Oh, I've been pretty clear about their agenda... Make Money! LOL
I know that's not what you mean but I really don't believe commercial media is driven by a political agenda and people don't "make excuses" for things they don't believe in.

I'm not saying media doesn't impart political influence - of course it does, but that doesn't make it a motive. I think more times than not, the bias that people detect in the media stream is more a matter of marketing than politics... For instance, Fox News has a niche market... right-leaning, conservatives. Is their right-wing conservative bias driven by political motive or by customizing their product to suit their target audience?

Or, the more dramatic example - those kids (adolescent to 20's) in the Balkans that were setting up web sites that would essentially syndicate right-wing political content. They had references that told them what categories attracted the most traffic and they would target those categories, pull in the content, attract right-wing readers in the U.S., route that traffic through Google AdSense and make money. The effect was this wave of right wing influence on the American social media culture. The irony... now dig this... The irony is that these kids didn't even speak English! They just knew how to make money by running hot streams through click-bait traps. The only reason why THAT content and not liberal content is that liberal content, apparently doesn't attract as many clicks. Right-wing, Alex Jones kind of stuff pulls more clicks than any other category... (I know the second is health articles, but I don't remember the rest).

This is why my position on Mueller's investigation has always been different. (Not that people notice things when they're outside the box) but I was never sold on the idea that Moscow had any design on our elections in 2016. I think the agencies can trace back to servers in Russia and see what kind of content is coming out and deduce from that a political scheme, it's basically what you are doing with MSM. But I suspect those servers were run by Russian geeks like those kids in the Balkans and Putin has nothing to do with it, much less Trump.

I think if anyone is to blame for the flood of right-wing content in social media coming from Russia, it's us Americans that keep clicking. That being said, I think it's likely Putin *is* playing a part in so far as letting it happen knowing that pouring extremist content (left OR right) into a country can lead to instability.


I'll try to make the effort.

:)

Well, thank you for the compliment Linda. Try to understand I was only joking around with the fact that you used the past tense... You didn't say "I consider you intelligent", you said "I considered you intelligent."

See the difference? NOW do you see what I was giggling at?

You said (and I quote)...
"~~this is a manufactured lying media red flag hyper bowl..The intent is to take the economy so that Trumps numbers go by the wayside during this election year. "

That's pretty specific Linda.

Yes, you have posed some questions (why does the media not report the number of survivors?) and observations (we have virus outbreaks every year). I answered that question and the observation is far from conclusive. (Just because we have virus outbreaks every year doesn't mean they will all be the same).

So yes, unanswered questions - I'm with you on that... But how do you get from there to such a strong accusation about a plan to destroy the economy just to hurt Trump's chances in the elections? Why is EVERYTHING related to Trump's re-election? The impeachment, the virus outbreak... It just seems that every time something happens that challenges Trump in any way you folks are blasting the left for trying to screw with his 2020 campaign?


See, this is where I catch you guys... My answer to your question about no reference to survivors was this....

"I think you're putting too much stock in commercial media which is primarily concerned with selling stories."

I have stated countless times in various threads, that commercial media is driven by sales, which means they will leave out any story that they don't think will sell or in the case of commentary, they might even speculate in a way that will grab the attention of readers and viewers.

And you're telling me that I have an "unwavering" faith in "ever so truthful media"?

No offense, but the words themselves actually proves without question, that your assessment of my thinking is... let's just say a wee bit off the mark ;)

I hope one day you will see me for what I am saying instead of assuming what I'm saying based on what "side" you think I'm on.

Who is "they"? If you mean the media, I don't find it strange at all because references to all the people who have survived the virus makes a boring story. On the other hand, the CDC HAS made references to the survivors because they are suspecting the virus could be biphasic (meaning the symptoms could recur).


see my previous answer.


Well, I think you're putting too much stock in commercial media which is primarily concerned with selling stories. They are certainly not "involved". You won't find the the media anywhere in the crisis management chain of command. In our country the CDC is the official government agency for dealing with these situations. So you should be able to go there for your updates.

Unfortunately, the CDC is under the Trump Administration which has an unprecedented history of suppressing information in the various agencies such as NASA and the EPA (something I've already posted about), so we hope he isn't telling the CDC to downplay the situation to save the stock market. After all he HAS already lashed out at the media with that very concern.


Yup... funny how it rebounded right after Biden won Super Tuesday. Sign of hope? LOL. I'm joking, the stock market is driven by everything AND nothing. When the SEC reports transactions they don't include "reasons" for the trade. One thing we DO know for sure is that ANY time the market dives it creates opportunities to buy low which sends it back up. When the Apocalypse comes you can bet the market will fluctuate up and down until the very end.


Are you referring to the downfall in the stock market? If so I don't think there's been any effect. If the economy was led by the fickle stock market we would never know what stability means. But putting the idiot clowns on Wall Street aside, the virus is having a very real impact on the global economy. China's industries are hit hard and that affects supply chains all around the world. In fact China's industry has more impact on our own economy than the stock market will ever have.


"considered"? LOL


I always think for myself Linda. ;)

So anyway, I want to get back to my question... "Why obscure the facts with conspiracy theories if you really don't know for sure that the virus is hyperbole?"...

It doesn't really seem like you KNOW the excitement over the virus is overstated. You just kind of think it might be, based on the fact that we get virus outbreaks every year and on the lack of reporting on those who survive it, right?

So, what's with the conspiracy theory that takes it 50 steps further buy insisting the "scare" is a design to screw with Trump's numbers? I don't see anything in your response to support that.

Here's how it adds up to me...

1. There are reports of a virus outbreak in locations all around the world.
2. The stock market took a dive because the reports are giving investors the jitters.

That's really all I know, which isn't much. I'm pretty sure it's all ANY of us knows... I could make assumptions around that the way you are but it just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I mean, why obscure the facts with conspiracy theories if you really don't know for sure that the virus is hyperbole?

LOL - Still?

Don't you get tired of the same old conspiracy theories? It's like endless reruns of "All in the Family" LOL!

Why?


Unless he didn't realize there were millions of "answers" - which he obviously didn't.


I think my little grammar lesson proves where the faulty perception is. ;)

Look, I don't have a lot of time for these childish tit-tats... If you don't want to believe that political parties change over time then don't. It's no skin off my nose. I'm quite accustomed to white-knuckle deniers. I just don't know why you folks get so uptight about it. Is it because you resent the suggestion that racists gravitate to the Republican party and somehow believing that Democrats are just as bad makes it more bearable? Does the Big Switch get in the way of that illusion?

Well, first of all maxi already mentioned Strom Thurmond, but if you want a smiley face for that, here it is... :)

Now, let me return your favor and help you with your abysmal reading comprehension. The question you answered is "name a defector". But that isn't what Max asked... He asked "name THE defector(s)". That literally means name ALL of them, not just one.

So... you wanna try again?

Before you do, let me ask you something else that seems to have escaped both of you... The Big Switch wasn't limited to politicians, it involves the citizens, of which there were millions. Now do you see how ridiculous that question is? When I said it was a rhetorical question I was giving Max the benefit of my doubt that anyone can be lame enough to really expect someone to list off millions of private voters.

Well... I'm not sure that there's much more to add to that answer. Pills are essentially vehicles for the drug. The actual dosage is usually too small for human hands to handle. So, the drugs are "carried" by other substances that are rated according to how clean they are (clean = no side effects).

That being said, I agree with point you're making and there are other examples where the difference is far more than a what a carrier substance can account for. Sadly, it's the desperation of the patient that drives the price in far too many cases, especially when the government extends copyright laws to give Big Pharma effective monopolies, where patients have no options.

LOL - I didn't even TRY to answer that question because I knew it was rhetorical. But I think there might be a call for YOUR talent at Fox News. They are always looking for people who can translate "I have a dream..." into "I hate white people..." ;)

I'm not sure what your point is max. So, he said the N-word... OK. And why do you assume that LBJ is my hero? Did I say he is? All I remember saying is that his "Great Society" program drove a lot of racists out of the Democratic Party. Why anyone would assume that makes him Mr Rogers is beyond me.


It happened at exactly 6:15 PM EST on October 10 1964. All the legislators in Congress stood up in unison and swapped sides. Then they all wrote their names down on a piece of paper so that people years from then would know that they did it. LOL... Seriously bro - ask a silly question, I'll give you a silly answer.

Seriously though, these things take time - they don't happen overnight. It's more of a gradual morphing than an "event". In fact, political parties are ALWAYS in flux which is why people should NEVER get hung up on identity politics the way that you seem to be.

The switch we are talking about here (because there have been several) is the most recent and often referred to as the "Big Switch" and some historians take it all the way back to FDR. Here's why... Prior to FDR the Democratic Party was the party of small-government (after all, Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party was a strong anti-Federalist.) When Lincoln founded the Republican Party almost a century later, it was the party of big-government. Obviously, that changed.

FDR changed the Democratic Party by favoring big government solutions and of course he was able to gain populist support for this because times were rough and people were desperate. But the diehard traditionalists were already starting to feel misrepresented.

This process continued over the years and by the time LBJ came along, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pretty much the last straw for many frustrated racists... But it didn't stop there either...

Voters have been switching parties to realign themselves with their "values" ever since. Everytime a party take a step in a new direction voters jump ship. Some analysts suggest the switch wasn't complete until the 2000 presidential election.

But you don't have to search through history books to find this dynamic... Like I said it's constantly happening. I've seen some drastic changes just within the last 30 years. Under Reagan the GOP was the party of free-trade (as in no government intervention). Reagan and his allies would NEVER dream of using tariffs to regulate trade and tax consumers and yet today we have a Republican president slapping tariffs on imports like they're fun stickers. 180' opposite to Reagan. Heck, Obama is more like Reagan than Trump is.

So if you're looking for a list of names or a specific event, then no, you won't find it. To see it is a matter of just understanding how political parties work.


Again, not a sudden thing... but I would say the Big Switch had a lot to do with it. But if I were to give you one answer I would say it's when the Democratic ranks started to include black legislators.

Google "blacks in Congress" and you will see what I mean. From 1870 to 1929, there were 21 black representatives... ALL of them Republican.

From 1929 to 1991 there were 41 black representatives... ALL of them Democratic. (I'm sure seeing black Democrats in Congress was enough to drive some of those Dixiecrats out).

Sometimes the answers to your questions are right there in very simple historical records. If one party has black representatives and the other one doesn't, which party do YOU think will be white knight for the black community?

BTW, from 1991 to 2020 there have been 6 black representatives elected to the House as Republicans and 79 black representatives elected to the House as Democrats. And yet, you have to ask how the Democrats became the white knight of the black community? Have you considered for one moment that maybe the knights helping the black community aren't white after all?

LOL - look for the pool halls closer to the corporate buildings of Big Pharma ;)

Interesting... I'll bookmark that one.

Yeah, Medicare Advantage - another product of the insurance industry that sustains itself on fooling consumers with super-complicated hocus-pocus.

I have two cousins that live in England and when they came out to visit a few years ago they were flabbergasted with how complex (and expensive) the American healthcare system is. I explained to them how complexity creates opportunities for insurance companies to make money in a country where EVERYTHING is a business first.

Me: "Look, see? Here's a bill where the provider charged this amount and the insurance company haggled to bring that amount down to this amount - then THIS amount is the part of that second amount that the insurance company agreed to pay, leaving me with THIS amount, which I have to pay. I saved some money by using a doctor that has a contract with the insurance company, I would have paid a lot more for the doctor I actually wanted.

cousin 1: "A bill?"

Me: "yeah... well, ONE of them... I will probably get more bills from the labs and stuff, we really don't know how much it will cost in the end until we get the rest of the bills, which could be months from now.

cousin 2" :Yeah, we don't do that. If we get sick we see a doctor, they fix us and that's pretty much it."

Me: "huh. Yeah, that would be nice. Unfortunately this is a country of suckers and too many of them are convinced that you guys are imprisoned in gulags because you have social medicine."

both cousins : "Ha, ha, ha, ha! HA, HA HA HA!!!"

Me: "yeah, funnier when you're not stuck with them."

I don't trust Big Pharma either. I've done BI work for several of those companies and it really opened my eyes to what they think is important. The only departments that even think about the patients are the marketing departments looking for warm fuzzies to help sell their product.

But I used to shoot pool with some of their sales reps and I have to say, those model-type girls with heels as high as their sales quotas probably have a LOT to do with the sales figures. LOL