2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GoIrish41]

None of those people are journalists, nor do they pretend to be. The problem is not personalities having opinions, because that's their job. The problem comes from political activists disguising themselves as journalists. See Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos.

Sadly, they ARE journalists, with all the degrees and jobs to prove it. At least they are what journalism has become. The problem is that it isn't supposed to be their job to have opinions. Back in the day nobody on television news shows shared their opinions about news, and if they did, that was news in and of itself. Edward R. Murrow famously called out McCarthy for his lists, and brought that shameful practice crashing to the ground. Today, every TV "journalist" tries to do what Murrow did, but they try to do it every night during every minute of their programs. For the most part, journalists are supposed to report what is happening objectively, without slanting the news with what they think. Today, there are little more than spin doctors. Therefore their readers, viewers and listeners don't have the opportunity to just take it in and make up their own minds. There is litterally almost no place on television and few places left who produce written news that is not filtered through a political ideology before it is presented to the consumer. Consumers pick which arguments they like best and go with it to the exclusion of all other perspectives.

 

[wizards8507]

Sadly, they ARE journalists, with all the degrees and jobs to prove it. At least they are what journalism has become. The problem is that it isn't supposed to be their job to have opinions. Nobody in television news shows shared their opinions about news, and if they did, that was news in and of itself. Edward R. Murrow famously called out McCarthy for his lists, and brought that shameful practice crashing to the ground. But, for the most part, journalists are supposed to report what is happening objectively, without slanting the news with what they think. Today, there are little more than spin doctors. Therefore their readers, viewers and listeners don't have the opportunity to just take it in and make up their own minds. There is litterally almost no place on television and few places left who produce written news that is not filtered through a political ideology before it is presented to the consumer. Consumers, pick which arguments they like best and go with it to the exclusion of all other perspectives.

I'm sorry, that's completely wrong. "The O'Reilly Factor" isn't billed as "Bill reads the news and that's it." It's billed as "Bill tells you what he thinks about shit." He's not a newsman. It doesn't make a goddamn difference what degrees he has. If you have a bachelor's degree in accounting and your CPA license but you decide to open a restaurant and cook food, your job is not "accountant," it's "executive chef."

 

[woolybug25]

I'm sorry, that's completely wrong. "The O'Reilly Factor" isn't billed as "Bill reads the news and that's it." It's billed as "Bill tells you what he thinks about shit." He's not a newsman. It doesn't make a goddamn difference what degrees he has. If you have a bachelor's degree in accounting and your CPA license but you decide to open a restaurant, your job is not "accountant," it's "executive chef."

Well... Technically... He's not the executive chef unless he cooks the food...

 

[ACamp1900]

Well... Technically... He's not the executive chef unless he cooks the food...

What food would this guy be cooking??

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm sorry, that's completely wrong. "The O'Reilly Factor" isn't billed as "Bill reads the news and that's it." It's billed as "Bill tells you what he thinks about shit." He's not a newsman. It doesn't make a goddamn difference what degrees he has. If you have a bachelor's degree in accounting and your CPA license but you decide to open a restaurant, your job is not "accountant," it's "executive chef."

Yes, but that CPA licenced restauranteur does not serve Chilean sea bass (that's for you, ACamp) and keep people from having access to accounting services. What journalism (and journalists) have become replaced what journalism (and journalists) used to be. O'Reilly's "no spin zone" is billed as an unvarnished look at issues in the news, without the spin. It is anything but that. It is pure partisan BS veiled as raw news on the "FoxNews" network.

 

[woolybug25]

What food would this guy be cooking??

Hey, I'll tell you what. You can get a good look at a butcher's ass by sticking your head up there. But, wouldn't you rather to take his word for it?

 

[kmoose]

There have always been guys who have done segments on news programs that were opinion-based; Paul Harvey and Andy Rooney come to mind. The problem is that those guys were really popular, and along came Rush Limbaugh whose popularity skyrocketed and he started getting rich. That's when news anchors started trying to emulate the "op-ed" guys, to try to increase their own value. Since no one "checked" these anchors, it just kind of became "the way it was". GoIrish is right........... that's what being a journalist has become. But it shouldn't be.

 

[GATTACA!]

I had actually written Anderson Cooper as my favorite and then decided to delete that part of the post. Baier's panels are just so unbalanced, it's hard for me to watch very often. But he seems like he might be okay.

I personally think everyone pales in comparison to PBS.

I think Cooper is really good, I've liked him ever since he was the host of The Mole! That show rocked.

The other one I like, that I'm sure someone will explain why I'm wrong about, is Neil Cavuto. He seems like the most intelligent anchor out there.

 

[ACamp1900]

I prefer the Univision and Telemundo girls... they know their stuff boy!!

 

[GATTACA!]

Hillary Gave A Clinton Foundation Donor (With ZERO Experience) A Seat Among Nuclear Scientists on Sensitive Intelligence Board.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

 

[connor_in]

 

[woolybug25]

Oh my... That is definitely not for the poors...

 

[GATTACA!]

Oh my... That is definitely not for the poors...

The version for the poors would be bisquick with fruity puffed rice

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't know what MSLSD is, and I don't watch much TV, period. Game of Thrones is often the only show I'll watch all week. And again, I know how you think government should be. Nobody agrees with you -- at least nobody who can do anything to make the government work like you want it to. That's why there are so few people talking about the 18 enumerated powers, and few politicians who want to make that the centerpiece of their vision for the country.

Oh? Ok...based on what? And you again dodged my question about who's going to step in and take care of our poor when the fed programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and ACA go belly up.

These aren't scare tactics from conservatives. Those numbers/ predictions come from the CBO.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Is MSLSD something you intend as a kind of insult?

Talking about all the government programs collapsing makes you sound like all the stupid simpletons that have been claiming that for generations. Hey, are you directly related to them?

Because I know that the founding fathers sat around discussing the perfect number of enumerated powers. (You know they didn't specify, clarify, fill in, or otherwise enumerate a whole bunch of shit because they knew that they couldn't design the plan for all ages. That The Constitution, to meet the needs of the American people would need to change and grow with the times and the nation's expansion.)

Funny, how some of the most unimaginative people today, want to attribute that same quality to the founding fathers; when the founding fathers were wise and strong enough to admit they didn't have all of the answers, only a pretty damned good start!

As I mentioned to GoIrish41, those government programs are going to collapse. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office tell us this, and ACA is just the beginning. Our Founding Fathers couldn't predict what challenges lie ahead, but they all agreed on the principle of a limited central government.

I'll repeat: maybe we need amendments, maybe we need a convention of states, etc. Why not? But until then...the federal government getting involved in arenas they absolutely do NOT belong because "social justice" or whatever "liberal fluff term you want" is garbage.

 

[EddytoNow]

I'm sorry, that's completely wrong. "The O'Reilly Factor" isn't billed as "Bill reads the news and that's it." It's billed as "Bill tells you what he thinks about shit." He's not a newsman. It doesn't make a goddamn difference what degrees he has. If you have a bachelor's degree in accounting and your CPA license but you decide to open a restaurant and cook food, your job is not "accountant," it's "executive chef."

No it's not. It's billed as the "No Spin Zone" as in straight talk without the partisan agenda. Unfortunately, what it's billed as and what it really is are far different. In fact, they're polar opposites.

 

[GATTACA!]

FBI criminal investigation emails: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

Best comment from this articles reddit thread...

Remember folks, she did all this for the sole purpose of shielding herself from future FOIA requests and/or Congressional investigations. Hillary Clinton knowingly compromised national security and the records integrity of the State Department for personal gain.
If you think that isn't a big deal, I dunno what the fuck to tell you.
If you think it's bad but Trump is worse, I can at least understand, just please stop acting like this is nothing.

 

[yankeehater]

Amazing that every news outlet is running the Trump U story, but none are discussing this. Another Clinton scandal using tax payer dollars to benefit themselves and screw over others.

Clinton U: Here's the Other Multimillion-Dollar Fraud Scandal the Media Isn't Telling You About - Guy Benson

 

[Buster Bluth]

Oh? Ok...based on what? And you again dodged my question about who's going to step in and take care of our poor when the fed programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and ACA go belly up.

These aren't scare tactics from conservatives. Those numbers/ predictions come from the CBO.

...it's almost like the only long-term threat to the nation's finances is that we spend way too much money on health care for a pathetically sick population.

Wake me up when conservatives have any decent ideas on combating health costs. The sort of ideas that have been tried and tested elsewhere in the world, where they have lower health care costs and aren't seeing this sort of spending eat away (ha! Obesity pun) at their government and private budgets.

Or when conservatives don't have an aneurysm and cry "NANNY STATE!" any time even a local government (that's the level Conservatives point to when the say the Constitution empowers them and not the federal fellows) tries to stop Coca-Cola, McDonald's, etc from continuing their American obesity onslaught.

Also lastly how many times do I have to mention that the CBO is not an oracle? They are an accounting office that projects based on hypothetical scenarios. Nothing in any CBO projection tells the actual future, just what would happen if XYZ did or didn't change the programs. There are, as you should know, a whole host of reforms that can save all of those programs. Conservatives though put their fingers in their ears every time it comes up, and to add to that added Medicare Part D under their last President to buy votes. 10/10 hypocrisy, per usual.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Conservatives though put their fingers in their ears every time it comes up, and to add to that added Medicare Part D under their last President to buy votes. 10/10 hypocrisy, per usual.

So you were opposed to the Part D expansion?

 

[Buster Bluth]

So you were opposed to the Part D expansion?

That doesn't have jack to do with Conservative hypocrisy.

 

[GoldenDome]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pocahontas is at it again! Goofy Elizabeth Warren, one of the least productive U.S. Senators, has a nasty mouth. Hope she is V.P. choice.</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741240449906663424">June 10, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ACamp1900]

Lol... I swear he can't be seriously trying to win,...

 

[yankeehater]

...it's almost like the only long-term threat to the nation's finances is that we spend way too much money on health care for a pathetically sick population.

Wake me up when conservatives have any decent ideas on combating health costs. The sort of ideas that have been tried and tested elsewhere in the world, where they have lower health care costs and aren't seeing this sort of spending eat away (ha! Obesity pun) at their government and private budgets.

Or when conservatives don't have an aneurysm and cry "NANNY STATE!" any time even a local government (that's the level Conservatives point to when the say the Constitution empowers them and not the federal fellows) tries to stop Coca-Cola, McDonald's, etc from continuing their American obesity onslaught.

Also lastly how many times do I have to mention that the CBO is not an oracle? They are an accounting office that projects based on hypothetical scenarios. Nothing in any CBO projection tells the actual future, just what would happen if XYZ did or didn't change the programs. There are, as you should know, a whole host of reforms that can save all of those programs. Conservatives though put their fingers in their ears every time it comes up, and to add to that added Medicare Part D under their last President to buy votes. 10/10 hypocrisy, per usual.

I did not vote for Trump, but he had one. Negotiate new deals with the drug manufacturers. I have a customer who used to be a mid-level manager from one of the largest drug companies in the world and was privy to their pricing structures. For drugs, they sold outside the US for example for $4 they would sell inside the US for $40. He asked the executive team why this was. Simple.....the US will pay that much for them. Whether it be Medicaid, Medicare, etc. or an individual out of pocket America would fork up the money. Now just imagine if we went and negotiated that $40 cost down to maybe not $4, but $20. You do the math and if we do it over and over.

 

[kmoose]

Wake me up when conservatives have any decent ideas on combating health costs.

Wake the rest of us up when your liberal leaders actually propose plans that are realistic:

Clinton I: Gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military.
Clinton I: Universal Healthcare.
Obama: Close Guantanamo
Obama: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Obama: By forcing everyone to buy insurance, premiums will go down significantly.
Obama: I will end the gridlock in Washington by building coalitions with the folks across the aisle, just like I brought people of different mindsets and cultures together in Chicago. I will be the man to do that.

 

[woolybug25]

I did not vote for Trump, but he had one. Negotiate new deals with the drug manufacturers. I have a customer who used to be a mid-level manager from one of the largest drug companies in the world and was privy to their pricing structures. For drugs, they sold outside the US for example for $4 they would sell inside the US for $40. He asked the executive team why this was. Simple.....the US will pay that much for them. Whether it be Medicaid, Medicare, etc. or an individual out of pocket America would fork up the money. Now just imagine if we went and negotiated that $40 cost down to maybe not $4, but $20. You do the math and if we do it over and over.

"Negotiate new deals"? That assumes there is a deal in the first place, which there is not. Capitalism doesn't mean that government go into private companies and fix their price structures. Sure, we can certainly have laws about predatory pricing, which we already have, but we can't tell drug companies how to price their product.

I always hear people talk about how cheap drugs are in other countries. What they never say is that those countries don't have the prohibitive FDA processes we do. Furthermore, if the drug companies want to sell in those countries at all, then they have to sell them cheap in order to not just have those companies rip off their R&D.

If you take away companies ability to recover their R&D, regulatory costs and taxes that our country imposes on them... Then they will simply quit making the drugs all together. Like most of Trump's ideas, this is a simplistic rant that has zero basis in the real world or global economy.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Wake the rest of us up when your liberal leaders actually propose plans that are realistic:

Clinton I: Gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military.
Clinton I: Universal Healthcare.
Obama: Close Guantanamo
Obama: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Obama: By forcing everyone to buy insurance, premiums will go down significantly.
Obama: I will end the gridlock in Washington by building coalitions with the folks across the aisle, just like I brought people of different mindsets and cultures together in Chicago. I will be the man to do that.

Good thing I've never voted for a Clinton or Obama.

 

[yankeehater]

"Negotiate new deals"? That assumes there is a deal in the first place, which there is not. Capitalism doesn't mean that government go into private companies and fix their price structures. Sure, we can certainly have laws about predatory pricing, which we already have, but we can't tell drug companies how to price their product.

I always hear people talk about how cheap drugs are in other countries. What they never say is that those countries don't have the prohibitive FDA processes we do. Furthermore, if the drug companies want to sell in those countries at all, then they have to sell them cheap in order to not just have those companies rip off their R&D.

If you take away companies ability to recover their R&D, regulatory costs and taxes that our country imposes on them... Then they will simply quit making the drugs all together. Like most of Trump's ideas, this is a simplistic rant that has zero basis in the real world or global economy.

I agree with most of your point. I am definitely not a "big government" guy and believe a lot of cost is due to the expenses of dealing with governmental rules and regulations. With that being said, if the government is footing the bill then they are now the customer in this case. If you are correct that there was no original deal, then put one in place. As a customer, do you not negotiate when you are making purchases. If not, that is your fault. Heck, a few years ago I had a Macy's sales clerk chase me down three flights of stairs into the parking lot because I was leaving without buying "what I came for." Right then I knew I was walking out with that item (a bed) at the price I wanted to pay for it.

 

[kmoose]

Good thing I've never voted for a Clinton or Obama.

I didn't mean it like that. I just meant that the lack of innovative and effective solutions is not limited to just conservatives. Liberals have sold the public on a bunch of pipe dreams, but that's all they have been so far......... So you end up with Donald Trump!

How do we change that? I believe that it is going to have to start at the bottom, with us. Us, meaning "We the People", are going to have to stop looking for the best deal for each one of us, individually, and what is best for the neediest amongst us, and start championing what is best for the country as a whole. Only then will someone with reasonable ideas be willing to put themselves out in front of the electorate. Imagine what Mark Cuban must be thinking about a possible run in 2020, based on what Trump has come up against?

 

[Irish YJ]

"Negotiate new deals"? That assumes there is a deal in the first place, which there is not. Capitalism doesn't mean that government go into private companies and fix their price structures. Sure, we can certainly have laws about predatory pricing, which we already have, but we can't tell drug companies how to price their product.

I always hear people talk about how cheap drugs are in other countries. What they never say is that those countries don't have the prohibitive FDA processes we do. Furthermore, if the drug companies want to sell in those countries at all, then they have to sell them cheap in order to not just have those companies rip off their R&D.

If you take away companies ability to recover their R&D, regulatory costs and taxes that our country imposes on them... Then they will simply quit making the drugs all together. Like most of Trump's ideas, this is a simplistic rant that has zero basis in the real world or global economy.

In all fairness, if you can tell banks what to do, people that they have to get health coverage, there's no reason why they can't tell drug companies not to over charge. Just one more regulation on top of the mountain that exists today.

The R&D + costs have a little relevance, but not much in the larger scheme of things. There a plethora of documentation out there which suggest US population is getting F'd comparative to the rest of the world. The FDA is a friggin' joke as well.

If I were going to go after companies, it would not be the Cokes and Walmarts of the world. It would be the health/drug and insurance companies.