American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

*groan*

It's important to know the slant you are likely to receive from any media source, but their record on fact based reporting and reliability is what's most important.

Here, I feel like I need to post this every few weeks or so just to drive the point home. You will note that CNN is nowhere near the same bracket as Fox News. *Further note the difference between web and TV. Fox on TV is horrible.

I wonder if anyone over at CNN is concerned about having less reliability than TMZ?

[afc wimbledon]

nm

[#-3]

Not sure about the reliability of that chart, at the very least Vice should be down and to the left of The Daily Mail a bit. I also only listen to the daily, but the NYT are ridiculously generous to the right, saying they have even a slight left slant is baffling to me, that's always what confused me about Trumps attacks on them, they so so badly wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, but he just could keep if own foot out of his mount, and they weren't willing to outright lie for him.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

HAHAHA...no, NYT is definitely left wing. Read their editorials. They do post some diverse opinions, but they are the types of opinions that liberals already agree with, or want to agree with.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Reuters has always been a bit of the gold standard. Not like those left wing nutjobs at the weather network.

LOL, I think it's because they generally post articles on climate change that could be thought of as having a left-wing bias.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Can someone explain to me why the Dems refused to call witnesses? Just classic Democratic incompetence or was there a 4D chess move behind it that I'm missing?

Here is a good breakdown

https://twitter.com/user/status/1360963234778537986

[devo22]

I thought Plaskett and Raskin explained it well. They wanted Herrera-Beutlers statement on the record, so they filed the motion for witnesses and then negotiated to get it in without actually having to subpoena her. Because ultimately you never know if witnesses from the other party will actually help you make the case in the end, plus the nutjobs on the other side had every intention of making a circus out of calling witnesses. And let's be honest here, they could have had dozens of great witnesses to make the case and still none of the cowards would have crossed over. Once McConnell made it clear he wouldn't convict, it was over, and they knew it. So they simply made sure to get Herrera-Beutlers statement into evidence and get it over with. And I agree with that, drawing it out would have changed nothing and helped nobody. The greatest evidence does nothing if the jury looks the other way, no matter what.

[FanIn80]

I don’t understand that New York Post ranking. They should be down with the National Enquirer.

[devo22]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1361677723576500233

[Mull]

Originally Posted by devo22

https://twitter.com/user/status/1361677723576500233

I would expect after an ex-president lost an election while receiving the 2nd most votes in US history, and the most votes of any prior election they would be the top candidate, nevermind any recent events. He has the most name recognition right now and the most media time.

Interesting poll I guess to put the numbers into context, but not surprising

[GirlySports]

I think that's recency bias. Like how Bernie was at 40%+ after the 2016. Once the other names start to declare and run campaigns, you'll see the number tighten. I don't think there will be an appetite in 4 years for Trump, since he's no longer an unknown, and the GOP won't let what happened in 2016 happen again in 2024.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think that's recency bias. Like how Bernie was at 40%+ after the 2016. Once the other names start to declare and run campaigns, you'll see the number tighten. I don't think there will be an appetite in 4 years for Trump, since he's no longer an unknown, and the GOP won't let what happened in 2016 happen again in 2024.

I think the jury is still out on if Trump is the republican's party future. His brand mobilized their base like never before, although, he also mobilized the protest vote like never before. He has cultist voters which is dangerous to underestimate - republican's can face primaries.

The fact only a few senators votes for conviction, and house members are flying to meet with him, implies to me the party themselves are still not sure where he fits in their future- grand leader, treated like Bush during the Obama years, or something in-between?

[devo22]

well, people like Lindsay Graham call Lara Trump "the future of the party", just because of her last name. Most of the 7 senators who voted to convict have already been censured by their states or face censure in the coming days (pretty ironic that a party that cries "cancel culture!" at every turn loves to quickly cancel people, but maybe that's just me). So it seems to me that many people within the party are still firmly behind the dear leader, and I can't see them separating themselves from him any time soon.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The only thing that poll shows you is the media is going to do everything in their power to have Trump running in 2024. It's literally irrelevant as a poll and not even worth mentioning, but it will probably end up being 20% of CNN segments in the days to come. They can't quit him, he's a drug for them.

[direwolf]

I still don't see Trump actually running in 2024. Dude never wanted to be president to begin with, and by all indications he hated the job. I think he'll be much happier in his post-presidency life, just golfing every day and sitting on his golden toilet in Mar-a-Lago.

He'll still be the figurehead of the GOP for a while though, and they'll continue to use him to whatever advantage it gives them. Especially if it helps them retake the Senate in 2022. The impeachment vote pretty much solidified that they're totally on board with Trumpism going forward, and that they fully support violent insurrections.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The impeachment vote would have succeeded with a private ballot. There are definitely some within the GOP who have fully embraced Trumpism, but in general it's more like the have no choice because they are so afraid of the base. Again as I said they are pussies more than anything. And I can't see how he won't run in 2024, we're highly likely to see another Trump bankruptcy in the coming years so going back to the grifting well to cash in seems inevitable.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And I can't see how he won't run in 2024, we're highly likely to see another Trump bankruptcy in the coming years so going back to the grifting well to cash in seems inevitable.

Christ, I hope not. For the entire planet's sake.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The impeachment vote would have succeeded with a private ballot. There are definitely some within the GOP who have fully embraced Trumpism, but in general it's more like the have no choice because they are so afraid of the base. Again as I said they are pussies more than anything. And I can't see how he won't run in 2024, we're highly likely to see another Trump bankruptcy in the coming years so going back to the grifting well to cash in seems inevitable.

There's an irony in attacking elected representatives in a democracy over them staying in line with the desires of their electorate. A private ballot where officials evade accountability to their electorate is less democratic. As there hasn't been any evidence of actual election fraud, we should reasonably view these people as representing the will of the majority the electorates that voted them in.

The political crisis in the US isn't just about despicable elected officials. It's the crisis of division in the electorate being reflected in the political sphere.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

There's an irony in attacking elected representatives in a democracy over them staying in line with the desires of their electorate. A private ballot where officials evade accountability to their electorate is less democratic. As there hasn't been any evidence of actual election fraud, we should reasonably view these people as representing the will of the majority the electorates that voted them in.

The political crisis in the US isn't just about despicable elected officials. It's the crisis of division in the electorate being reflected in the political sphere.

They don't care about representing those people, they care about locking in their votes. It's why they constantly talk up emotional social issues that rarely affect them, while stabbing those same people in the back on basically every other issue of substance. It's an odd kind of abusive relationship where the abused doesn't even realize they are being abused. Or they do realize they're being abused, but don't care because it's "owning the libs" or whatever.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

There's an irony in attacking elected representatives in a democracy over them staying in line with the desires of their electorate. A private ballot where officials evade accountability to their electorate is less democratic. As there hasn't been any evidence of actual election fraud, we should reasonably view these people as representing the will of the majority the electorates that voted them in.

The political crisis in the US isn't just about despicable elected officials. It's the crisis of division in the electorate being reflected in the political sphere.

The Republicans who are supporting Trump just for political reasons aren't doing it to represent their electorate; they're doing it to avoid losing in a Republican primary where the rabid base has an outsized influence. It's the same reason why Conservative candidates in Canada court social conservatives even though they make up a pretty small slice of the overall electorate.