US Elections 2020 thread

[QDRPHNC]

Why? If they were all Republicans then they wouldn't be selfishly voting to keep the left out of power.

It's not harsh. Fuck 'em. They know what their vote does.

They might have a different point of view.

[Twed]

It's wrong and they should vote my way. That's what democracy is!

More seriously, Biden doesn't have policies and is just a general musk of "let's keep the status quo", which they benefit from. I'm hardly going to wish them death in a way that would get back to them, but when their choices boil down to "what keeps my second house in Florida cheap for the three years until I'm dead at the expense of people who can't afford rent" I think it warrants some forum hyperbole. So yes, facefuck their dying grey skulls.

[Twed]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/joe-biden-2020-1296862

Joe Biden has a healthcare plan, but doesn't "have the time to completely lay out all the details."

I don't think it's ever been more apparent than during this primary cycle how top-level politicians feel it's their right to run for the presidency, and policies are just irritating homework they have to do.

[Twed]

Really surprised to see this.

Also I've seen more Newt 2012 stickers than Biden stickers.

[EOLAN]

I am probably going to be attacking Biden from the wrong side on a superficial level. Watching some snippets of his post launch campagn from British news sources; Trump's assertion that he is old (similar to attacks on Hilary) seem to ring true. While there is little in the actual age difference with Trump  and also Sanders; those two just seem more energetic. Uncle Joe came across very lethargic. Maybe the sniff of lady hair gives him that extra power. Could see what Trump says and think it will certainly hit home with a lot of his target electorate on that point against Joe.

[Dog Botherer]

I am probably going to be attacking Biden from the wrong side on a superficial level. Watching some snippets of his post launch campagn from British news sources; Trump's assertion that he is old (similar to attacks on Hilary) seem to ring true. While there is little in the actual age difference with Trump  and also Sanders; those two just seem more energetic. Uncle Joe came across very lethargic. Maybe the sniff of lady hair gives him that extra power. Could see what Trump says and think it will certainly hit home with a lot of his target electorate on that point against Joe.

my man looks like fucking shit

[Sin Agog]

There's an AOC doc called Knock Down The House on Netflix that may or may not be good.  Some of the foaming 1-star reviews on IMDB lead me to believe it must be quite inspiring.

[Replies From View]

I strongly suspect Biden has that sprouting mung beans smell to him, to be honest.

[Twed]

https://twitter.com/sam4soph/status/1124743719574487048?s=19

There's something almost comforting about how far gone we are.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

we are truly living in a time of no subtext

[Twed]

I think you're being sniffy because that's what you mainly do, but the subject you may have missed is that a headline that means something positive about Biden is perfectly applicable to what a blockage he is, and nobody involved is thoughtful enough to realise it.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

No i meant him saying "lower your expectations" is a very literal rendering of what is wrong with the political class nowadays, they're not even pretending anymore. you really need to chill the fuck out

[Twed]

Watch it, you.

Nate Silver: caring about policy is elitist: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1124681571758481410

[Twed]

Seeing a lot (well, enough that it's noticeable) left people treating Assange like some kind of people's hero, which is at best embarrassing.

It reminds me that I am a centrist. Not in the usual, skewed scale where that essentially means free market conservative, but in a far more rational scale where you look at the whims of the people instead of the noise of the media and realise that Sanders is in the centre.

(Okay, I'm a little more left revolutionary than that I guess, I'm a fervent Corbyn supporter who really is from the tradition of the left, but for US politics at this point in time, Sanders-centrism is the best achievable outlook)

[mojo filters]

Given his normal dispassionate and data-driven approach, I'd be inclined to agree with Nate Silver, though this does seem to be a bit of an over-generalisation.

Policy details matter a lot to dedicated Iowa caucus goers and New Hampshire primary voters. However the unusual status bestowed on those folks by virtue of calendar traditions, means they are not necessarily representative of the broader electorate.

Interesting that no one hear has referenced Heidi Pryzbyla's updated story on Bernie's absurd gun voting/policy flip floppery.

Normally I'd caution any Democrat against putting gun policy in their stump or national policy platform. However ironically Bernie seemed like the one candidate who could get away with openly advocating for very minor gun control policies, eg limiting such to simply enforcing existing laws properly whilst defending a pro-2A voting record - without paying too much of a price with either the right or the left.

Unfortunately his changes of mind have been so blatantly politically expedient (ie 180° flip 3 days before the 2016 Iowa caucus) this will now be very hard to walk back, in any effort to characterise such as genuine policy evolution.

[Twed]

Interesting that no one hear has referenced Heidi Pryzbyla's updated story on Bernie's absurd gun voting/policy flip floppery.

I haven't seen it. Maybe it's only important in the kinds of circles who put any kind of value in Nate Silver. This would be the Heidi Pryzbyla who works for NBC, a Comcast company? The same Comcast that Biden has time to schmooze with when he doesn't have time to put together the details of a healthcare policy?

Unfortunately his changes of mind have been so blatantly politically expedient (ie 180° flip 3 days before the 2016 Iowa caucus) this will now be very hard to walk back, in any effort to characterise such as genuine policy evolution.

What are they? You've just saying vaguely negative things with no details. Bernie's past bad gun policies are not news, but the idea that he has recently just flip-flopped is suspicious. In fact, it's the same thing they tried five years ago three years ago (you innumerate scum, Twed), and is rooted in trying to diminish one of his biggest strengths: his consistent record.

Not news, is it?

This is another facet of the "let's run a clean campaign" horseshit. That means "don't let Bernie or Warren talk about the terrible policies and history of other candidates, but do let the media run smears against them". Biden doesn't need to attack Bernie, news networks will do it for him.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Nate Silver has eaten shit on most of his predictions over the last 4 years

[Twed]

Nate Silver has eaten shit on most of his predictions over the last 4 years

Why do you keep attacking me

[Twed]

(this was a joke about yesterday and it wasn't very good and I wish I hadn't posted it, sorry)

[mojo filters]

Heidi's story was not entirely new. It updated reporting that goes back to Bernie's 2016 campaign. It was promulgated widely both within the beltway and beyond. Heidi does stellar work in consistently providing honest reportage within the NBC news family - the world's most watched collection of news channels.

That would indeed be the same NBC that allowed Roger Ailes to launch the groundbreaking cable news network America's Talking.

That would be the same NBC that leveraged both the commercial success of CNBC and the generosity of Bill Gates' giant check book, to launch the innovative and successful MSNBC cable news enterprise.

MSNBC happens to be arguably the most honest and consistent broker in the cable news business. It took chances on what turned into key talent such as Rachel Maddow, then a rising star in the doomed yet well-intentioned radio station Air America.

The circles who put value in the content provided by Nate Silver and 538, are those who value new and innovative voices that contribute positively to a valuable media plurality.

Of course there will always be peripheral circles of those who conveniently attach themselves to a game-changing politician and political influencer such as Bernie Sanders.

There's nothing inherently wrong there, until it's apparent there are also a minority of such folks whose only capability when it comes to contributing to the national political conversation - is snidely sniping simplistic negativity from the sidelines.

This is not an elitist tract, such as to suggest that those of us with blue check-marked Twitter accounts or mainstream media affiliations should be considered to have any kind of superior status within any public debate.

However within what some perceive to be that media bubble, many do not shy away from exposing potential bankruptcies and fatal flaws in expression of political opinion.

There's nothing to stop folks from taking valid yet cheap shots, from the cowardly remove of unaccountable convenience.

There's not much validity in the blunt force of expressed opinions, when they fail to add constructively to the wider debate at hand.

Supporters of Bernie Sanders do his cause little good, when their only outlet for political expression is exclusively via negative references to his Democratic primary process rivals.

There comes a point where I hear otherwise-sensible argument made in Bernie's favour, yet done in such a ham fisted fashion one could easily swap in Trump's name - without impacting the coherence of the issue at hand.

There are always valid criticisms of media to be made. When made well, such critiques serve to strengthen such sources.

To make them effectively, you have to do more than just tediously repeat conspiracy theories that have more in common with Alex Jones / InfoWars than any attempt to contribute with some semblance of intellectual honesty.

The first draft of history will inevitably be riddled with errors. That doesn't mean those who attempt the lofty and challenging feat of writing such are not aware of such challenges, nor does it prevent properly positioned critiques from either informing or influencing such.

However if the only criticism is blunt force trauma via purely negative conspiracy theories, you probably shouldn't be surprised such viewpoints are not adequately reflected to your personal satisfaction.

There is currently a great and important debate happening in America, which has captured the attention of the rest of the world. Let's show it the dignity it deserves. If you simply can't - just go vote, don't do potential harm to a cause you espouse!

[Twed]

Heidi's story was not entirely new. It updated reporting that goes back to Bernie's 2016 campaign. It was promulgated widely both within the beltway and beyond. Heidi does stellar work in consistently providing honest reportage within the NBC news family - the world's most watched collection of news channels.

That would indeed be the same NBC that allowed Roger Ailes to launch the groundbreaking cable news network America's Talking.

That would be the same NBC that leveraged both the commercial success of CNBC and the generosity of Bill Gates' giant check book, to launch the innovative and successful MSNBC cable news enterprise.

MSNBC happens to be arguably the most honest and consistent broker in the cable news business. It took chances on what turned into key talent such as Rachel Maddow

Am I being trolled?

[Twed]

Oh wait, you're the one who personally knows people from NBC

lol

Your friends will go in history as worms. Actual worms.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Citations Needed Podcast: What the Hell is wrong with MSNBC?: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-34-what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-msnbc

Transcript: https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-34-what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-msnbc-5a4538f32ef

MSNBC is by far the most influential mainstream media outlet on the American Left. It sets the tone and defines the boundary for what is acceptable discourse among American liberals. But major issues the Left is generally thought to care about - imperial war, worker strikes, Palestine, climate change - are almost entirely absent from coverage, as the network increasingly looks like a 24-hour Trump-Russia infomercial.

What is the point of having a liberal cable news network when it ignores so many major issues on the Left and pushes a narrative that, in the aggregate, does little beyond selling more weapons systems and inflaming US-Russia proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine? How did MSNBC get this way? What are the corporate forces making it so terrible, and is there hope for a more thoughtful, politically relevant network?

[Mister Six]

Only seen a full Rachel Maddow show once, when she purported to have one of Trump's tax documents, and it was a total nothing that actually reinforced his position to the point that people suggested he had leaked it himself. The only other times I've glimpsed her, she's been waffing like someone whose autoqueue just broke down.

That said, Twed's worms comment is just a bit cringey and teenage.

[Twed]

Cummy maggots, used to clean a wound but infecting it more because of all the cum that's on them.

[Mister Six]

This is my fetish.

[kngen]

MSNBC happens to be arguably the most honest and consistent broker in the cable news business. It took chances on what turned into key talent such as Rachel Maddow, then a rising star in the doomed yet well-intentioned radio station Air America.

Ah, the most useful of all the useful idiots. Remember that tax return that showed absolutely nothing (and was designed to show nothing, as it had clearly been leaked to her by Trump's team) that was waved about like the smoking gun? You could extrapolate Maddow's entire career of empty posturing from that one dismal failure.

EDIT: I see Mister Six has covered this too. Still, it bears repeating.

There are always valid criticisms of media to be made. When made well, such critiques serve to strengthen such sources.

To make them effectively, you have to do more than just tediously repeat conspiracy theories that have more in common with Alex Jones / InfoWars than any attempt to contribute with some semblance of intellectual honesty.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that those who have noticed a distinct anti-Bernie slant to the MSNBC/WaPo/CAP/DNC merry-go-round are akin to Infowars nimrods? As a professional journalist of 25 years' standing, can I just say: you're talking out of your fucking arse, pal!

To turn your above statement on its head, those who seek to defend the media against criticism, regardless of validity, weaken it more than any YouTuber could. Time and time again, the mainstream media would circle their wagons when people tried to hold the editors and op-ed writers to account for their support for the Iraq war and any other number of foreign misadventures (despite editors admitting that they chose not to run hugely important stories that they believed would 'undermine the war effort') ... and they're still fucking doing it. Trump's war on the media is the best thing that could have happened to these empty vessels - it's allowed them to hit the reset switch and act as if they are truly speaking truth to power, and have been doing so this whole time, rather than just acting like a bunch of courtiers happy to rubberstamp America's most heinous acts of imperialism.

And yet the media class wonders why their words no longer carry any weight with the general public ...

[kngen]

Just as an addendum, the Washington Post, clearly chastened by the reaction to its anti-Bernie slew of stories in 2018, has been slightly more charitable to him. But his flagship policy, less so, as this selection of hard news and op-eds from the last few weeks shows. They really don't want Medicare-for-All at the WaPo. I wonder why.

News stories:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-vermonts-single-payer-effort-failed-and-what-democrats-can-learn-from-it/2019/04/29/c9789018-3ab8-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html?utm_term=.bfbccfb227da

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/medicare-for-all-plans-get-a-reality-check/2019/05/01/7e734804-6c1f-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html?utm_term=.3ae0bd35f7bb

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/americans-eager-for-congress-to-shield-them-from-health-care-costs-poll-shows/2019/04/24/696a72da-669c-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.ab8e364bb9a1

Op-eds:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/03/sorry-bernie-most-americans-like-their-health-insurance-way-it-is/?utm_term=.6a3b9c7acfea

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-are-attacking-trumps-medicare-cuts-but-bernie-sanderss-medicare-for-all-requires-them-too/2019/03/23/8baa80a4-49b1-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html?utm_term=.853845649e07

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/21/alternatives-medicare-all/?utm_term=.71e2f70775c1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/you-cant-have-it-all--even-with-medicare-for-all/2019/01/31/b0551dcc-24c4-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.3486a64c23fd

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/03/progressives-cant-be-trusted-with-medicare-for-all/?utm_term=.9533f4d4170b

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-beware-we-cannot-cannibalize-ourselves-over-health-care/2019/02/06/6bff99fa-2a2c-11e9-b011-d8500644dc98_story.html?utm_term=.76b16523443b

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/22/why-us-health-care-reformers-shouldnt-use-other-countries-model-swiss-miss-anyone/?utm_term=.103e87dc8e8a

[Twed]

https://news.yahoo.com/joe-biden-says-theresa-may-104916475.html

"Margaret Thatcher, um, excuse me, Margaret Thatcher — Freudian slip," Mr Biden said to laughter from top donors to his campaign, according to a campaign pool report. "But I knew her too."

After a pause, he added: "The prime minister of Great Britain Theresa May."

[mojo filters]

I'm not necessarily here to defend any one media outlet specifically. There are press offices well staffed with press officers to professionally take care of that, if and when needed.

I enjoy a healthy and robust debate, when backed up with substantive evidence and grownup commentary. Childish insults are not worth dignifying.

Furthermore I see no need to cite my number of years in the trade, as part of some pissing contest to shallowly attempt to validate and elevate my own status. To do so in the same breath as attempting to de-legitimise respectable media outlets has the hollow whiff of hypocrisy.

I think it's worth noting that for most on the left - the much maligned, supposed "mainstream media" is frequently their best friend. The plurality of coverage provided by well-resourced national print and broadcast journalism has the breadth and depth to capably cover nearly all of the most pertinent and relevant stories.

The combined forces of commercial consideration and human frailty are inconvenient and obviously impede any notion of perfection. However mighty strength lies in an ability to present "just the facts" - from which consumers can form their own judgement, including the ability to parse out anything they feel has not received appropriate attention.

I sympathise in terms of how poorly the partisan left have failed to fully weaponise inexpensive yet effective and influential modern media channels. I think it's a rich subject area ripe for study, to drill down and identify how the right has basically developed a diverse range of quasi-fictional "news" sources, many of which are far more influential than they have any right to be.

Partisan media on the left frequently struggles by virtue of attempting to adhere to the admirable virtues of truthful reporting.

Everyone can easily rattle off the names of numerous influential right wing sources, notable for their intellectual dishonesty and Trumpian propensity for mendacity. Attempts to modestly regulate modern social media platforms are currently impotent.

I applaud those who seek to create more diversity on the left. There are big names such as The Young Turks and Democracy Now, using innovative commercially viable broadcast platforms.

Relatively small websites such as The Intercept are able to penetrate the market, by virtue of the attraction brought by big names like Glenn Greenwald. Hobbies-turned-startups like Crooked Media are able to grow quickly, by virtue of the resumes of their key talent.

However even these successful examples suffer by virtue of prioritising good quality content over clickbait. There is an unfortunate threshold in terms of resources, required to consistently produce output that meets the standards of expectation in respect of honest media brokers.

The right suffers far less from such inevitable expense, simply via their proclivity for either making up stories or misrepresenting the hard work of others.

The last few decades have heralded an inflection point, enabled via advances in technology, which will forever change the future media landscape. I prefer to look positively at the future, rather than cry over the spilt milk of outdated models such as much of the ever-decreasing regional print media.

Nevertheless I still recall (and I believe this is included in a recent documentary) seeing the brilliant, flawed and sadly passed NYT veteran media columnist David Carr (father of budding documentary film maker Erin Lee Carr) demolish a whoring media parasite like Michael Wolff - who has repeatedly sought to profit from the work of others, as do many other so-called "aggregators" relying nearly exclusively on established legacy media for content.

I hold strong opinions. I can also put them aside when needed. In respect of the former, I just wish those on the progressive side could quit their pointless bickering when it matters - simply for the greater good of what I assume others who are similarly inclined, realise is in the very best interests of furthering a noble cause!