Ranethe said:
This post is pretty annoying. It reeks of "both sides" nonsense. 

Yeah, the baseline is corporate money in politics. I get that. It's why a lot of people on the left didn't care for HRC. It's why a lot of people considered her "Republican lite".

And the fact that "a large number of Republicans do it AND are also horrible people" absolutely DOES make it "better". It's illogical to say otherwise. "Good" people taking corporate money is better than "horrible" people doing the same.

It's the reality we live in and given that it is still possible to derive pro social outcomes. If you can't see that then it is you who are "blind".

This false equivalency you are making is not based on reality. Who regulates and tries to protect consumers, labor, etc? Who deregulates and protects corporations at the expense of the consumer/worker?

It's almost as if you hold separate standards and denigrate Dems for failure to achieve an ideal while at the same time lumping them with the worst of the right. It's nonsensical.
Click to expand...
The both sides “nonsense” predates the orange moron - there’s plenty of people who have been railing against Corporations and lobbyists and the like long before Trump decided to run.  There absolutely was and is a both sides argument that is valid but Trump is so historically awful that people want to pretend that all of a sudden all Democrats are pure as the driven snow.  

A lot of people would love to have Obama back (me included) but that doesn’t mean people who hoped for more from him were wrong.  Continually accepting the horrible candidates we nominated and elected is how we ended up with the worst candidate in the history of presidential politics and also the person that managed to lose to the candidate.  You can attempt to pass this off as whataboutism or whatever other stupid term you want to call it but what I find annoying is we the people continuing to elect greedy #######s - and the fact that the most greedy, narcissistic one won just highlights the road we’ve been traveling down. I’m hopeful people like Bernie are making a difference but my real fear is we manage to survive 3 more years and then elect any Democrat who will only be better by comparison to the orange idiot.

 
And my apologies - I’ve participated in a hijack.  This Sinclair story is pretty scary and should he the focus of the thread

 
Josie Maran said:
The Dems did virtually nothing to counter the Republicans on Garland.  They should have burnt #### down.

But I think since Hillary was such a mortal lock to win, they allowed a ridiculous precedent to be set.
Click to expand...
Again, there was nothing they could do under the Senate rules. They were not even allowed to hold confirmation hearings. And they were vocal about it, too, as was Obama, but the media quit covering their complaints after a few news cycles.

 
AAABatteries said:
The both sides “nonsense” predates the orange moron - there’s plenty of people who have been railing against Corporations and lobbyists and the like long before Trump decided to run.  There absolutely was and is a both sides argument that is valid but Trump is so historically awful that people want to pretend that all of a sudden all Democrats are pure as the driven snow.  

A lot of people would love to have Obama back (me included) but that doesn’t mean people who hoped for more from him were wrong.  Continually accepting the horrible candidates we nominated and elected is how we ended up with the worst candidate in the history of presidential politics and also the person that managed to lose to the candidate.  You can attempt to pass this off as whataboutism or whatever other stupid term you want to call it but what I find annoying is we the people continuing to elect greedy #######s - and the fact that the most greedy, narcissistic one won just highlights the road we’ve been traveling down. I’m hopeful people like Bernie are making a difference but my real fear is we manage to survive 3 more years and then elect any Democrat who will only be better by comparison to the orange idiot.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
AAABatteries said:
The both sides “nonsense” predates the orange moron - there’s plenty of people who have been railing against Corporations and lobbyists and the like long before Trump decided to run.  There absolutely was and is a both sides argument that is valid but Trump is so historically awful that people want to pretend that all of a sudden all Democrats are pure as the driven snow.  

A lot of people would love to have Obama back (me included) but that doesn’t mean people who hoped for more from him were wrong.  Continually accepting the horrible candidates we nominated and elected is how we ended up with the worst candidate in the history of presidential politics and also the person that managed to lose to the candidate.  You can attempt to pass this off as whataboutism or whatever other stupid term you want to call it but what I find annoying is we the people continuing to elect greedy #######s - and the fact that the most greedy, narcissistic one won just highlights the road we’ve been traveling down. I’m hopeful people like Bernie are making a difference but my real fear is we manage to survive 3 more years and then elect any Democrat who will only be better by comparison to the orange idiot.
Click to expand...
I thought I had deleted this before it was quoted, as I had decided it wasn't worth getting into. I actually agree with most of what you've said here.

I don't think there is a reasonable person in this world who has asserted "all Democrats are pure as the driven snow". That's a straw man.

There are shades of gray that are visibly distinct. Labeling each as simply "gray" does nothing but cloud issues. I have also railed against corporate influence for years, going back to when I first joined this board. But it's nonsensical to pretend there is no difference between parties. It's almost akin to letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good". 

I absolutely agree that people who hoped for more from Obama are not "wrong". I'm one of those people. He screwed up with Syria. I thought he was purely "political" over gay marriage (while understanding that it's possible the desired end was best achieved in waiting for critical mass).

This discussion has been had in other forms in other threads. It's essentially an "incrementalism" vs. "purity" argument. I'd much rather move in the right direction than stand still or regress. Understanding that "both sides do it" is simplistic, that there are party differences that move the needle one way or the other, seems self evident to me. Reducing that to "both sides" is damaging to what appears to be both our desired outcomes.

 
Ranethe said:
I thought I had deleted this before it was quoted, as I had decided it wasn't worth getting into. I actually agree with most of what you've said here.

I don't think there is a reasonable person in this world who has asserted "all Democrats are pure as the driven snow". That's a straw man.

There are shades of gray that are visibly distinct. Labeling each as simply "gray" does nothing but cloud issues. I have also railed against corporate influence for years, going back to when I first joined this board. But it's nonsensical to pretend there is no difference between parties. It's almost akin to letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good". 

I absolutely agree that people who hoped for more from Obama are not "wrong". I'm one of those people. He screwed up with Syria. I thought he was purely "political" over gay marriage (while understanding that it's possible the desired end was best achieved in waiting for critical mass).

This discussion has been had in other forms in other threads. It's essentially an "incrementalism" vs. "purity" argument. I'd much rather move in the right direction than stand still or regress. Understanding that "both sides do it" is simplistic, that there are party differences that move the needle one way or the other, seems self evident to me. Reducing that to "both sides" is damaging to what appears to be both our desired outcomes.
Click to expand...
I’ll leave you with the last word as I don’t want to continue to hijack - I think we are mostly in agreement. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

(HULK)
Literal Fake News
Replies
21
Views
818
rockaction
rockaction
Da Guru
Group of Dems and GOP want to get together to form a new "Forward" third party. Is it time?
Replies
17
Views
466
Rich Conway
R
E
Taking Politics Out of Public Schools
Replies
37
Views
882
MAC_32
MAC_32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top