- 24,996
- 12,392
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Another detail from the Brazile story.
These buffoons Brazile and Warren threw grenades for nothing (well, not for nothing, they both have motivations for their actions), a week before the elections.![]()
You appear to agree with the article's author that 1) there is an epistemic crisis in America and 2) that the extreme right wing media is behaving, in your words, "abnormally," then what, exactly, is so wrong with sharing the article to encourage a broader discussion?This article is offensive ... I am surprised to not only see it posted, but endorsed ...
That being said, there is absolutely an epistemic crisis occurring ... And both sides of the isle are to blame ...
Statistics are fascinating, but you can't be serious subscribing to that article ... It completely and conveniently disregards sheer access - Aside from the scattered bubble where only a trained eye can deduce that the prevalence of Left leaning media far outweighs the Right ...
It is a scientific and evolutionary fact that cornered species tend to react aggressvely
... Think about a situation where you were the minority ... Now think about the same situation where you were the majority ... One possible example might be a classroom debate environment ... Would you act differently? Your actions would, subconciously, be totally different ... From the volume and tone of your voice to your nonverbal cues ...
Now expand that situation to the current media landscape ... As people are less represented, their actions seem more abnormal ... There's no room to be "moderate" because time is finite ... In short, the more balanced the representation, the more balanced the viewpoints ... Media is nowhere near balanced from an access perspective and this fact promulgates extreme views ...
But for this article to adopt the "Dems are holier than thou" mindset is alarming ... To purport that there is only one side to blame for this epistemic crisis is laughable ... Let's ust take a very real and recent example ... The uranium one deal was a nothingburger and dismissed as normal dealings resting on a single, succinct argument - no uranium left the US ... I fell victim to believing that and dismissed this story as nonsense ... Now, after digging by honest journalists, it turns out uranium did leave the US, for Canada and the Europe and Asia ... This is precisely why people don' trust the media they consume or the politicians they hear speak and revert to their tribal corners ...
The primary source of this breach, to make a long story short, is the US conservative movement’s rejection of the mainstream institutions devoted to gathering and disseminating knowledge (journalism, science, the academy) — the ones society has appointed as referees in matters of factual dispute.
In their place, the right has created its own parallel set of institutions, most notably its own media ecosystem.
But the right’s institutions are not of the same kind as the ones they seek to displace. Mainstream scientists and journalists see themselves as beholden to values and standards that transcend party or faction. They try to separate truth from tribal interests and have developed various guild rules and procedures to help do that. They see themselves as neutral arbiters, even if they do not always uphold that ideal in practice.
The pretense for the conservative revolution was that mainstream institutions had failed in their role as neutral arbiters — that they had been taken over by the left, become agents of the left in referee’s clothing, as it were.
But the right did not want better neutral arbiters. The institutions it built scarcely made any pretense of transcending faction; they are of and for the right. There is nominal separation of conservative media from conservative politicians, think tanks, and lobbyists, but in practice, they are all part of the conservative movement. They are prosecuting its interests; that is the ur-goal.
Indeed, the far right rejects the very idea of neutral, binding arbiters; there is only Us and Them, only a zero-sum contest for resources.
Question of 2017 and the future.At some point, everyone ought to ask themselves: do you believe in values or have you merely sworn an unwavering allegiance to a particular political/cultural faction?
But there were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox , according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.
The official said the word “CONFIDENTIAL” was not in the original document .
Guccifer 2.0 had airbrushed it to catch reporters’ attention.
Well sanders is running again an this time he will be the front runner and the DNC will likley be in his pocket (for what little that is worth) so maybe then ebrnie bros will move one.
I hope he learned how to talk to black people this time.![]()
Nah, even with Bernie being popular he won't be that big a force. The establishment is not rallying around him, he is weak with black voters, and he is not a Democrat, he won't have a monopoly on the progressive vote. I think people are overestimating how much political power Bernie has.The 2020 Dem field will only be large if Bernie isn't running. If he does, he's going to have all the built-in advantages that Clinton had in 2016. A large portion of his support is baked in, he has the name recognition, most Party leaders/superdelegates will support him, etc.
Any potential challengers will be aware of this going in. Some will chose not to run because they think it's "his turn!" just like what happened with Clinton. I expect them to start with 4-5 candidates at the 1st debate and then everybody that doesn't like Bernie will focus in on their favorite pretty quickly. It will take a talented candidate to beat him.
Nah, even with Bernie being popular he won't be that big a force. The establishment is not rallying around him, he is weak with black voters, and he is not a Democrat, he won't have a monopoly on the progressive vote. I think people are overestimating how much political power Bernie has.
And the dynamics are different when you run against an incumbent Republican president. Anyone on the margin has to shoot their shot because either you are locked out of the next election, or you blow you shot to raise your national profile. That will hurt against someone that probably came close to winning the nomination, but didn't last time around.
Hillary Clinton was very popular going into 2008 people thought she was a shoe in and the 2008 field had about 8 people. So I say we get at least that.
John Delaney already announced he is running. And I think Martin O'Malley, Booker, Bullock, and Cuomo are locks
-He still struggling with this. Famb needs to work on his sentence structure.
He keeps sounding like he is calling white people "regular everyday Americans" and "working class people" and then everyone else is other. Like an afternoon of media training can correct this.
-And because he has become popular with black people, seems like Bernie and his supports have decided polls are enough, and they are not going much outreach in with black constituents compared to people in the Rust Belt.
Cory Booker in the cut ready to finesse this situation.
Bernie is far from a lock. his pie-in-the-sky policies don't sit well with many on the left and his increasing age, which is already starting to show, is only going to be worse in 3 years.