Warren the reformer v. Sanders the revolutionary

[ehrnst]

60. Nice try. You dismissed the lady reporter as hostile outright because...

the "corporate media conglomerate" had some reason to take Bernie down with "conspiracy theory" - simply because she stated a fact about him and didn't just shut her "mouthpiece" (as you so respectfully referred to her) when he gave her a non-answer to that question he didn't like.



That is you, right?

They have by their very nature and self-evident to the conscious among us inherent conflicts of interest, I know you can't deny this but from your posts so far, you don't seem to have a problem or objection to it.

And you can keep on attacking those ever growing legions of straw men of your making, but I'm not silly enough to defend them...no matter how frantically and repeatedly you keep insistting that I do - shrug emojis don't hide that. You should have learned that by now with all the times that we've "discussed" things that I don't derail very easily.



They are however now morphing into false dillemas. Your attempts at derailing the topic of your inconsistency on why you wave certain "corporate conglomerate media mouthpieces" as fabulous journalism, while dismissing the content of others as hostile and promoting wild conspiracy theories against poor Bernie (which don't confirm your bias) for being the goal of "corporate conglomerate media mouthpieces," when simply following up on a question that Bernie was trying to avoid, shows reveal some real frustration at being called out.

Much like Senator Sanders tried to avoid the very valid question from that lady reporter, and revealed some hostility in doing so. Cutting her off mid sentence... that was a rebuke for not accepting his deflection.

Like a real journalist, and not a fawning fan.

You dismiss those "inherent conflicts of interests" with a wave of the hand - even to the point of promoting them on DU in OPs, so long as the "mouthpieces" say whatever brings happiness.