Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not voting for Hilary or Trump, so don't waste your time turning this thread into a "which candidate is more unfit" debate. However, sitting back and observing this election objectively, it appears Republican/Conservatives have become exactly what they claim liberals to be: people who attribute their problems to victimization and want some type of intervention to help to them instead of using self-reliance. Conservatives have completely lost the marketing and messaging "war" this election cycle and don't have the infrastructure (more conservative media outlets), the funding (for more ad campaigns), or the competence (nominating someone who doesn't constantly commit unforced errors) to compete with the liberal campaign and media machine. Instead of banding together with their media connections and financial resources to counter-message or even develop more of their own media outlets, they simple whine, continuously, that they are being treated unfairly by liberal media. If the liberals have dominance over media and messaging, who's fault is that? By whining about it, aren't you just conceding that you have lost this "battle" of marketing and messaging? Are conservatives really that much less competent and well-funded to compete with liberals?
Righties complain about liberal media bias but then boast about the ratings of right-wing talk-radio, and that FOX News has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, and beats network news.
What if we applied this logic to race or the sexes? Could we then say that blacks just can't compete with whites or than woman just can't compete with men?
Please don't feed the delusion. The right has a real problem with accountability. Mainstream news sources are always biased against them. They either didn't say it, didn't mean it, or didn't do it. It doesn't matter what you have on film, in print, or personally witnessed. It didn't happen. If you claim it did, your biased. In other words, they will believe a conspiracy with absolutely no proof and countless investigations. They will not believe what they see, hear, or actually witness.
It boils down to being weak. Many of them hate the PC "race" card as an excuse for bad behavior. They have no qualms dismissing any negative press against them as bias. If you can't accept and learn from your mistakes, you are a very weak person. Essentially, they hide behind a false claim of bias because they can't face the truth and admit a mistake. It makes them weak and incompetent, but it has nothing to do with media bias. It's solely their problem.
Please don't feed the delusion. The right has a real problem with accountability. Mainstream news sources are always biased against them. They either didn't say it, didn't mean it, or didn't do it. It doesn't matter what you have on film, in print, or personally witnessed. It didn't happen. If you claim it did, your biased. In other words, they will believe a conspiracy with absolutely no proof and countless investigations. They will not believe what they see, hear, or actually witness.
Doesn't the other side use the same argument against Fox?
There is nothing liberal about 6 huge billion dollar corporations owning 90% of all newspapers, radio stations and TV networks in America. New Dealers like Bernie Sanders who actually threaten their power and profits they gain at the expense of democracy are treated with utter contempt and ridicule. The media is far right when it comes to economic issues and left when it comes to social issues.
Doesn't the other side use the same argument against Fox?
No. Fox is like MSNBC. I watch both. I concede MSNBC has a liberal bent. They don't hide it. I watch understanding that fact. I enjoy some of the commentary, but I know they skew to my view. I seek other sources. Fox presents as "fair and balanced". They have a conservative bent. Often, they chase conspiracies down the rabbit hole. I also understand this fact; therefore, FOX and Breitbart are not considered reputable. If I link a story, I avoid all three of these outlets.
That is a stark difference between what you see going on here. Conservatives swear that every paper and channel is biased against them. They aren't. They are just reporting.
That is a stark difference between what you see going on here. Conservatives swear that every paper and channel is biased against them. They aren't. They are just reporting.
It's not possible to be "just reporting" on issues that can make one candidate look worse than the other?
You mean Fox News?
Rush Limbaugh?
Michael Medved?
Trinity Broadcast System?
Wall Street Journal?
Michael Savage?
Forbes Magazine?
The American Spectator?
Mark Levin?
Dennis Prager?
The National Review?
Town Hall?
The Christian Science Monitor?
The Houston Chronicle?
EWTN?
Salt Lake City Tribune?
The Washington Times?
The Drudge Report?
I think you are looking for someone to blame because Donald is way down in the polls.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
