Koch brothers in talks to potentially acquire Time Inc.

[Shadows]

Didn't you support Hillary in the primary? If so, there's quite a disconnect there. Her husband signed the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, and Comcast was the official sponsor of the convention where she was nominated.

1. It's not like I don't align much better with Sanders ideologically. I would have loved it if we could have gotten a Sanders-esque candidate that wasn't a self-avowed Democratic socialist. There was some stuff in the oppo research groups had done on Bernie that worried me at the time. Fundamentally I just don't think America is ready for a president that is a self-avowed socialist of any flavor. Not at least until the Boomer generation is gone. Although I fully admit I could be wrong on that count, but at the time it wasn't something I wanted to go for.*

2. Hillary's problems were also not lost on me, but I didn't anticipate Comey letters/Comey conference, nor did I think the Podesta hacks were going to happen. You can think what you want, but those clearly had an effect, in my opinion. It's not like she was a super strong candidate to begin with.

3. I don't just automatically conflate Hillary with her husband, Bill. If Bill signed [legislation] into law, I don't necessarily believe Hillary believes in that law, nor that she would do the same exact thing. Putting aside the logic issues there, it's still a different world than it was in the 90s. Democrats at the presidential level don't really score big points for that kind of stuff anymore. And I still believe Hillary would have governed from a "legacy perspective" - as in, seeing how old she was and that POTUS would be her last position, I think she would try and go out on a high note. I get that you don't trust her, and in many ways I don't either, but I have my reasons that I believe in.


-

Obviously if we could go back I'd choose Bernie, if for no other reason than I know that Hillary would lose. I also know that for as damaging as some things might have been to a politician at a lower level, I don't think Bernie would have had too much trouble mainly because Trump's entire campaign was an unmitigated disaster that sucked the oxygen out of the room, and the only thing that was able to counter that was Hillary's non-stop email problems, Comey, email hacks and so on.

edit: Oh, and just to add, had another viable candidate been in the race, like Biden or Warren, I would have supported them instead. That is one thing I hate Hillary for - using her connections and power to clear the field like that.


* I don't intend to rehash the 2016 election with you, nor debate Bernie's weaknesses

All that is fine but Hillary herself admitted she is a centrist & is very lonely there & has private/public positions.

She has only staunchly supported most of her husbands terrible policies from NAFTA to DOMA. The only area where she seemed a bit different from her husband is Foreign policy & war, where she is far more hawkish.

Hillary essentially took most of Bernie's platform. But that doesn't mean she will implement them. For example, she was totally resistant to Glass Steagal in the primaries which would have effected her big donors in Wall Street. Why would she be the Trust-buster when she supported more de-regulation, opposed Glass Steagal etc?

People under-rate what is required to be a trust-buster. Teddy Roosevelt was vehemently opposed to big corporations with a vitriolic dislike, had a charismatic personality & was absolutely determined to do it. I am not even sure someone like Sanders can do it at a day & age when Congress is largely bribed & bought & Corporations have massive power. Maybe a Sanders-Warren ticket is the closest that would come to be having Trust-busters in the White House. But it would be much harder than implementing a 15$ Min Wage or doing an Infra bill or legalizing marijuana.

[Beet]

Didn't you support Hillary in the primary? If so, there's quite a disconnect there. Her husband signed the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, and Comcast was the official sponsor of the convention where she was nominated.

1. It's not like I don't align much better with Sanders ideologically. I would have loved it if we could have gotten a Sanders-esque candidate that wasn't a self-avowed Democratic socialist. There was some stuff in the oppo research groups had done on Bernie that worried me at the time. Fundamentally I just don't think America is ready for a president that is a self-avowed socialist of any flavor. Not at least until the Boomer generation is gone. Although I fully admit I could be wrong on that count, but at the time it wasn't something I wanted to go for.*

2. Hillary's problems were also not lost on me, but I didn't anticipate Comey letters/Comey conference, nor did I think the Podesta hacks were going to happen. You can think what you want, but those clearly had an effect, in my opinion. It's not like she was a super strong candidate to begin with.

3. I don't just automatically conflate Hillary with her husband, Bill. If Bill signed [legislation] into law, I don't necessarily believe Hillary believes in that law, nor that she would do the same exact thing. Putting aside the logic issues there, it's still a different world than it was in the 90s. Democrats at the presidential level don't really score big points for that kind of stuff anymore. And I still believe Hillary would have governed from a "legacy perspective" - as in, seeing how old she was and that POTUS would be her last position, I think she would try and go out on a high note. I get that you don't trust her, and in many ways I don't either, but I have my reasons that I believe in.


-

Obviously if we could go back I'd choose Bernie, if for no other reason than I know that Hillary would lose. I also know that for as damaging as some things might have been to a politician at a lower level, I don't think Bernie would have had too much trouble mainly because Trump's entire campaign was an unmitigated disaster that sucked the oxygen out of the room, and the only thing that was able to counter that was Hillary's non-stop email problems, Comey, email hacks and so on.

edit: Oh, and just to add, had another viable candidate been in the race, like Biden or Warren, I would have supported them instead. That is one thing I hate Hillary for - using her connections and power to clear the field like that.


* I don't intend to rehash the 2016 election with you, nor debate Bernie's weaknesses

All that is fine but Hillary herself admitted she is a centrist & is very lonely there & has private/public positions.

She has only staunchly supported most of her husbands terrible policies from NAFTA to DOMA. The only area where she seemed a bit different from her husband is Foreign policy & war, where she is far more hawkish.

Hillary essentially took most of Bernie's platform. But that doesn't mean she will implement them. For example, she was totally resistant to Glass Steagal in the primaries which would have effected her big donors in Wall Street. Why would she be the Trust-buster when she supported more de-regulation, opposed Glass Steagal etc?

People under-rate what is required to be a trust-buster. Teddy Roosevelt was vehemently opposed to big corporations with a vitriolic dislike, had a charismatic personality & was absolutely determined to do it. I am not even sure someone like Sanders can do it at a day & age when Congress is largely bribed & bought & Corporations have massive power. Maybe a Sanders-Warren ticket is the closest that would come to be having Trust-busters in the White House. But it would be much harder than implementing a 15$ Min Wage or doing an Infra bill or legalizing marijuana.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. No matter what she says, you're either going to say she takes the neoliberal position or that you don't trust her. She would have followed through on her promises as far as the Executive branch can, though.

[Virginiá]

Hillary essentially took most of Bernie's platform. But that doesn't mean she will implement them. For example, she was totally resistant to Glass Steagal in the primaries which would have effected her big donors in Wall Street. Why would she be the Trust-buster when she supported more de-regulation, opposed Glass Steagal etc?

So you think she would have campaigned on one set of issues, then governed from a totally different set? Not sure she could get away with that - not if she wanted to get reelected. As I stated already many times on Atlas and in the last post, given her age, I still think she would have wanted to solidify a decent, lasting image of herself and that would by pleasing a liberal base. At her age, with her existing wealth and it being the end of her career, there is a degree of freedom there as opposed to a younger politician who may still want to get rich after office. Also, generally presidents do actually try to fulfill their campaign promises. I think it was the Atlantic that did something on this. Also, for the record, for most the campaign it still seemed like a divided government was going to be the case. Trump's ups and downs and the generic ballot numbers that followed did give hope, but there was a very good chance there that she would have been obstructed for 4 years anyway. So during the primaries it's not exactly like I thought, "we have excellent chances to win everything and ram through every progressive dream if we just get the right president."

I get it, people don't trust her, etc etc. I think she's pretty shady and very flexible ideologically, and I have my reasons for thinking she wouldn't just instantly become America's #1 centrist upon getting elected on a liberal platform.


edit: yes this will be my last response. no need to derail this over something that has been litigated on Atlas like 2384192381 times.

[AtorBoltox]

Congratulations jfern on derailing yet another thread

[KingSweden]

Congratulations jfern on derailing yet another thread

Hey when you’re good at something...

[mvd10]

Democrats, the supporters of the free media unless it's bought by someone they don't like (I don't like the Kochs either though). Don't worry, by 2023 president Party Leader Bernie Sanders will sign a law outlawing all articles advocating tax reductions or spending restraints as journalists advocating those goals are enemies of the American people .

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I didn't even know Time and Warner had divorced. Fun fact: time has custody of MySpace apparantly, so Koch's will own that (after a long period where it was owned by Rupert Murdoch, lmao).

Also seriously mods, can we start warning the usual suspects for endlessly thread derailing?

[Virginiá]

Democrats, the supporters of the free media unless it's bought by someone they don't like (I don't like the Kochs either though). Don't worry, by 2023 president Party Leader Bernie Sanders will sign a law outlawing all articles advocating tax reductions or spending restraints as journalists advocating those goals are enemies of the American people .

Eh, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm more against consolidated corporate media than any specific billionaires. I'm also strongly against the consolidation in the telecom industry as a whole.

but it does honestly perplex me how anyone could support such control of the media by hyper-wealthy people with very clear political agendas. Also this:





This never should have been allowed to happen in the first place.

[Doimper]

Also seriously mods, can we start warning the usual suspects for endlessly thread derailing?

jfern's sole purpose on this forum at this point is to passively-aggressively derail theads

[mvd10]

Democrats, the supporters of the free media unless it's bought by someone they don't like (I don't like the Kochs either though). Don't worry, by 2023 president Party Leader Bernie Sanders will sign a law outlawing all articles advocating tax reductions or spending restraints as journalists advocating those goals are enemies of the American people .

Eh, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm more against consolidated corporate media than any specific billionaires. I'm also strongly against the consolidation in the telecom industry as a whole.

but it does honestly perplex me how anyone could support such control of the media by hyper-wealthy people with very clear political agendas. Also this:





This never should have been allowed to happen in the first place.

But what would be the solution to this? I don't think the government should in any way act against blatantly biased media no matter how big they are, but I do get the desire to prevent media monopolies. But then again, a lot of leftists criticizing "corporate media" should ask themselves whether they're actually worried about this or whether they just don't like what the media are saying (I remember an article/speech by Bernie Sanders on this, and it basically turned into a blatant rant on how the media aren't talking about the issues he thinks are most important, so it all must be a grand 1% capitalist conspiracy against the little man). The (alt-)right is much worse on these issues than the left nowadays though, don't get me wrong. Anyway, I'm a staunch believer in the free market , and in the end most people want fair and balanced media, so that's probably what they will be getting (though some people undeniably just want an echo chamber, let them have it because free speech). I'm not sure whether breaking up media companies would change much anyway, owners/editors always will have an opinion which they might push through a little too much.

[Virginiá]

I just don't see why the media should be excluded from a future of desperately-needed trust busting in a myriad industries. For all the fears some may have of the government stepping in and breaking up outlets like Fox and CNN, there should be even more fear over a few very powerful people consolidating their control over all the major news outlets that serve America. This is an issue where my views become non-partisan. No wealthy people or corporations should have this much power, no matter what agenda they are peddling. It's the same reason why I don't believe Tom Steyer should be allowed to cross the country, dumping hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections in favor of Democrats - ditto for the Koch brothers.

Busting up the media giants likely won't make things that less partisan, but that isn't really the goal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also seriously mods, can we start warning the usual suspects for endlessly thread derailing?

jfern's sole purpose on this forum at this point is to passively-aggressively derail theads

No, it's to point out how both parties suck ass here. This media consolidation is largely due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which passed the Senate 91-5 and the House 414-16, and signed into law by President Clinton. Of course Bernie voted no.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I mean both parties suck, but I barely cared about the 2016 Dem primary then. Why do we need to have lone repetitive arguments between the same people making the same points now?

[darklordoftech]

I don't think that "liberal media" or "corporate media" are problems, but I do think that media ownership consolidation is a problem. I think that media ownership should be trust-busted for non-political reasons.

[darklordoftech]

Might this be a result of media consolidation?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123716667064336421

[All Along The Watchtower]

The problem here is the decline of local media, print media, and public media (notice all those erm, philanthropic foundations that sponsor PBS and NPR? Yeah...) in favor of massive corporate conglomerates, overpaid pundit morons who know nothing about anything, unvetted Internet rumors, social media echo chambers, and actual Fake News (the current President being a terrible offender on many of these accounts, of course) and people vicariously living through their favorite celebrities/politicians to the point where they are primed to automatically trust their guy's Twitter/Facebook take regardless of what anyone else says, combined with growing extreme  inequality and the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.

This is all absolutely corrosive to the norms and values of a representative, liberal democracy and civil society in every context, but it's particularly corrosive in regard to news media for reasons that should be obvious.

[Dr. MB]

The problem here is the decline of local media, print media, and public media (notice all those erm, philanthropic foundations that sponsor PBS and NPR? Yeah...) in favor of massive corporate conglomerates, overpaid pundit morons who know nothing about anything, unvetted Internet rumors, social media echo chambers, and actual Fake News (the current President being a terrible offender on many of these accounts, of course) and people vicariously living through their favorite celebrities/politicians to the point where they are primed to automatically trust their guy's Twitter/Facebook take regardless of what anyone else says, combined with growing extreme  inequality and the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.

This is all absolutely corrosive to the norms and values of a representative, liberal democracy and civil society in every context, but it's particularly corrosive in regard to news media for reasons that should be obvious.

Agree.

David and Charles Koch are two of the most destructive human beings to ever walk the earth.