Political Discussion

Djxfactor511 said:
Anyone take that Washington Post quiz to see which nominee you agree with the most?



I considered myself a Buttigieg or Warren guy before but my results point away from Warren.

Klobuchar - 13
Yang - 13
Steyer - 13
Buttigieg - 12
Biden - 11
Bloomburg - 10
Warren - 7
Gabbard - 7
Sanders - 5
Click to expand...
Fascinating. I came up with Biden and Bloomburg. I swore I was more liberal.
 
Susan Collins isn't that interested in finding out more details
Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who has made a big production of advocating for witnesses at the Senate trial, wasn't that interested in the new information provided by Parnas.
Speaking to CNN's Phil Mattingly, she threw cold water on the new Parnas evidence.
"I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it's only now being revealed," she said.
After it was pointed out the documents were only just turned over to the House, she said, "Well doesn't that suggest that the House did an incomplete job then?"
Collins has been instrumental in the effort to subpoena witnesses and, perhaps, additional documents at a Senate trial. But that effort, clearly, seems to be more about appearing to be open to witnesses than it is about pursuing leads. The idea that the Senate should have every single piece of information presented to it gives lawmakers like Collins a lot of leeway to ultimately make this inquiry go away.
Click to expand...

Sighs,

It's sounding likely any new information that has came out since the house drafted the articles of impeachment will not be part of the trial. There is no real interest from the Republicans to explore it.


Also, while both Warren and Sanders are done talking about what went down at the end of the debate. This CNN 'analysis' says they really should continue the discussion. It's absolutely crucial as they are 2 of the 3 most likely candidates to be nominated.

www.cnn.com

Why we shouldn't stop talking about the Sanders-Warren fight

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is done talking about her back-and-forth -- in which each candidate said the other called them a liar -- with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders after the seventh presidential debate Tuesday night in Iowa.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com


Why do they want to keep focusing on this over policy. I don't see any reason other than they are trying to sway the public opinion towards Biden.
 
Last edited:
RenegadeMonster said:
Why do they want to keep focusing on this over policy. I don't see any reason other than they are trying to sway the public opinion towards Biden.
Click to expand...
Biden potentially seeing benefit from this is just a byproduct, I think. At a macro level, sure, outlets like CNN would prefer Biden over a more progressive candidate. But this? This is just about conflict being easier to understand and follow than a policy debate. People like conflict. They're more likely to click on stories about conflict. This is about pageviews and ratings, I think, not the nefarious master plot to undermine progressives.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Biden potentially seeing benefit from this is just a byproduct, I think. At a macro level, sure, outlets like CNN would prefer Biden over a more progressive candidate. But this? This is just about conflict being easier to understand and follow than a policy debate. People like conflict. They're more likely to click on stories about conflict. This is about pageviews and ratings, I think, not the nefarious master plot to undermine progressives.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with corporate owned news. Their only motive is profit. They have no motivation to expose injustice or report fairly. They are the propaganda wing of their shareholders cooperate interests in other areas. This is a convenient distraction from what really matters. Disassembling inequity and giving power to the populace rather than the interest of corporations.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
At a macro level, sure, outlets like CNN would prefer Biden over a more progressive candidate.
Click to expand...
You know what, on reflection I'm not even sure I believe this part. CNN will report as if they prefer Biden, but part of me thinks that, as with the election of Trump, they can really drive up ratings with another candidate that generates lots of opposition and conflict. President Sanders? Sure, here's your next four years of Very Sensible Pundits telling you that Bernie is out of his mind. Isn't that better TV than
"Breaking: President Biden Adopts Centrist View on Foreign Policy"?
 
Indymisanthrope said:
You know what, on reflection I'm not even sure I believe this part. CNN will report as if they prefer Biden, but part of me thinks that, as with the election of Trump, they can really drive up ratings with another candidate that generates lots of opposition and conflict. President Sanders? Sure, here's your next four years of Very Sensible Pundits telling you that Bernie is out of his mind. Isn't that better TV than
"Breaking: President Biden Adopts Centrist View on Foreign Policy"?
Click to expand...


I would agree with you if the people who own CNN only had investment in CNN only. They have interests in other industries that are much more profitable than media.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
You know what, on reflection I'm not even sure I believe this part. CNN will report as if they prefer Biden, but part of me thinks that, as with the election of Trump, they can really drive up ratings with another candidate that generates lots of opposition and conflict. President Sanders? Sure, here's your next four years of Very Sensible Pundits telling you that Bernie is out of his mind. Isn't that better TV than
"Breaking: President Biden Adopts Centrist View on Foreign Policy"?
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that CNN is owned by AT&T which Bernie wants (rightfully) to break up AND has led the charge in bringing a spotlight to their unionbusting tactics.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
You are forgetting that CNN is owned by AT&T which Bernie wants (rightfully) to break up AND has led the charge in bringing a spotlight to their unionbusting tactics.
Click to expand...


Exactly CNN is the propaganda wing of their entire financial interests. They would gladly take a hit there if it mean protecting their other interests.
 
Dtknuckles said:
I would agree with you if the people who own CNN only had investment in CNN only. They have interests in other industries that are much more profitable than media.
Click to expand...
DownIsTheNewUp said:
You are forgetting that CNN is owned by AT&T which Bernie wants (rightfully) to break up AND has led the charge in bringing a spotlight to their unionbusting tactics.
Click to expand...
Granted. But if you have guarantees (via Congress) that he'll be a somewhat ineffective president, why not have your cake and eat it too? Just saying that I think corporations have some contingencies such that they can still wage pretty strong campaigns in their own favor no matter who occupies the office, and might even be able to make some money off of the fight itself, to boot.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Granted. But if you have guarantees (via Congress) that he'll be a somewhat ineffective president, why not have your cake and eat it too? Just saying that I think corporations have some contingencies such that they can still wage pretty strong campaigns in their own favor no matter who occupies the office, and might even be able to make some money off of the fight itself, to boot.
Click to expand...
That's under the assumption he'll have a Congress opposed to him. Only guaranteeable perhaps two years into the future?
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Granted. But if you have guarantees (via Congress) that he'll be a somewhat ineffective president, why not have your cake and eat it too? Just saying that I think corporations have some contingencies such that they can still wage pretty strong campaigns in their own favor no matter who occupies the office, and might even be able to make some money off of the fight itself, to boot.
Click to expand...
It’s too risky. See Trump.
 
Lee Newman said:
It’s too risky. See Trump.
Click to expand...
Too risky for you or me, sure. Doesn’t seem to have damaged the parent companies of any media outlets all that much so far, though. And everything the guy says or does dominates the news cycle. So maybe it’s a risk, but it’s a risk they’ve seen pay off in content for the last 4 years.

I’m not advocating for this as a good thing, by the way, and individual pundits and stations obviously have their preferred candidates. I just don’t think that the Great Inexorable Machine of Profit (the GIMP, if you will) loses much sleep about one single candidate over another.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
That’s where re-districting and disenfranchisement come into play. If you can’t fix people’s preferences, you can try to fix how many of them can vote and how much those votes count.
Click to expand...
I know, I know. But gerrymandering seems above the paygrade of a news outflow pipe, at least when it comes to one election.
 
The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It Stories&pgtype=Homepage

This article is behind a paywall, so you may not be able to view it.

But to sum it up, there is a company called "Clearview", which is an IS that has scraped over 3 billion photos from many sources including social media such as Facebook and Twitter. The AI is using the photos to identify individuals and have sold the software to police departments and other law enforcement agencies. The company may even offer the software to the public in the future.

The software has leaked and looked at and it appears it contains support for an AR headset that could display bubbles above people walking down the street with names and other information.

One thing that is important to note is the collections of peoples photos and other information from Twitter is against their terms of service. So not only does this software issue privacy concerns, it also completely disregards companies privacy policies in it's' data collection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top