3 ms·

They're both corporate shills, they get away with it because they pit the population against each other. If you forcefully take yourself out of either camp it b

They're both corporate shills, they get away with it because they pit the population against each other. If you forcefully take yourself out of either camp it becomes more obvious. You've probably been programmed by one or the other camp for most of your life through family, news, friends, etc. It's the reality of modern campaigning. People don't give candidates millions of dollars because they like the cut of their suit. They expect reciprocity.

0dayz 2y ago
And there it is. Just because corporate media is supported by big business doesn't translate to the actual politicians being pro-corporations. Especially when ironically enough big donors towards democrats are almost all ultra-progressive socialist types.
- Clubber 2y ago
  Politicians are supported by big business. Any altruism from those businesses is a facade.
  - 0dayz 2y ago
    This doesn't make any sense, people are the ones who decide how will get elected and if they cross path with big donors then this won't magically make said people want to vote for the big donor candidates.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      They're all big donor candidates. That's how the system works unfortunately. Bernie was the exception and the DNC actively worked against his campaign in 2016 and 2020. The DNC also uses "superdelegates," in their primaries which allows them to put their thumb on the scale incase the people want to elect someone the party doesn't want. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sa... https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-... Superdelegates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." - Boss Tweed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed
      - 0dayz 2y ago
        Big donors in the democratic party overwhelmingly support ultra-progressive policies: https://calgara.github.io/PolS5310_Spring2021/Broockman%20&%20Malhorta%202019.pdf https://calgara.github.io/PolS5310_Spring2021/Broockman%20&%... You're talking about national elections, and even then the people will vote for whichever candidate that gets the most votes by the delegates (as Bernie and Trump showed with Trump winning the nomination 3x times, while Bernie got good numbers despite having been seen as an relatively unknown person). Even in your articles there was never any clear evidence of DNC top officials actively going about directing CNN/NBC to attack Bernie, having email leaks showing the DNC not liking Bernie and thinking of ways they could potentially push against his campaign is not the same as actively doing it. This of course is fair if you believe we should have the low bar of seeing an offhand comment as incriminating evidence (i.e. if you and I talk about someone we hope could just fall off and die and it turns out they fall off and die - we would be accused for causing said death). As an example from your second link (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2...): > Sanders ran strong and beat Clinton in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, parts of the Democratic wall she would go on to lose in November. >He trounced her among young Democratic voters, who did not show up for her the same way they did for Obama. >None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn’t have treated the process differently, but it doesn’t change the fact Clinton dominated the process from start to end. Or that Sanders, surprised by his own success, didn’t have the infrastructure to win a long campaign. >There’s also the simple fact that Sanders ran in the primary of a party to which he was proudly not technically a member. >Sanders ran a strong race, to be sure, and surprised every Democrat in the country. That’s beyond doubt. But so is the fact that, despite her flaws, Clinton didn’t need the DNC to win the nomination. You can critic the superdelegate system 100%, you can critic the DNC's not being neutral, but your claim is that they actively worked against him, despite your links not providing this crucial evidence for such an accusation & the CNN conclusion seems to highlight more that it's likely due to Sanders just not having the infrastructure and long-term cred that Clinton had.
        Clubber 2y ago
        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasse... I wonder why she resigned right before the convention. >Big donors in the democratic party overwhelmingly support ultra-progressive policies: Here's a list of DNC top donors. https://www.opensecrets.org/political-parties/DPC/2024/contributors https://www.opensecrets.org/political-parties/DPC/2024/contr... You can believe what you want.

0dayz 2y ago

And there it is. Just because corporate media is supported by big business doesn't translate to the actual politicians being pro-corporations. Especially when ironically enough big donors towards democrats are almost all ultra-progressive socialist types.

Clubber 2y ago
Politicians are supported by big business. Any altruism from those businesses is a facade.
- 0dayz 2y ago
  This doesn't make any sense, people are the ones who decide how will get elected and if they cross path with big donors then this won't magically make said people want to vote for the big donor candidates.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    They're all big donor candidates. That's how the system works unfortunately. Bernie was the exception and the DNC actively worked against his campaign in 2016 and 2020. The DNC also uses "superdelegates," in their primaries which allows them to put their thumb on the scale incase the people want to elect someone the party doesn't want. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sa... https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-... Superdelegates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." - Boss Tweed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed
    - 0dayz 2y ago
      Big donors in the democratic party overwhelmingly support ultra-progressive policies: https://calgara.github.io/PolS5310_Spring2021/Broockman%20&%20Malhorta%202019.pdf https://calgara.github.io/PolS5310_Spring2021/Broockman%20&%... You're talking about national elections, and even then the people will vote for whichever candidate that gets the most votes by the delegates (as Bernie and Trump showed with Trump winning the nomination 3x times, while Bernie got good numbers despite having been seen as an relatively unknown person). Even in your articles there was never any clear evidence of DNC top officials actively going about directing CNN/NBC to attack Bernie, having email leaks showing the DNC not liking Bernie and thinking of ways they could potentially push against his campaign is not the same as actively doing it. This of course is fair if you believe we should have the low bar of seeing an offhand comment as incriminating evidence (i.e. if you and I talk about someone we hope could just fall off and die and it turns out they fall off and die - we would be accused for causing said death). As an example from your second link (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2...): > Sanders ran strong and beat Clinton in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, parts of the Democratic wall she would go on to lose in November. >He trounced her among young Democratic voters, who did not show up for her the same way they did for Obama. >None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn’t have treated the process differently, but it doesn’t change the fact Clinton dominated the process from start to end. Or that Sanders, surprised by his own success, didn’t have the infrastructure to win a long campaign. >There’s also the simple fact that Sanders ran in the primary of a party to which he was proudly not technically a member. >Sanders ran a strong race, to be sure, and surprised every Democrat in the country. That’s beyond doubt. But so is the fact that, despite her flaws, Clinton didn’t need the DNC to win the nomination. You can critic the superdelegate system 100%, you can critic the DNC's not being neutral, but your claim is that they actively worked against him, despite your links not providing this crucial evidence for such an accusation & the CNN conclusion seems to highlight more that it's likely due to Sanders just not having the infrastructure and long-term cred that Clinton had.
      - Clubber 2y ago
        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasse... I wonder why she resigned right before the convention. >Big donors in the democratic party overwhelmingly support ultra-progressive policies: Here's a list of DNC top donors. https://www.opensecrets.org/political-parties/DPC/2024/contributors https://www.opensecrets.org/political-parties/DPC/2024/contr... You can believe what you want.