Trump vs Harris

[UNI88]

Puerto Ricans in must-win Pennsylvania say Trump rally joke won’t be forgotten

I used to listen to Tony. This was a stand up joke being blown out of proportion but since MAGA has constantly proven that cruelty is the point, the reaction isn’t going to win over many hearts.

It was a stupid joke to tell in that situation. doneOLD reaps what he sows.

[kalm]

I used to listen to Tony. This was a stand up joke being blown out of proportion but since MAGA has constantly proven that cruelty is the point, the reaction isn’t going to win over many hearts.

It was a stupid joke to tell in that situation. doneOLD reaps what he sows.

Oh I agree. Hinchcliff lives in his bubble of alt right comedians where they can prove to the world their alpha male-ness by being “edgy” on each others podcasts. Turns out, the average voter doesn’t care all that much for pretend racism and misogyny. Who knew?

[Bobcat]

Hillary called us deplorables and lost

Kamala called us NAZIS and lost.

Stupid people repeat history

[BDKJMU]

Who?

Someone who is a just a little more relevant than kid rock, ye, hulk hogan, etc.

Who is ‘ye’?

[kalm]

Hillary called us deplorables and lost

Kamala called us NAZIS and lost.

Stupid people repeat history

So Trump is also stupid then? I agree.

[kalm]

Someone who is a just a little more relevant than kid rock, ye, hulk hogan, etc.

Who is ‘ye’?

Kanye. JFC…get with the times. Even old timers like me and UNI know hip or fly.

(They still use hip and fly these days, right?)

[UNI88]

Hillary called us deplorables and lost

Kamala called us NAZIS and lost.

trump called us the enemies within and lost.

Stupid people repeat history

So Trump is also stupid then? I agree.

Chase Oliver for the win!

[kalm]

So Trump is also stupid then? I agree.

Chase Oliver for the win!

The Gazette described him as a "pro-gun, pro-police reform, pro-choice Libertarian" who is "armed and gay."[5]

[GannonFan]

What do we think of Bezos's statement on why he didn't let the Washington Post issue an endorsement for Harris?

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” Bezos, the billionaire Amazon founder, wrote. “No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

I don't have any problem with Bezos taking this position. He's right, no one is deciding to vote based upon what a newspaper tells them to vote. And there are implications of bias that come from these - who's to say that the editorial department doesn't leak into the news department at some point? With that said, I don't see why he couldn't have let individual editorial staff pen their own endorsements. Editorials are already opinion pieces anyway, and they're done all the time in a newspaper. Why would this be any different? If you want to say "the Washington Post will not endorse any candidate" that's fine, but no reason why you could say "Editorial Director So and So endorses this Candidate".

Newspapers are going away, and one of the reasons why they are is that people, rightly or wrongly, see them as biased. Trying to stake out a neutral position on reporting the news is maybe a long overdue action, but it might also be too late for that, given what people have gotten used to in the past few decades.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/media/je ... index.html

[kalm]

What do we think of Bezos's statement on why he didn't let the Washington Post issue an endorsement for Harris?

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” Bezos, the billionaire Amazon founder, wrote. “No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

I don't have any problem with Bezos taking this position. He's right, no one is deciding to vote based upon what a newspaper tells them to vote. And there are implications of bias that come from these - who's to say that the editorial department doesn't leak into the news department at some point? With that said, I don't see why he couldn't have let individual editorial staff pen their own endorsements. Editorials are already opinion pieces anyway, and they're done all the time in a newspaper. Why would this be any different? If you want to say "the Washington Post will not endorse any candidate" that's fine, but no reason why you could say "Editorial Director So and So endorses this Candidate".

Newspapers are going away, and one of the reasons why they are is that people, rightly or wrongly, see them as biased. Trying to stake out a neutral position on reporting the news is maybe a long overdue action, but it might also be too late for that, given what people have gotten used to in the past few decades.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/media/je ... index.html

I think you’re spot on here.

Independent news still exists and there is still some excellent journalism and well-reasoned opinion to be found.

Perhaps not always for the masses or from corporate oligarch controlled sources but it’s out there. It’s up to the reader to apply critical thinking skills as they consume information. I’d like to think our kid’s generation is already much better at this.

[GannonFan]

I’d like to think our kid’s generation is already much better at this.

Eh, given what I hear my boys, who I think are actually pretty intelligent, say from time to time and then defend where they heard it from, I'm not so much inclined to agree with you on that. Wishful thinking, for sure, but I'm not sure it's correct.

[UNI88]

What do we think of Bezos's statement on why he didn't let the Washington Post issue an endorsement for Harris?

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” Bezos, the billionaire Amazon founder, wrote. “No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

I don't have any problem with Bezos taking this position. He's right, no one is deciding to vote based upon what a newspaper tells them to vote. And there are implications of bias that come from these - who's to say that the editorial department doesn't leak into the news department at some point? With that said, I don't see why he couldn't have let individual editorial staff pen their own endorsements. Editorials are already opinion pieces anyway, and they're done all the time in a newspaper. Why would this be any different? If you want to say "the Washington Post will not endorse any candidate" that's fine, but no reason why you could say "Editorial Director So and So endorses this Candidate".

Newspapers are going away, and one of the reasons why they are is that people, rightly or wrongly, see them as biased. Trying to stake out a neutral position on reporting the news is maybe a long overdue action, but it might also be too late for that, given what people have gotten used to in the past few decades.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/media/je ... index.html

I'm old fashioned but I actually read and am influenced by newspaper endorsements for state and local candidates that I don't know much about. I don't simply follow a paper's recommendations but I try to learn about the candidates pro's and con's before deciding who to vote for. This was especially true for some of the statewide offices (secretary of state, treasurer and attorney general) and a judicial position (with 5 candidates) up for election this year. I won't vote for uber progressive socialists or election deniers.

I don't disagree that newspapers are dying. The unfortunate thing is that too many people are going to echo chambers where their existing opinions are reinforced and they aren't challenged by conflicting information. It's exasperating the divide between left and right.

[kalm]

I’d like to think our kid’s generation is already much better at this.

Eh, given what I hear my boys, who I think are actually pretty intelligent, say from time to time and then defend where they heard it from, I'm not so much inclined to agree with you on that. Wishful thinking, for sure, but I'm not sure it's correct.

Nobody is perfect and trust me, we get into some good debates too. It’s typically around their idealism vs. my realism.

But on whole, I’m seeing strong evidence, beyond just a wish.

When a young man looks at Gaza and says this is wrong and we are complicit as Americans, it’s tough to argue.

[UNI88]

Eh, given what I hear my boys, who I think are actually pretty intelligent, say from time to time and then defend where they heard it from, I'm not so much inclined to agree with you on that. Wishful thinking, for sure, but I'm not sure it's correct.

Nobody is perfect and trust me, we get into some good debates too. It’s typically around their idealism vs. my realism.

But on whole, I’m seeing strong evidence, beyond just a wish.

When a young man looks at Gaza and says this is wrong and we are complicit as Americans, it’s tough to argue.

The issue I have with my oldest over Gaza is that he blames Israel but not hamas.

There is an element of idealism vs realism in it.

The struggle to defend a position is greater for people getting their info from echo chambers. Their defense isn't all that different than the tDS, but trump, etc. cries on CS when people have nothing of substance to respond with.

[GannonFan]

What do we think of Bezos's statement on why he didn't let the Washington Post issue an endorsement for Harris?



I don't have any problem with Bezos taking this position. He's right, no one is deciding to vote based upon what a newspaper tells them to vote. And there are implications of bias that come from these - who's to say that the editorial department doesn't leak into the news department at some point? With that said, I don't see why he couldn't have let individual editorial staff pen their own endorsements. Editorials are already opinion pieces anyway, and they're done all the time in a newspaper. Why would this be any different? If you want to say "the Washington Post will not endorse any candidate" that's fine, but no reason why you could say "Editorial Director So and So endorses this Candidate".

Newspapers are going away, and one of the reasons why they are is that people, rightly or wrongly, see them as biased. Trying to stake out a neutral position on reporting the news is maybe a long overdue action, but it might also be too late for that, given what people have gotten used to in the past few decades.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/media/je ... index.html

I'm old fashioned but I actually read and am influenced by newspaper endorsements for state and local candidates that I don't know much about. I don't simply follow a paper's recommendations but I try to learn about the candidates pro's and con's before deciding who to vote for. This was especially true for some of the statewide offices (secretary of state, treasurer and attorney general) and a judicial position (with 5 candidates) up for election this year. I won't vote for uber progressive socialists or election deniers.

I don't disagree that newspapers are dying. The unfortunate thing is that too many people are going to echo chambers where their existing opinions are reinforced and they aren't challenged by conflicting information. It's exasperating the divide between left and right.

Sure, there are echo chambers, but there's also so much more information available than ever before. If you wanted to look up and learn about why the folks were running for any of those positions, you could probably find a pretty detailed bio on any of them. That's almost why newspaper endorsements are no longer needed and perhaps even not productive. It feeds into the trope that is driving the populism we're seeing today - it looks like elites, proclaiming their elitism, and telling those beneath them who to vote for. It just smacks of condescension in a time where everyone has access to so much information. Again, if an individual at the paper wants to back a candidate and say why, that makes sense and we should be all for that. It gets preachy once the establishment of the entire newspaper gets behind an endorsement. Heck, I'm Catholic, and it's interesting how it what the Church puts out about voting today that they don't mention any candidates or party by name and they don't even talk about specific issues. It's almost like they don't want to tell you who to vote for (granted, might just be my parish and my archdiocese, I admit I don't follow what other ones are doing).

[GannonFan]

Eh, given what I hear my boys, who I think are actually pretty intelligent, say from time to time and then defend where they heard it from, I'm not so much inclined to agree with you on that. Wishful thinking, for sure, but I'm not sure it's correct.

Nobody is perfect and trust me, we get into some good debates too. It’s typically around their idealism vs. my realism.

But on whole, I’m seeing strong evidence, beyond just a wish.

When a young man looks at Gaza and says this is wrong and we are complicit as Americans, it’s tough to argue.

Again, I just worry about what they hear and whether they do enough filtering of what they hear based on where they hear it from. I've got a kid in college, a kid at a service academy, and a kid in high school (all boys) and if they're hearing a lot of the "bro-talk" that's out there, I really worry about the reach of that message and those who are receiving it.

[kalm]

Nobody is perfect and trust me, we get into some good debates too. It’s typically around their idealism vs. my realism.

But on whole, I’m seeing strong evidence, beyond just a wish.

When a young man looks at Gaza and says this is wrong and we are complicit as Americans, it’s tough to argue.

The issue I have with my oldest over Gaza is that he blames Israel but not hamas.

There is an element of idealism vs realism in it.

The struggle to defend a position is greater for people getting their info from echo chambers. Their defense isn't all that different than the tDS, but trump, etc. cries on CS when people have nothing of substance to respond with.

I will check mine down with Hamas and Hezbollah are the bad guys too arguments as well. To their credit they’ll immediately agree.

And yes on echo chambers. I think that will quiet down though too as we work past the division and crisis era. I think you’ll see demand for more true and honest writing and debate.

However, media/news bias ain’t an exactly a new thing either. Shout out to William Randolph Hurst.

[kalm]

They might just steal themselves out of an election.

[GannonFan]

The issue I have with my oldest over Gaza is that he blames Israel but not hamas.

There is an element of idealism vs realism in it.

The struggle to defend a position is greater for people getting their info from echo chambers. Their defense isn't all that different than the tDS, but trump, etc. cries on CS when people have nothing of substance to respond with.

I will check mine down with Hamas and Hezbollah are the bad guys too arguments as well. To their credit they’ll immediately agree.

And yes on echo chambers. I think that will quiet down though too as we work past the division and crisis era. I think you’ll see demand for more true and honest writing and debate.

However, media/news bias ain’t an exactly a new thing either. Shout out to William Randolph Hurst.

Problem is with something like Gaza, there are so many complicit parties that it's hard to move on from that.

And I'm more skeptical about echo chambers and the like. This has been a problem since the mid-90's when newspapers went online and opened up comment sections after stories. It gave everyone with a voice a chance to shout out into the void, even if they had nothing of value to shout about. It's only ballooned since then. People don't seem to want true and honest debate - they want to be proven right and they want to prove a lot of other people wrong. Maybe it's different in the Palouse, but that's what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.

Oh, and Hurst wasn't the originator - as long as there's been printed word there's been someone trying to skew it.

[Bobcat]

That is why X is so great, its the most unbiased news source in the world and no censorship like before.

[kalm]

Nobody is perfect and trust me, we get into some good debates too. It’s typically around their idealism vs. my realism.

But on whole, I’m seeing strong evidence, beyond just a wish.

When a young man looks at Gaza and says this is wrong and we are complicit as Americans, it’s tough to argue.

Again, I just worry about what they hear and whether they do enough filtering of what they hear based on where they hear it from. I've got a kid in college, a kid at a service academy, and a kid in high school (all boys) and if they're hearing a lot of the "bro-talk" that's out there, I really worry about the reach of that message and those who are receiving it.

Well FWIW my boys hate “bro-talk”. They still make fun on me for listening to the Rogan podcast a few years back.

[kalm]

I will check mine down with Hamas and Hezbollah are the bad guys too arguments as well. To their credit they’ll immediately agree.

And yes on echo chambers. I think that will quiet down though too as we work past the division and crisis era. I think you’ll see demand for more true and honest writing and debate.

However, media/news bias ain’t an exactly a new thing either. Shout out to William Randolph Hurst.

Problem is with something like Gaza, there are so many complicit parties that it's hard to move on from that.

And I'm more skeptical about echo chambers and the like. This has been a problem since the mid-90's when newspapers went online and opened up comment sections after stories. It gave everyone with a voice a chance to shout out into the void, even if they had nothing of value to shout about. It's only ballooned since then. People don't seem to want true and honest debate - they want to be proven right and they want to prove a lot of other people wrong. Maybe it's different in the Palouse, but that's what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.

Oh, and Hurst wasn't the originator - as long as there's been printed word there's been someone trying to skew it.

I know…he’s just well known for it and yellow journalism.

Regarding complexities…most of those we (all of us) tend to mostly use as excuses to defend a side.

EG: Gaza is complex with many disparate interests represented directly and indirectly. Their point still returns reductionism.

1). Has Israel clearly exacted its revenge and exceeded decency as a nation through the killing of 10’s of thousands of innocent kids, women, aid workers, and journalists? Yes.

2). Do we heavily fund Israel with money and weapons? Yes.

3) . Does AIPAC and foreign Israeli campaign donations impact our elections and influence policy for both Dems and R’s alike. Yes.

4) Do our political leaders still have a choice to do the right thing and withhold funding to Israel until they quit their advance? Yes.

[Bobcat]

Israel needs to hammer down the throttle and set the tone for the children.

[Caribbean Hen]

Who is ‘ye’?

Kanye. JFC…get with the times. Even old timers like me and UNI know hip or fly.

(They still use hip and fly these days, right?)

They suck balls

A real musical talent transcends generations like Sir Paul

[kalm]

Israel needs to hammer down the throttle and set the tone for the children.