|
Hmm according to this chart CNN skews liberal so problem solved! https://mobile.twitter.com/Gierasimczuk/status/974664772930060288 e:  that neutral is the same as 'both sides'
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
balance of biases AKA "here's a guy who thinks sweatshops are extremely good and here's a guy who think they're regrettable but necessary"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I don't read the WaPo, but from a distance it seems like they have less of that thing the NYT has going on where despite actually being centrist or center-right they consider themselves progressive, and thus need to attack/discredit anyone on the left who calls them out on this, and also probably is what causes them to do stuff like whitewash Nazis in some sort of galaxy-brain 11th dimensional chess way. WaPo seems to me like an openly center-right paper that is comfortable in that identity I dropped my WaPo subscription when they went on a "decorum" tangent while ignoring the Nazi poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Hmm according to this chart CNN skews liberal so problem solved! I still can’t get over where they placed Jacobin on this infographic lol whoever made this clearly has never actually read any of the outlets on the left side of the picture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
"Hyper-Partisan Liberal" is "having a moral core and sticking to it" while "Hyper-Partisan Conservative" is "This line meets this line here - that means the poor should starve"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Hmm according to this chart CNN skews liberal so problem solved! Note where Jacobin is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
I'm kind of hoping this: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/17/17664048/national-prison-strike-2018 Puts an end to Kamala Harris's presidential run. Christ, she'll be really bad, and will not at all beat Trump. edit: The vox article is really lovely, I apologise for that. Dirk Pitt fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Aug 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Hmm according to this chart CNN skews liberal so problem solved! these goatse memes are becoming really obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I still can’t get over where they placed Jacobin on this infographic lol whoever made this clearly has never actually read any of the outlets on the left side of the picture. everything about this chart makes absolutely perfect sense when you try to visit the URL on the chart and discover that it redirects to the homepage of a marketing company that sells high-resolution versions of the chart for $15 and printed poster versions for $25
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
I always get a laugh about classifying any outlet which supported the Iraq War as "fact reporting"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
"Fact Reporting" is just journalism, you don't need to call attention to it. I don't inherently trust anything that calls itself a "fact checker" since they are using a loaded, self appointed name to get credibility that may well not have been earned. If a journalist that has built up a good reputation says something is a lie that's worth listening to but if some nebulous group or pundits says they are the authority of fact checking totally objectively I start thinking something is up. You saw this with Jake Trapper saying "four independent fact checkers proved this was a lie" and then it turns out that all four were citing the same line from a think tank without question. Those orgs were specifically trying to muddy the narrative by claiming the authority on truth without actually doing any real journalism or investigation. EDIT: Before I get called out for claiming FAKE NEWS, I don't think "fact checkers" are always specifically lying. However they don't deserve implicit trust as final arbiters of truth because of their name, especially when lately they've been weaponized against left of center politicians with a lot more scrutiny on tiny details than any other. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
 "Okay yes Republicans want to abolish social security and VA health care, but but but there would still technically be programs named 'social security' and 'VA health care' and after all isn't the existence of something completely different in everything but name all we care about at the end of the day?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
lol at how all these "fact-checkers" keep trying to somehow defeat the left through rules-lawyering. Like they think that by pointing out these minor semantic things (or deliberately misconstruing things, as in the case with the Sanders statement on MfA savings) that they'll somehow win the debate like it's an episode of West Wing. Like they imagine themselves being like "Excuse me Mr. Sanders, sir, but our honorable Republican colleagues simply mean to privatize Social Security, not abolish it!" and then Sanders is like "b-b-bwuh!?!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:lol at how all these "fact-checkers" keep trying to somehow defeat the left through rules-lawyering. Like they think that by pointing out these minor semantic things (or deliberately misconstruing things, as in the case with the Sanders statement on MfA savings) that they'll somehow win the debate like it's an episode of West Wing. I think they privately know they can't do that with the GOP, so now they want to convince themselves they can do it with the left. (They can't and a good leftist would just tell them to go gently caress off to a labor camp.).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jessemckinley/status/1032225084243693568/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Hahaha, pretty much all of centrist/center-left choices (except for Biden) have, at the very least, a pretty high chance of losing to Trump. I would hope that Biden's support would drop once more people learned about how lovely he is during the primaries; a lot of people right now seem to know nothing about his actual politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
They absolutely don't, he's the guy from Onion and Parks and Rec. Once the public hears him sucking up to corporations and learns a bit about his record he's toast.
Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
It’s genuinely a little disheartening that both Holder and Cuomo rate double digits. How the gently caress is Cuomo doing better than Gillibrand?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It’s genuinely a little disheartening that both Holder and Cuomo rate double digits. How the gently caress is Cuomo doing better than Gillibrand? It’s a one point difference and these people are fork-tongued snakes who belong in the same poo poo bracket. I guarantee Holder has some of that “Obama’s guy” backing him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:It’s a one point difference and these people are fork-tongued snakes who belong in the same poo poo bracket. I’m more so confused how more people have heard of and have a positive opinion of Cuomo. Gillibrand at least seems nice to the unassuming. Cuomo has zero redeeming qualities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Cuomo and Holder both probably have better name recognition than Gillibrand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
That's basically a name recognition poll, especially since people weren't given titles only names.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
I'm curious to see what Cuomo's numbers look like now that Trump won't shut up about his "never great" gaffe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's basically a name recognition poll, especially since people weren't given titles only names. It's still a problem for people betting on a big anti-Trump blue wave. If someone, given the choice between Trump and someone they haven't heard of, chooses "don't know" or "no opinion", then they're not part of the "anyone but Trump" voter base. And if "Don't know/no opinion" is scoring better than the actual candidate is, then the "anyone but Trump" demographic probably isn't actually electorally significant. Which, y'know, is a issue if you're a Democrat who's expecting to coast to victory on the backs of "anyone but Trump" voters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
I'm reading mcmagic trying to cut through the cognitive dissonance in the Trump thread re: succ dems and hall passes. They like to argue that if the vote is going to go 51 all R in favor anyway, there's no reason to get upset when the succ dems vote with the Republicans. However, when the succ dems signal their intention to vote for Kavanaugh/any bill to the media, it sends a message to the few persuadable Republicans (Collins, Murkowski) that the nominee/bill is going to go through. This removes any political pressure from those Rs to vote against the issue. We've already seen it play out several time. The only real on-the-fence legislation getting blocked by Dems was the Obamacare repeal, the one issue all Dems were lock-step in opposing. Considering the Trump thread regulars love posturing about how savvy the Democratic party is in opposing everything they can, and how masterful they are at playing optics, you'd think such an issue would be obvious to them. The Trump thread regulars actually get angry when you suggest that maybe the bad Dems/the party as a whole actually want that regressive legislation to pass. It's outside of their acceptable discourse to consider that maybe the succ dems don't have to vote fascists to the court, or to strip minorities of their rights. Otherwise, a Republican might win office and vote fascists to the court and strip minorities of their rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
It's because they don't care about actual outcomes even half as much as they care about their team winning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
I want to know what they think is going to happen if the Democrats get the majority or a tie in the Senate (with VP tie breaker). According to them Red State Democrats voting like Republicans is absolutely the most important thing since it results in them keeping the Senate as there's no other way to get elected. So what happens when say a bill to try and fix ICE gets put up to the Senate. Do they still get to vote for Republican legislation when it matters? I mean if then don't they will get voted out right? It's the most absurd logic to excuse absolutely atrocious Democrats who after losing an unprecedented amount of influence in eight years have no right to be treated an authority on crafty political schemes to get elected. It's basically ignoring the last decade of politics. Cerebral Bore posted:It's because they don't care about actual outcomes even half as much as they care about their team winning. Yeah politics ends at getting elected. The saddest part is outside of Republicans getting so bad people vote Democrat out of desperation they can't even do that part. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
it's also really important to note that MANY judges have been appointed entirely because of lovely dems voting for them and that's gonna probably be the most cancerous part of trump's administration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
There should be no hall passes to vote R at this point, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There should be no hall passes to vote R at this point, frankly. People defending Manchin saying maybe he should vote for Trump and also the racist wall is totally good is insane to me. You can't build a consistent message or platform when you have people actively stating they are traitors. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:it's also really important to note that MANY judges have been appointed entirely because of lovely dems voting for them and that's gonna probably be the most cancerous part of trump's administration. This is a great point. Don't most of Trump's federal judge nominees end up passing with like 80ish votes? Even if you buy into the hall pass logic, there's no way any red state Dems' votes are changing based on these positions. Besides, the Republicans are pushing the "Dems are obstructing judgeships" regardless. Like, maybe succ dems' overwhelming approval votes on these less-visible judges is more representative of their actual beliefs, and the posturing on SC nominees is just to game the liberals? EDIT: Here's a list of all confirmed federal judges. If I'm reading this right (and I could very well not be), then the Dems have helped confirm ALL of Trump's appelate court nominees, except for a few that are still before the Judiciary Committee. Also looks like Dems are holding up roughly 40% of the district court judges, 30% are held up at the Judiciary Committee, and the remaining 30% have been confirmed. Euphoriaphone fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
love to see the Democrats standing up for Main Street everymen like *Googles name* a board member and director at the Organization for Competitive Markets, as well as at least five other lobbying organizations https://mobile.twitter.com/SenateDems/status/1031573601961627650
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's still a problem for people betting on a big anti-Trump blue wave. If someone, given the choice between Trump and someone they haven't heard of, chooses "don't know" or "no opinion", then they're not part of the "anyone but Trump" voter base. And if "Don't know/no opinion" is scoring better than the actual candidate is, then the "anyone but Trump" demographic probably isn't actually electorally significant. Which, y'know, is a issue if you're a Democrat who's expecting to coast to victory on the backs of "anyone but Trump" voters. You've got to consider the context of a poll where they're listing off a bunch of names with no titles and asking if you'd support them or not. I don't think you can extrapolate from this poll to any 2020 election trend in a meaningful manner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1032389393305100288 Not On The Table - Chap. 6
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Euphoriaphone posted:The Trump thread regulars actually get angry when you suggest that maybe the bad Dems/the party as a whole actually want that regressive legislation to pass. It's outside of their acceptable discourse to consider that maybe the succ dems don't have to vote fascists to the court, or to strip minorities of their rights. Otherwise, a Republican might win office and vote fascists to the court and strip minorities of their rights. They operate under the premise that it's fundamentally part of "being a good person" to always assume good will unless given absolute proof otherwise, which is conveniently impossible in most cases like this without mind-reading technology. Of course, the problem with this is that, for people who aren't super privileged (and let's not kid ourselves; most of those people in the Trump thread make a lot of money), there's a cost to repeatedly wrongly assuming politicians secretly have good intentions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
I love that you all have successfully internally othered the entire Trump thread into an evil centrist hivemind. Who are these mythical posters defending the honor of Joe Manchin? Surely you can quote them. Drag them as they deserve. The judicial appointments are by far the biggest and longest lasting damage of the Trump administration. Any Democrat that voted or votes for any of the judges should probably be replaced and lose party support. Obviously the latter won't happen. Seriously, the rate of confirmations compared to other administrations at this point is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
I find this really curious. They seem to be trying to thread this bizarre needle where the midterms are a referendum on Trump but in a vague sense. I suppose they just don’t want people to have any expectations of them, though charitably I imagine they’d argue that they don’t want Republican voters to galvanize around protecting Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
The Democrats are defined by their desire to be elected without having to be expected to do anything. Hillary would have already been impeached by now either for Benghazi or EMAILS but the Democrats are such cowards taking a firm stand against actual crimes is asking just too much. They are practically begging people to ask "why exactly am I voting for you again??"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
So my dad was talking about how absurd it was that (apparently) someone on CNN or FOX was comparing Clinton's Lewinsky affair with Trump's investigation. But when you actually think about it, what Clinton did was actually kinda morally worse than the specific things Trump is being accused of with regards to collusion with Russia (though Trump is of course guilty of the same sort of stuff as Clinton with regards to being a sex pest, even if it's not the focus of the investigation). I feel like reaction to the Lewinsky situation represents a big gulf between older liberals and (hopefully) many younger ones. Like, older ones reflexively act like Clinton either did nothing wrong, or it was actually Lewinsky's fault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So my dad was talking about how absurd it was that (apparently) someone on CNN or FOX was comparing Clinton's Lewinsky affair with Trump's investigation. But when you actually think about it, what Clinton did was actually kinda morally worse than the specific things Trump is being accused of with regards to collusion with Russia (though Trump is of course guilty of the same sort of stuff as Clinton with regards to being a sex pest, even if it's not the focus of the investigation). There is a major divide between old and young Democrats on this. Defending Bill was one of the worst mistakes of that era. My Boomer mother still thinks he did nothing wrong, but will readily remind everyone that Trump is a sex pest. It is extremely annoying, and complete hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 02:46
|
|