politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Good thing you guys learned from 2015 and not giving him 10x more press coverage than other candidates. No way that could go wrong. It's not like there is no such thing as bad publicity...
An older relative is here for the holidays and was watching some YouTube yesterday. Somehow, there exists a 30 minute which talked all about what a genius Trump was and how he doesn't like electric vehicles. Just this endless stream of "Donald Trump visionary policies on..." and his brilliant predictions that were all true. No details, references, or a critical thought about how Trump probably doesn't know that there's anything inside the parts of the car he can't see.
Edit - what I am trying to point out is that this goes way beyond traditional news outlets. I don't think this guy watches a lot of news. I do think he considers himself well informed. We are Canadian, BTW. He's into cars (and an incredible mechanic as well as being a generally good person I enjoy spending time with) so this is on his feed.
Which aspect of cars is he into and which Youtube channels does he watch? I'm curious if there are any particular channels that have led him down the "pewdiepipeline" and what differences there might be between my feed and his that have spared me from any overt exposure to the same garbage.
Sorry, working and not going to dig in that deep :) but seems like he is into restoration of classic cars from the muscle car era back to the 1930s. I am not into cars at all.
That part can't completely change simply because the mechanics of it are too fundamental and too blunt. A Presidential candidate who is the front runner for one of the two parties saying they want to deploy troops is news. It's newsworthy. They can't just ignore it and if they did they would be doing the news anymore.
It's the same as all the way back in 2016 - after Trump won the election, the NYT published a lengthy, complicated story detailing his many conflicts of interest which probably took a team or reporters months to do. And on the same day it was published Trump tweeted that there had been "3 million fraudulent votes" (still waiting on the evidence of that btw).
That move drowned out the conflict of interest story by a lot, and more than that - the president elect saying shit like that is actually genuinely news. The news media can't just ignore it.
They've gotten a bit better over the years at dealing with him . Now they'll say stuff like "Trump asserted yet again, without evidence, that he won the 2020 election" instead of just regurgitating his nonsense without context. But them ignoring Trump isn't the answer.
The problem here is that many Americans want this guy as president the first place.
There's still plenty of room for criticism of the media, though -- like the fact that the piece you mention was published after the election instead of before it, for instance.
It's absolutely maddening. I'm not especially sharp about politics and the media, but in 2015 I was on Twitter and FB saying, "Stop fucking saying his name. This is how he's going to get elected." People can't not talk about him. Even if the story is about what a stupid, evil loser he is, you're giving him power by talking about him all the time.
He didnt get elected because of coverage. He was elected because the conservatives in America hated Democrats because of misinformation surrounding Obama's policies which they then transmuted into racism.
That's fair. I should have said - without the media giving him the spotlight every day, he would never have been taken seriously as a candidate. That's what I believe.
Bad take. Refusing to cover evil doesnt make evil go away. Removing the option for the public to see his sociopathy doesnt mitigate it.