"Bernie Bros"

[norseamd]

From: [Philippe Reines]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15 2009 10:06 AM
To: Ambinder, Marc
Subject: Re: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?
3 [conditions] actually
1) You in your own voice describe them as “muscular”
2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something
3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!
​

http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058

 

[Exophase]

I hate that we have to rely on Gawker of all places to act as a media watchdog.

I can't believe Philippe Reines actually pushed for two different writers to use the same rather peculiar adjective in their articles. How could he not foresee the suspicion that would raise? I guess I should be thankful he's not as thorough as he is unethical.

Who knows how deep this has run in Clinton's campaign...

 

[fskimospy]

I fear the current alternative is the incoming TPP-fueled 25%+ yearly health care increases..

Can you explain how TPP is going to lead to 25%+ yearly health care inflation? What year do you expect this to start?

I haven't seen ANYONE propose a plan that can get consensus. Doesn't that suggest a drastic change has to happen one way or the other, and that even if we don't steer it it's inevitable?

I'm not talking consensus, I'm talking math.

I understand you are disinclined to believe the math adds up to Sanders plan, but how long can we continue to go year after year reducing median wages after inflation with increasing health care costs because we have no negotiation ability at all in the process before nobody can afford health care at all?

I'm not an expert, I don't proclaim to be, but I don't disagree with someone simply because I dislike them when all other alternatives are just as bad - at some point you have to be realistic, and preferably proactively before you're forced to.

I like Bernie Sanders just fine. If he were to somehow win the Democratic nomination I would far prefer to see him in office than any Republican. That doesn't make his health care proposal any less of a fantasy.

I think his health care plan shows that he has a poor grasp of how to address health care concerns in the US because it's based on a lot of really poor assumptions and bad math. So yes, let's be realistic: his numbers don't add up. How can you say he has a good grasp of this issue when he's literally trillions of dollars off in his basic accounting? Isn't that a problem?

 

[fskimospy]

I hate that we have to rely on Gawker of all places to act as a media watchdog.

I can't believe Philippe Reines actually pushed for two different writers to use the same rather peculiar adjective in their articles. How could he not foresee the suspicion that would raise? I guess I should be thankful he's not as thorough as he is unethical.

Who knows how deep this has run in Clinton's campaign...

First, that's not from her campaign but that doesn't even matter. Literally every competent campaign does this sort of thing. If a politician isn't trying to trade access for favorable stories they are a shit politician. If you think your preferred politician, whoever they are, isn't doing or trying to do the same thing, you're really naive.

What this really shows is how unethical journalists can be.

 

[ivwshane]

http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058

Is this an example of sausage making or is this an example of a systemic problem with journalism today?

 

[Exophase]

First, that's not from her campaign but that doesn't even matter. Literally every competent campaign does this sort of thing. If a politician isn't trying to trade access for favorable stories they are a shit politician. If you think your preferred politician, whoever they are, isn't doing or trying to do the same thing, you're really naive.

What this really shows is how unethical journalists can be.

Oh yeah okay, the politician or their staff who push for this are not just totally in the clear but they're being good at their job and it's the journalists who shoulder 100% of the blame for taking them up on their demands. Give me a break. Anyone who makes an offer to someone to engage in unethical practice is themselves being unethical.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh yeah okay, the politician or their staff who push for this are not just totally in the clear but they're being good at their job and it's the journalists who shoulder 100% of the blame for taking them up on their demands. Give me a break.

Yep, 100% of the blame.

Journalists have an ethical duty to report things impartially and fairly to the best of their ability. Campaigns do not have an duty to ensure that journalists are ethical, they have a duty to further the interests of their candidate.

Anyone who makes an offer to someone to engage in unethical practice is themselves being unethical.

I absolutely guarantee you that whatever politician you support has staff who do similar things constantly. Every last one of them. They would be fools not to, in fact.

 

[Exophase]

Yep, 100% of the blame.

Journalists have an ethical duty to report things impartially and fairly to the best of their ability. Campaigns do not have an duty to ensure that journalists are ethical, they have a duty to further the interests of their candidate.

I absolutely guarantee you that whatever politician you support has staff who do similar things constantly. Every last one of them. They would be fools not to, in fact.

Everyone has a duty towards ethics and their campaigning job should not supersede that. If candidates make or allow their staff to make transactional offers that compromise journalistic integrity then those candidates are not supporting journalistic integrity. And that is something I take issue with.

Call me naive all you want, maybe everyone does do it and to the extent or worse that is demonstrated here (controlling the exact language and components of the article beyond even stipulating it is positive coverage). But I'm not going to take that statement on faith, so if you have examples for Sanders go ahead and put them up.

 

[fskimospy]

Everyone has a duty towards ethics and their campaigning job should not supersede that. If candidates make or allow their staff to make transactional offers that compromise journalistic integrity then those candidates are not supporting journalistic integrity. And that is something I take issue with.

Really now.

When campaigns give 'spin', which is a fancy word for 'lies', they are encouraging journalists to print false information, which compromises journalistic integrity. It's not like the journalists are fooled by these lies, they are pressured into printing it out of a supposed obligation to 'balance'. Sanders' campaign does this on a daily basis, as does every other campaign. (as well they should!)

Sounds like Sanders's campaign does not support journalistic integrity either. Can you say why you haven't seen fit to condemn him for this yet?

Call me naive all you want, maybe everyone does do it and to the extent or worse that is demonstrated here (controlling the exact language and components of the article beyond even stipulating it is positive coverage). But I'm not going to take that statement on faith, so if you have examples for Sanders go ahead and put them up.

I'll call you naive then. It's pretty clear that even you realize that his campaign is doing similar things considering you're now qualifying it to controlling exact language and such. You know he does it as well as I do.

I frankly don't get why this is interesting or even notable.

 

[Exophase]

Dude, put up or shut up.

 

[fskimospy]

Dude, put up or shut up.

If you want to try and convince yourself that politicians don't trade access for favorable press that's your business. You realize you can still support Sanders even though he does this, right?

I don't know why you would want to delude yourself, but that's your business.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I hate that we have to rely on Gawker of all places to act as a media watchdog.

I can't believe Philippe Reines actually pushed for two different writers to use the same rather peculiar adjective in their articles. How could he not foresee the suspicion that would raise? I guess I should be thankful he's not as thorough as he is unethical.

Who knows how deep this has run in Clinton's campaign...

It's getting quite clear that the large media outlets are all in bed together.

It reminds me of the whole gamergate fiasco, where all the media outlets published identical articles. We later found out all these 'journalist' were literally all in direct contact., and had regular meetings.

 

[Virge_]

I think his health care plan shows that he has a poor grasp of how to address health care concerns in the US because it's based on a lot of really poor assumptions and bad math. So yes, let's be realistic: his numbers don't add up. How can you say he has a good grasp of this issue when he's literally trillions of dollars off in his basic accounting? Isn't that a problem?

Can I please have your take on this? I understand this is in relation to Wall Street and not Health Care, but one part of my response to your argument with how he will pay for things is that various programs of this nature all combine into one big picture.

http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/

A obvious difference between us seems to be that you wish to just sweepingly call it unrealistic, but specifically do so with Sanders, without knowing the big picture. I personally lean towards approval (and a degree of blind hope, sure) but also recognize I don't have the big picture so I'm open to either possibility.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Can I please have your take on this? I understand this is in relation to Wall Street and not Health Care, but one part of my response to your argument with how he will pay for things is that various programs of this nature all combine into one big picture.

http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/

A obvious difference between us seems to be that you wish to just sweepingly call it unrealistic, but specifically do so with Sanders, without knowing the big picture. I personally lean towards approval (and a degree of blind hope, sure) but also recognize I don't have the big picture so I'm open to either possibility.

He won't post a source.

The economist that was used in the wall street hit piece that claimed Bernie's healthcare plan would cost something like 17 trillion, wrote an open letter stating he was misquoted. He stated the plan will actually save 5 trillion.

 

[Virge_]

He won't post a source.

Thats fine. I'm not asking for a source, I just want his personal opinion. I'm not looking to be convinced one way or the other, I want to make my own mind up with the feedback of others - I feel that those who can form a rational, articulate, and respectful opinion is never a lost opportunity for me to learn something new.

I don't want to pick his opinion apart, I simply wish to broaden my own network of exposure to others views on this matter. I feel I have a lot of reading to do.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is this an example of sausage making or is this an example of a systemic problem with journalism today?

Today? Or since the beginning of newspapers? How do you think a journalist gets an advance copy, anyway?

 

[michal1980]

http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058

I hate that we have to rely on Gawker of all places to act as a media watchdog.

I can't believe Philippe Reines actually pushed for two different writers to use the same rather peculiar adjective in their articles. How could he not foresee the suspicion that would raise? I guess I should be thankful he's not as thorough as he is unethical.

Who knows how deep this has run in Clinton's campaign...

not possible the left claims there is no such thing as the lmsm.

 

[ivwshane]

Today? Or since the beginning of newspapers? How do you think a journalist gets an advance copy, anyway?

Honestly I don't know.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

not possible the left claims there is no such thing as the lmsm.

What's that stand for?

 

[Jhhnn]

Everyone has a duty towards ethics and their campaigning job should not supersede that. If candidates make or allow their staff to make transactional offers that compromise journalistic integrity then those candidates are not supporting journalistic integrity. And that is something I take issue with.

Call me naive all you want, maybe everyone does do it and to the extent or worse that is demonstrated here (controlling the exact language and components of the article beyond even stipulating it is positive coverage). But I'm not going to take that statement on faith, so if you have examples for Sanders go ahead and put them up.

Please. Take the speech in question, which was "muscular" & no claims have been to the contrary. The notables were front & enter in the audience as claimed. Nobody was asked to lie. Nobody did lie. Favorable coverage by that particular journalist was a foregone conclusion.

That last bit is the same way that Fox News covers the Tea Party.

 

[fskimospy]

Can I please have your take on this? I understand this is in relation to Wall Street and not Health Care, but one part of my response to your argument with how he will pay for things is that various programs of this nature all combine into one big picture.

That's not how legislation works though, you can't say that you're going to pay for one bill by using another bill that you hope passes at some point in the future. Do you at least agree that his health care proposal is just not realistic as written and would require some other legislation to bail it out?

http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/

Well I would have to see the details, but it all seems basically fine with a few dumb parts.

1. Re-implementing Glass-Steagall is fine and a good idea.

2. Capping ATM fees at $2 is stupid and shouldn't be done.

3. Breaking up the big banks is something I'm on board with but it would be a tremendous undertaking and wouldn't stop shadow banking. Dodd-Frank has actually done a good job of that already.

4. Transaction taxes are a good idea.

5. Saying you're going to prosecute people in 2017 for financial crimes in 2008 is hopelessly unrealistic and is probably just red meat for his supporters. Never going to happen.

In all it seems like a fine plan, albeit one that will never be implemented with a Republican Congress. Hillary's plan is also good and encompasses most of the same points, by the way. (it also won't happen with a Republican Congress, haha)

A obvious difference between us seems to be that you wish to just sweepingly call it unrealistic, but specifically do so with Sanders, without knowing the big picture. I personally lean towards approval (and a degree of blind hope, sure) but also recognize I don't have the big picture so I'm open to either possibility.

I'm not sweepingly calling anything unrealistic, I'm looking at objective evaluations of his stated plan. Something that falls trillions short of paying for itself is not realistic. Something that relies on passing future legislation to pay for it is not realistic. If Sanders wants to revise his plan and make it better I'm all for it. I support legislation for single payer health care but I don't support shitty, unfunded legislation for single payer health care. You shouldn't either.

 

[zinfamous]

He won't post a source.

The economist that was used in the wall street hit piece that claimed Bernie's healthcare plan would cost something like 17 trillion, wrote an open letter stating he was misquoted. He stated the plan will actually save 5 trillion.

Interesting. Now I'd like to see your source for this.

 

[ivwshane]

Interesting. Now I'd like to see your source for this.

I'll let him bother with the source but in effect the author was talking about the total cost over ten years but they left out the fact that with the current setup it would cost even more during that same time period.

I think that was assuming bernie's math adds up, which it currently doesn't.

 

[norseamd]

https://twitter.com/QuinnDaGhost/status/697991539239337984

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpSNd7cIQb4

 

[fskimospy]

By the way, in addition to the other financial stuff I just learned today that Sanders had previously joined Ron Paul/Rand Paul/etc in their movement to 'audit the fed'. Note that this isn't a normal audit of the type that the fed regularly undergoes, it's basically a way for Congress to exert additional political influence on monetary policy.

This is a monumentally stupid idea. The entire purpose of making the Fed independent is to stop congressional meddling in it. I hope he has repudiated this vote.