Bernie Sanders for President
Comments
-
...as opposed to....Cliffy6745 said:
Yeah, I thought it was interesting and well thought out.jeffbr said:
Interesting read. He makes a lot of great points and arrives at his conclusions based on rationality and history.Cliffy6745 said:0 -
asinine and haphazard?Jearlpam0925 said:
...as opposed to....Cliffy6745 said:
Yeah, I thought it was interesting and well thought out.jeffbr said:
Interesting read. He makes a lot of great points and arrives at his conclusions based on rationality and history.Cliffy6745 said:0 -
Exactly. Any reasonable statistician would extrapolate that Clinton's lead would then grow.jeffbr said:
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
Sure, we can use that. I think I was being more rhetorical than anything.mrussel1 said:
asinine and haphazard?Jearlpam0925 said:
...as opposed to....Cliffy6745 said:
Yeah, I thought it was interesting and well thought out.jeffbr said:
Interesting read. He makes a lot of great points and arrives at his conclusions based on rationality and history.Cliffy6745 said:0 -
Based on what happened in Washington state, the mail-in ballots favor Secretary Clinton. Senator Sanders won the state's delegates in the WA Caucus, but it was reversed for the WA Primary (although no delegates were distributed for the Primary). Why there are both formats, I don't know but it's easier for many people who can't get to a caucus to send in a ballot by mail and they did.benjs said:
Exactly. Any reasonable statistician would extrapolate that Clinton's lead would then grow.jeffbr said:
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/Falling down,...not staying down0 -
really, it was over after New York.
He needs to change gears and help defeat Trump0 -
True. I wouldn't mind seeing caususes go. They are impossible for people who work on weekends, single parents, disabled, etc. They reduce turnout. I think if SD's get eliminated, so will the caucus.Kat said:
Based on what happened in Washington state, the mail-in ballots favor Secretary Clinton. Senator Sanders won the state's delegates in the WA Caucus, but it was reversed for the WA Primary (although no delegates were distributed for the Primary). Why there are both formats, I don't know but it's easier for many people who can't get to a caucus to send in a ballot by mail and they did.benjs said:
Exactly. Any reasonable statistician would extrapolate that Clinton's lead would then grow.jeffbr said:
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/0 -
Hi KatKat said:
Based on what happened in Washington state, the mail-in ballots favor Secretary Clinton. Senator Sanders won the state's delegates in the WA Caucus, but it was reversed for the WA Primary (although no delegates were distributed for the Primary). Why there are both formats, I don't know but it's easier for many people who can't get to a caucus to send in a ballot by mail and they did.benjs said:
Exactly. Any reasonable statistician would extrapolate that Clinton's lead would then grow.jeffbr said:
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/www.myspace.com0 -
For whatever reason, this is very funny to me.The Juggler said:
Hi KatKat said:
Based on what happened in Washington state, the mail-in ballots favor Secretary Clinton. Senator Sanders won the state's delegates in the WA Caucus, but it was reversed for the WA Primary (although no delegates were distributed for the Primary). Why there are both formats, I don't know but it's easier for many people who can't get to a caucus to send in a ballot by mail and they did.benjs said:
Exactly. Any reasonable statistician would extrapolate that Clinton's lead would then grow.jeffbr said:
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/0 -
All mere speculation. We will see, won't we. Continue with your speculation that is so one-sided and still so hateful of Sanders it's hilarious. ( not you personally Benjs, all the Hillary bots).benjs said:
Exactly. Any reasonable statistician would extrapolate that Clinton's lead would then grow.jeffbr said:
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/
I don't hate Clinton half as much as some of you hate Sanders. Try to enjoy life.Post edited by Free on0 -
The Dem caucuses here that went in favor of Bernie brought out a whopping 26,000 voters (can't remember the exact number but it was in that range). By contrast the Dem primary, which wasn't used to allocate delegates, recorded over 800,000 votes, and Hillary won that contest. Vastly different turnouts with different results from that same state.mrussel1 said:
True. I wouldn't mind seeing caususes go. They are impossible for people who work on weekends, single parents, disabled, etc. They reduce turnout. I think if SD's get eliminated, so will the caucus.Kat said:
Based on what happened in Washington state, the mail-in ballots favor Secretary Clinton. Senator Sanders won the state's delegates in the WA Caucus, but it was reversed for the WA Primary (although no delegates were distributed for the Primary). Why there are both formats, I don't know but it's easier for many people who can't get to a caucus to send in a ballot by mail and they did.benjs said:
Exactly. Any reasonable statistician would extrapolate that Clinton's lead would then grow.jeffbr said:
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
I swearThe Juggler said:
Hi KatKat said:
Based on what happened in Washington state, the mail-in ballots favor Secretary Clinton. Senator Sanders won the state's delegates in the WA Caucus, but it was reversed for the WA Primary (although no delegates were distributed for the Primary). Why there are both formats, I don't know but it's easier for many people who can't get to a caucus to send in a ballot by mail and they did.benjs said:
Exactly. Any reasonable statistician would extrapolate that Clinton's lead would then grow.jeffbr said:
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/0 -
Mainstream Media Didn’t Hold Back in Headlines About Clinton and Sanders
http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/mainstream_media_didnt_hold_back_in_headlines_about_clinton_and_20160608
(For those of you who don't know, Truth dig is an independent media source).If you were one of millions of Americans who went to the polls Tuesday night in the hope of putting Bernie Sanders in the White House, you were probably disappointed with the outcome of the most recent round of primaries. But supporters of Hillary Clinton were likely thrilled, and it seems that much of the mainstream media joined in on the revelry.
Amid the onslaught of news coverage surrounding Clinton’s victories, perhaps the media was simply trying to engage readers with gripping headlines. But in an election season that has already seen complaints of media bias against Sanders, several of Tuesday night’s top headlines seemed to bask in Sanders’ defeat.
“Bernie Sanders has been vanquished,” declared Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times, before going on to praise Clinton’s “uncharacteristically lyrical” acceptance speech and Sanders’ failed effort to “claw the nomination” from Clinton. An opinion piece, it was posted to the LA Times Facebook page among a slew of other primary reports without any acknowledgement that it was an opinion piece.
The Huffington Post, meanwhile, published this headline before the California polls had even closed: “The Bernie Sanders Campaign Didn’t Matter.” Author Zach Carter, a senior political economy reporter for the site, focused the majority of the article on the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, but eventually he returned to the aggressive stance of the headline and stated:
Will the campaign matter in defeat? No. Bernie Sanders did not create the movement that political pundits like to credit him with. He has, instead, spent a year serving rather effectively as the voice of people left behind by a broken economy.
Last but not least was this striking proclamation from The New York Times: “Hillary Clinton Made History, but Bernie Sanders Stubbornly Ignored It.” In this piece, authors Michael Barbaro and Yamiche Alcindor claim that Sanders “basked” and “bragged” in “a speech of striking stubbornness.” They add that party unity “is the farthest thing from his mind.”
Perhaps these headlines shouldn’t be surprising, given mainstream media’s coverage of Sanders (or lack of coverage of third-party candidates like Jill Stein) throughout the election season. But for supposedly unbiased reporters to discount the importance of Sanders’ contribution to our political system is dishonest reporting. He has mobilized millions of Americans who are disenchanted with this country’s established political system. Regardless of the next steps his campaign takes, Sanders and his supporters are not going away.
Sanders’ refusal to quietly disappear after these losses isn’t arrogant or cocky—it’s an acknowledgement of the issues Clinton still needs to address before tackling Donald Trump in the general election. Trump, whom the media love to hate, who they think drives traffic, who is a constant source of inflammatory headlines, is certainly an easier source of revenue for mainstream media than Sanders.
As much as the media would like to begin the classic good-vs.-evil coverage of Clinton and Trump, Sanders provides a third voice that deserves to be heard. Sanders himself said Tuesday night that the fight isn’t over. For the media to keep pretending that it is, and that his campaign has not contributed anything to this election season, is insulting.
—Posted by Emma Niles0 -
It may be 'independent', but it doesn't make it unbiased. That's why you read left, right, center and everything in between publications. Breitbart is 'independent' but it's so biased that I can barely stomach an article.0
-
Why am I so not surprised that from my entire post above that's all you come up with. All you know how to do is judge and criticize every single thing I post from source. And you wonder why I refuse to debate anything with you.mrussel1 said:It may be 'independent', but it doesn't make it unbiased. That's why you read left, right, center and everything in between publications. Breitbart is 'independent' but it's so biased that I can barely stomach an article.
0 -
Because these aren't new or unique arguments. There's nothing profound in there or anything I haven't seen Nina Turner say on every show that will book her. What's the point of arguing on the boilerplate Sanders view? It's red meat for you and the base, not for the rest of us.Free said:
Why am I so not surprised that from my entire post above that's all you come up with. All you know how to do is judge and criticize every single thing I post from source. And you wonder why I refuse to debate anything with you.mrussel1 said:It may be 'independent', but it doesn't make it unbiased. That's why you read left, right, center and everything in between publications. Breitbart is 'independent' but it's so biased that I can barely stomach an article.
0 -
No, it's because you are so closed minded.mrussel1 said:
Because these aren't new or unique arguments. There's nothing profound in there or anything I haven't seen Nina Turner say on every show that will book her. What's the point of arguing on the boilerplate Sanders view? It's red meat for you and the base, not for the rest of us.Free said:
Why am I so not surprised that from my entire post above that's all you come up with. All you know how to do is judge and criticize every single thing I post from source. And you wonder why I refuse to debate anything with you.mrussel1 said:It may be 'independent', but it doesn't make it unbiased. That's why you read left, right, center and everything in between publications. Breitbart is 'independent' but it's so biased that I can barely stomach an article.
0 -
I think Bernie needs another bird to land.0
-
So if someone doesn't agree with you they are closed minded. Again, this just drips with irony.Free said:
No, it's because you are so closed minded.mrussel1 said:
Because these aren't new or unique arguments. There's nothing profound in there or anything I haven't seen Nina Turner say on every show that will book her. What's the point of arguing on the boilerplate Sanders view? It's red meat for you and the base, not for the rest of us.Free said:
Why am I so not surprised that from my entire post above that's all you come up with. All you know how to do is judge and criticize every single thing I post from source. And you wonder why I refuse to debate anything with you.mrussel1 said:It may be 'independent', but it doesn't make it unbiased. That's why you read left, right, center and everything in between publications. Breitbart is 'independent' but it's so biased that I can barely stomach an article.
0 -
Not at all. You've proven by your words alone how negative and truly unwilling one can be to contemplate absolutely any idea that differs from your own Set Ideas. There's a lot to be said about meeting halfway. The fuck. I'm done. Not worth one more secondmrussel1 said:
So if someone doesn't agree with you they are closed minded. Again, this just drips with irony.Free said:
No, it's because you are so closed minded.mrussel1 said:
Because these aren't new or unique arguments. There's nothing profound in there or anything I haven't seen Nina Turner say on every show that will book her. What's the point of arguing on the boilerplate Sanders view? It's red meat for you and the base, not for the rest of us.Free said:
Why am I so not surprised that from my entire post above that's all you come up with. All you know how to do is judge and criticize every single thing I post from source. And you wonder why I refuse to debate anything with you.mrussel1 said:It may be 'independent', but it doesn't make it unbiased. That's why you read left, right, center and everything in between publications. Breitbart is 'independent' but it's so biased that I can barely stomach an article.
Post edited by Free on0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help