debianlinux
Well-Known Member
Warren is clearly not for me. There are some issues I am more or less flexible on but her positions on my non negotiables come out on the wrong side. Sanders is the clear winner for me:
18/14
18/14
Fascinating. I came up with Biden and Bloomburg. I swore I was more liberal.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
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.
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.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.
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.
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 thanAt a macro level, sure, outlets like CNN would prefer Biden over a more progressive candidate.
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"?
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"?
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.
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.
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.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.
That's under the assumption he'll have a Congress opposed to him. Only guaranteeable perhaps two years into the future?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.
It’s too risky. See Trump.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.
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.It’s too risky. See Trump.
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.That's under the assumption he'll have a Congress opposed to him. Only guaranteeable perhaps two years into the future?
I know, I know. But gerrymandering seems above the paygrade of a news outflow pipe, at least when it comes to one election.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.