PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suikoguy said:
Why don't we have special protections for Media companies then? After all, the answer may surprise you.

Oh wait
Click to expand...

When was the last time a media company got in trouble for criticizing the Government? I haven't seen it in my life time, the only time something of that nature comes up is the Government targeting specific Journalists to get their source when classified documents are leaked. And even then there are special laws in place.
 
May I just say:

I find it HILARIOUS that Bernie defends his Crime Bill vote by saying "OMG, can you imagine what people would say if I hadn't voted for the bill that contained the Violence Against Women Act!" but then he acts all high and mighty when he doesn't vote for TARP because BIG BAD BANKS BOO!

Girl please. It's the five Gs. Good God Girl Get a Grip .
 
Suikoguy said:
Why don't we have special protections for Media companies then? After all, the answer may surprise you.

Oh wait
Click to expand...
Didn't Reagan pushed for a bill that made it so that the media could basically transmit whatever bullshit lies they wanted or something?

adam387 said:
May I just say:

I find it HILARIOUS that Bernie defends his Crime Bill vote by saying "OMG, can you imagine what people would say if I hadn't voted for the bill that contained the Violence Against Women Act!" but then he acts all high and mighty when he doesn't vote for TARP because BIG BAD BANKS BOO!

Girl please. It's the five Gs. Good God Girl Get a Grip .
Click to expand...
Hilarious? Really?

I may have it wrong here but wasn't the auto bill a separate bill before it got merged to the Wall Street one? Even if it wasn't, it just means he was just too largely opposed to bailing out Wall Street. Which i disagree with the core idea because it would've tanked the economy even harder but at the same time the no interest rate was too lenient and ended up benefitting the banks more so than the people.
 
neurosisxeno said:
When was the last time a media company got in trouble for criticizing the Government? I haven't seen it in my life time, the only time something of that nature comes up is the Government targeting specific Journalists to get their source when classified documents are leaked. And even then there are special laws in place.
Click to expand...

But if we don't have special laws for Media companies, then people may sue them for effecting their children, or pushing someone over the edge to suicide over a cruel joke.

We obviously need to pass a Media version of the gun bill just to be safe.

You don't see the issue with your line of reasoning do you yet?
 
adam387 said:
So here's the thing.

Hillary is a smart woman. Very smart. She has smart people working for her. Mook is smart. And if not, he's a hot enough gay to go get some smart people.

WHY IN THE HELL have they not come up with a better answer to the transcript question? It's not going to fucking go away. HOW!? Something. Anything is better than just rambling on and on about "When everyone does it...." At this point, anything else would be preferable. Just...pick something. Anything. Please.
Click to expand...

Thing is I don't think there is a better answer. They want her to release the transcripts. She says no. They can imply there is something there. She says there isn't. It goes around and around. It's pointless to even keep talking about it because it's not going to happen and it's been presented in such a way that people really don't care about it. That's even assuming they did in the first place which I don't think they did.

A better response isn't even to address that but instead move quicker and harder to him on the idea that just because you get donations from an industry that you won't go after them. She's using Obama as her example and she should keep that up. She should find other examples. Continue to demand he provide her with an example of her being bought. He had no answer to that tonight and he won't going forward. Same for republicans if they decide to walk down this path but they likely won't.
 
Boney said:
Didn't Reagan pushed for a bill that made it so that the media could basically transmit whatever bullshit lies they wanted or something?
Click to expand...

He did repeal the Fairness Doctrine, which meant that media companies didn't have to give Equal Time.

Hilarious? Really?

I may have it wrong here but wasn't the auto bill a separate bill before it got merged to the Wall Street one? Even if it wasn't, it just means he was just too largely opposed to bailing out Wall Street. Which i disagree with the core idea because it would've tanked the economy even harder but at the same time the no interest rate was too lenient and ended up benefitting the banks more so than the people.
Click to expand...

In other words, compromise is OK if it means black people going to jail, but you must stand up to anything that gives banks money.
 
Suikoguy said:
But if we don't have special laws for Media companies, then people may sue them for effecting their children, or pushing someone over the edge to suicide over a cruel joke.

We obviously need to pass a Media version of the gun bill just to be safe.

You don't see the issue with your line of reasoning do you yet?
Click to expand...

People already do that stupid shit, that's where the FCC comes in (I suppose they are analogous to the ATF in this scenario). You're essentially arguing that you think people should be able to sue Fox\WB\Universal for publishing violent\racy films because it could adversely affect their children--the same kind of thing people laugh about on this very board when the idea is applied to Video Games.
 
Darren Sands ✔ ‎@darrensands "Clinton has consistently supported the Fight for $15," #FightFor15 spox says in email. Adds they're grateful for both candidates' support.
Click to expand...
MG]
 
Effect said:
Thing is I don't think there is a better answer. They want her to release the transcripts. She says no. They can imply there is something there. She says there isn't. It goes around and around. It's pointless to even keep talking about it because it's not going to happen and it's been presented in such a way that people really don't care about it. That's even assuming they did in the first place which I don't think they did.

A better response isn't even to address that but instead move quicker and harder to him on the idea that just because you get donations from an industry that you won't go after them. She's using Obama as her example and she should keep that up. She should find other examples. Continue to demand he provide her with an example of her being bought. He had no answer to that tonight and he won't going forward. Same for republicans if they decide to walk down this path but they likely won't.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The only good response I can come up with turns it into an attack against him. I get that she doesn't want to do that.

I'd simply say "I gave speeches to the ASPCA, but that doesn't make me a cat. I talked about America's role in the world, about how we can build public/private partnerships to solve our issues, and blah blah blah. That's what I talked about, Senator."

If he wants to slam her after that, he'd have to actually call her a liar. But, I get why they just want to let it go.
 
neurosisxeno said:
People already do that stupid shit, that's where the FCC comes in (I suppose they are analogous to the ATF in this scenario). You're essentially arguing that you think people should be able to sue Fox\WB\Universal for publishing violent\racy films because it could adversely affect their children--the same kind of thing people laugh about on this very board when the idea is applied to Video Games.
Click to expand...

The first amendment would be more than enough to defend against those suits though.

metalslimer said:
Saying you got an F from the NRA is also a soundbite that will play a billion times on tv this fall.
Click to expand...

That'd probably win her votes in certain places.
 
neurosisxeno said:
People already do that stupid shit, that's where the FCC comes in (I suppose they are analogous to the ATF in this scenario). You're essentially arguing that you think people should be able to sue Fox\WB\Universal for publishing violent\racy films because it could adversely affect their children--the same kind of thing people laugh about on this very board when the idea is applied to Video Games.
Click to expand...

Why can't they sue them right now for reasons such as that? There are no special protections for Media companies?
If they are suing them, are they winning?

What makes gun companies need extra protections when common law already protects them against most everything but their own negligence or failure of due diligence?
 
Ironically, the Binders comment is something that can be done to help combat innate bias, give women applicants a second look. The problem is Romney would never admit to such a bias, and brought it up in one of the worst possible ways.
 
Suikoguy said:
Why can't they sue them right now for reasons such as that? There are no special protections for Media companies?
If they are suing them, are they winning?

What makes gun companies need extra protections when common law already protects them against most everything but their own negligence?
Click to expand...

Because we're not talking about their negligence. Hillary is using Sandy Hook as an example of why Gun Manufacturers need to be accountable. What could they have done--short of not manufacturing guns--that would have made any difference? The guns were from 4 different manufacturers, and 2 of them were variations of weapons used by Police Officers, but thousands of them are out there, and the guns themselves aren't the issue, and especially weren't the issue at Sandy Hook.
 
neurosisxeno said:
Because we're not talking about their negligence. Hillary is using Sandy Hook as an example of why Gun Manufacturers need to be accountable. What could they have done--short of not manufacturing guns--that would have made any difference? The guns were from 4 different manufacturers, and 2 of them were variations of weapons used by Police Officers, but thousands of them are out there, and the guns themselves aren't the issue, and especially weren't the issue at Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...

Those fingerprint locks could have prevented the entire thing. If only the gun's owner could have shot them then the shooting could never have happened.

So yea, had the gun manufacturers used modern safety technology they could have prevented it. They could prevent shootings going forward.

Or are you going to ignore this post like the last 4 times I've made it?
 
neurosisxeno said:
Because we're not talking about their negligence. Hillary is using Sandy Hook as an example of why Gun Manufacturers need to be accountable. What could they have done--short of not manufacturing guns--that would have made any difference? The guns were from 4 different manufacturers, and 2 of them were variations of weapons used by Police Officers, but thousands of them are out there, and the guns themselves aren't the issue, and especially weren't the issue at Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...

They are currently suing over their marketing.
Even under regular law they can't sue a gun maker for the simple act of making a gun.

My point is, the law as it stands, offers plenty of protection, and adding more barriers to that makes legitimate lawsuits not even pass summary judgement.
 
I think this was the last debate. I know there is technically one left from the February agreement, but there is no way Hillary's side agree to another one. She wins NY and next week and it's finish.

She will pivot to the GE even if Bernie wants to go the whole way.
 
Macho Madness said:
But wait OHIO VOTING MACHINES ARE GOING TO RIG IT FOR ROMNEY AHHHHHHHHHNDREA WHATS THE LATEST ON THE EMAILS
Click to expand...

That's never going to get old.

Oh, and I wish Sanders supporters put energy into requiring a paper trail for voting. That's a much bigger vector for fraud than most other other oft repeated bullshit.
 
Trancos said:
I think this was the last debate. I know there is technically one left from the February agreement, but there is no way Hillary's side agree to another one. She wins NY and next week and it's finish.

She will pivot to the GE even if Bernie wants to go the whole way.
Click to expand...
If she wins NY by like +15-20 and then does well on the 26th (which is expected) then Bernie is all but mathematically eliminated. He will have no argument.

But he'll go on anyway because lolnothingmatters
 
I still think Cruz would be an easier race for Clinton.
Dude is not going to moderate at all. But saving him for 2020 is best.
 
Suikoguy said:
I still think Cruz would be an easier race for Clinton.
Dude is not going to moderate at all. But saving him for 2020 is best.
Click to expand...

I think the Clinton campaign sums it up nicely. Trump will be an easy win, but will hurl everything possible at Clinton and her family. It will be super painful for them to live through, but she'll easily take the Presidency. Cruz will be closer and will help down ballot races, but will run a cleaner and more traditional campaign. If we are lucky enough to get Trump this year, the Hilldawg will get to run against both candidates eventually.
 
Macho Madness said:
If she wins NY by like +15-20 and then does well on the 26th (which is expected) then Bernie is all but mathematically eliminated. He will have no argument.

But he'll go on anyway because lolnothingmatters
Click to expand...

He will need something like ~65% in all May / June contests, that's including California. That's is not even considering that he will probably lose PR, GUAM, DC and NJ (probably NM too) which only makes the margin needed even bigger.

If you just assume that they tie 50-50 in PR, GUAM and DC and Bernie wins all the rest by 66%, he needs 68% in California.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
The Technomancer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
Good New Music?
2
2K
bitbydeath replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country
386 387 388 389 390
19K
2M
Magni replied
Top Bottom