[quote=gogogosandiego]You’ve gotten so much wrong in this thread I’m not even sure where to start….
The Tea Party publically “started” over a rant on TV against people potentially getting mortgage modifications in 2009. It had nothing to do with bailouts or “socializing losses”. In reality the groundwork for the Tea Party had been laid for years prior with the main goal being smaller government and less regulation. It was not even remotely a grass roots movement. If you were involved you were duped.
You presented several “stories” (I’ll select a few) that you feel the MSM got ”wrong”. This is the crux of your problem, real news doesn’t tell stories. It’s doesn’t try to predict the future.
“the Fed is unwilling to do anything about it” (how would anyone know if they are unwilling? What exactly should the Fed do? Who says they should do anything? You? How is this news? it’s pure uninformed speculation)
“As the Fed attempts to stimulate the economy, it will require more and more stimulus to get incrementally weaker and weaker responses.” (the Fed again! Methinks you don’t really understand what the Fed does, but certainly a vast prediction like this is newsworthy! There have literally been 1000’s of articles about the Fed, its powers, its limitations, its role, etc. written in the past 8 years – news, opinion and otherwise)
The DNC is conspiring with the Clinton campaign and major financial and political backers to win the Democratic nomination. If she wins, she will lose to Trump. (duh, Bernie wasn’t a Democrat and had some pretty wacky ideas, of course they were, only rabid Bernie supporters feel it’s some grand conspiracy)
Trump will win the Republican primary, and if he runs against Clinton, he will win the general election, too. (reporters are supposed to be clairvoyant?)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being drafted behind closed doors.. (zzzzzzzzzzzz…all trade deals are negotiated confidentially. The same things in the TPP are already present in other trade deals, this has been widely reported)
You then go on to say “accurate information on many of these topics was available only via alternative news sources”. You’re not looking for accurate information; you are looking for information that supports your biases.
The irony of you trying to tell others what is news is truly amazing.
If you want to read some real news and be informed pick up the NYT or the WSJ, two of the best in the world.[/quote]
Thank you for your input, gogogosandiego, Pigg member of 5 days.
Let me educate you a bit about your assertions.
1.) The Tea Party:
The Tea Party started with Rick Santelli’s rant; that much is correct. I was watching it live when it happened. He was ranting about using taxpayers’ money to bail out borrowers who made irresponsible decisions. Rick Santelli had been very vocally opposed to the bank bailouts before this rant, and it was seen as a continuation of the anti-bailout message. Here is a clip of him months before the “Tea Party” rant:
I was one of thousands who spent 2-3 weeks writing, faxing, emailing, and calling legislators and regulatory agencies in opposition to the bailouts. As noted in the video I linked above, which was from a Wall Street protest in 2008, well before Santelli’s rant, the energy and momentum were there before February 2009.
From September 2008, before Santelli’s rant (many of these people were involved with the original Tea Party movement):
It was indeed about socializing losses, as taxpayers were being asked to bailout both banks and borrowers who had caused the credit/housing bubble by engaging in reckless financial behavior.
When I speak about the original Tea Party protesters, I’m referring to the original grassroots protesters, not Dick Armey and his FreedomWorks organization.
……………
2.) Regarding the news stories:
Yes, the news tells stories. They often present facts (or fiction) with a certain bias by highlighting certain facts, and suppressing other facts or perspectives, in the process. They help control the public discourse by reinforcing which perspectives are acceptable or unacceptable. In a media world that is controlled by the government or other agencies, the narrative is designed to promote, oppose, or discredit certain views. The NYT and the WSJ are perfect examples of biased MSM sources (I would argue that most sources are biased, which is why people need to pay attention to a variety of sources that promote different viewpoints).
I’m well aware of what the Fed does. Many people were trying to warn about the internet/stock market bubble in the late 90s, and Greenspan even acknowledged the “irrational exuberance” in 1996, but there was no recommendation to clamp down on speculation, and rates remained in that same general range until the bubble burst…when they were subsequently lowered, which helped set of the credit/housing bubble.
Perhaps, if the PTB had listened more to alt-news sources who get their information from the real world instead of the usual think-tank/establishment “experts” who consistently get things wrong, we could have avoided many of the dislocations and much of the damage created over the past ~20 years.
4.) The DNC and the primary election:
You indicate that, “duh,” the DNC is obviously going to collude with one of the candidates. And while Bernie wasn’t officially a Democrat prior to his decision to run for POTUS, he had caucused with the Democrats for many years, and the Democratic Party allowed him to run in the Democratic primary election. The DNC violated their own rules:
“Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as
may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
And if you think it’s acceptable for a political party to essentially appoint a candidate prior to any elections, do you also think that we should just forego elections altogether, and simply let the PTB appoint our “elected” officials, instead?
5.) As for needing to be clairvoyant to see that HRC would lose to Trump… No, one didn’t need to be clairvoyant, just informed. This outcome was obvious to anyone who was working on the ground during the campaign. Even the polls (nearly every single poll) showed that Sanders consistently outperformed Clinton against the Republican candidates, including Trump. The DNC shot themselves in the foot by forcing Clinton down our throats. They were warned about this throughout the election season, but chose not to listen to those who knew better.
6.) The secrecy surrounding the TPP was unprecedented, and the media remained silent about the deal for years. Congressional representatives were not able to read or hear about what was being negotiated for years while it was being drafted, but corporate interests were given full access throughout the entire process. The fact that you can justify this in your mind shows a complete lack of understanding about how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
Not only did the TPP include many new items, it was also unprecedented in its scope and reach.
Your insistence on the MSM being the sole source of unbiased information shows a lack of insight and intelligence, or (as your new user ID could indicate) you’re one of the trolls unleashed on the internet to counter factual stories coming out of alternative news and information sources. Either that, or you’re just a new ID created by an existing poster in order to make it look like you have more support for your ideas than you really have.
