Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 28 2019 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT.
Sanders and Warren have tried to explain that the net cost of these things would go down for the average American, because an increase in taxes would be offset by the lack of premiums and other healthcare-related fees that we currently have to pay. Sadly, many Americans stop listening when they hear "taxes would go up" and don't wait 10 more seconds to hear "but overall you'll pay less, and that's what matters financially".
I'm just curious what role you see liberal media outlets playing in that?
Hm, that's a good question. I think if most moderate/ left-leaning media outlets had to choose between a moderate candidate/ idea (Biden, Buttigieg, Medicare for "All who want it", keeping private insurance as an option) or a more progressive candidate/ idea, they would prefer the baby steps of the former, so I'd imagine that they wouldn't go out of their way to fully clarify the pro arguments for a progressive agenda, and focus mainly on either the con arguments of the progressive agenda or the pro arguments for the more moderate middle plan. I think they would prefer this because I'd imagine that most large corporations are uneasy when it comes to revolutionary ideas and radical changes, and Sanders and Warren haven't exactly been using rhetoric that sounds supportive of big influencers, one-percenters, big business, etc.
Do you believe the liberal/moderate outlets and the people they appeal to with this presentation are acting as allies to the people or those corporations?
I think that it's not necessarily the case that the interests of those corporations must line up with the best interest of the viewers, and while I don't think those liberal outlets are as bad as Fox, per se, I think they're definitely making sure they do what's best for themselves first. So I think they'll act as allies to the people as long as it doesn't undermine their company's well-being.
Where, besides healthcare, do you see liberal outlets best interests in opposition to the people? In alliance?
I'm not looking for a comprehensive list, I'm just trying to better understand the perspective.
I think that's the biggest difference between the progressives and moderates - healthcare - so I think that's the main issue. I also think that any time Sanders talks about regulations or breaking up corporations (which Biden doesn't do afaik), that puts them on edge.
On November 28 2019 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT.
Sanders and Warren have tried to explain that the net cost of these things would go down for the average American, because an increase in taxes would be offset by the lack of premiums and other healthcare-related fees that we currently have to pay. Sadly, many Americans stop listening when they hear "taxes would go up" and don't wait 10 more seconds to hear "but overall you'll pay less, and that's what matters financially".
I'm just curious what role you see liberal media outlets playing in that?
Hm, that's a good question. I think if most moderate/ left-leaning media outlets had to choose between a moderate candidate/ idea (Biden, Buttigieg, Medicare for "All who want it", keeping private insurance as an option) or a more progressive candidate/ idea, they would prefer the baby steps of the former, so I'd imagine that they wouldn't go out of their way to fully clarify the pro arguments for a progressive agenda, and focus mainly on either the con arguments of the progressive agenda or the pro arguments for the more moderate middle plan. I think they would prefer this because I'd imagine that most large corporations are uneasy when it comes to revolutionary ideas and radical changes, and Sanders and Warren haven't exactly been using rhetoric that sounds supportive of big influencers, one-percenters, big business, etc.
Do you believe the liberal/moderate outlets and the people they appeal to with this presentation are acting as allies to the people or those corporations?
I think that it's not necessarily the case that the interests of those corporations must line up with the best interest of the viewers, and while I don't think those liberal outlets are as bad as Fox, per se, I think they're definitely making sure they do what's best for themselves first. So I think they'll act as allies to the people as long as it doesn't undermine their company's well-being.
Where, besides healthcare, do you see liberal outlets best interests in opposition to the people? In alliance?
I'm not looking for a comprehensive list, I'm just trying to better understand the perspective.
I think that's the biggest difference between the progressives and moderates - healthcare - so I think that's the main issue. I also think that any time Sanders talks about regulations or breaking up corporations (which Biden doesn't do afaik), that puts them on edge.
What are the big structural changes (like breaking up corporations and healthcare) you think are needed, but supported by liberal media outlets?
Hunter Biden allegedly asked a strip club employee go out to buy him a sex toy that strippers then used on him at a Manhattan club.
This week shocking reports emerged accusing Biden of frequenting two Washington D.C. strip clubs where he met Lunden Roberts, the woman who sued Hunter Biden over the paternity of her child.
Biden also allegedly visited Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club NYC in Manhattan two times about a year ago, where he spent several thousand dollars and on one occasion sent an employee out to buy a dildo for strippers to use on him, according to a new Page Six report.
During both trips to the club, Biden and a female companion reportedly got a private room where they ordered bottles of alcohol and were joined by several strippers.
On one of those nights, workers suspected Biden was high and staff reportedly warned him that drugs weren't allowed on the premises.
That same night Biden allegedly sent a club worker out to purchase a dildo so the strippers could use it on him, a Page Six source reported.
'He was a pretty nice guy,' one source said. 'He was pretty friendly and a pretty good tipper.'
The news comes as it was revealed that Biden fathered a love child with a stripper named Lunden Roberts, also known by the stage name 'Dallas', who worked at The Mpire Gentlemen's Club in Washington D.C.
Biden allegedly frequented that club after dating his late brother's widow.
'He was well-known,' a source told Page Six of Biden, the son of democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.
DailyMail.com revealed that Biden is the father of the Arkansas woman's child after obtaining court records.
How Joe Biden is still the front runner is beyond me.
Not a fan of Joe Biden, but i also really dislike that attack.
Firstly, i don't think what Hunter Biden does is very relevant to what Joe Biden does.
Secondly, this clearly aims at the evangelical right and the general idea that sex is bad. If someone wants to pay strippers to use a dildo on them, why is that horribly bad? The only problem i see here were if he were married and cheating on his wife. But since this claims it happened "after dating his late brother's widow.", which according to Hunter Bidens wikipedia is a point in his life when he was not married.
That whole piece just looks like an attempt at character assassination by proximity. It details a lot of things that people think are bad for some reason or another (strippers, sex, dildos, people using dildos on men, dating brothers widow, drugs, alcohol), links those to Hunter Biden, and then links that to Joe Biden.
I don't think that sort of mudslinging is a good thing. If you want to attack a presidential candidates, talk about them, or even better, about their policy. Don't dig deep into their family to find any sex stuff you can find, and pull that into the open.
What Hunter Biden does becomes relevant when he is on the Board of Burisma making a million per year, and has no reason to be on the board. Then the company gets investigated, and Joe biden (while vice president) uses a billion dollars in aid as leverage to get the investigator fired.
Here is a clip of Joe Biden bragging about doing it.
Deflect, change topic. That is not what we were talking about, and even in that case what is relevant is not what Hunter Biden does, but what Joe Biden does. We were talking about Hunter Bidens sexual life. Which is utterly and completely irrelevant, and should not be in the open for everyone to point at.
Hunter Biden allegedly asked a strip club employee go out to buy him a sex toy that strippers then used on him at a Manhattan club.
This week shocking reports emerged accusing Biden of frequenting two Washington D.C. strip clubs where he met Lunden Roberts, the woman who sued Hunter Biden over the paternity of her child.
Biden also allegedly visited Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club NYC in Manhattan two times about a year ago, where he spent several thousand dollars and on one occasion sent an employee out to buy a dildo for strippers to use on him, according to a new Page Six report.
During both trips to the club, Biden and a female companion reportedly got a private room where they ordered bottles of alcohol and were joined by several strippers.
On one of those nights, workers suspected Biden was high and staff reportedly warned him that drugs weren't allowed on the premises.
That same night Biden allegedly sent a club worker out to purchase a dildo so the strippers could use it on him, a Page Six source reported.
'He was a pretty nice guy,' one source said. 'He was pretty friendly and a pretty good tipper.'
The news comes as it was revealed that Biden fathered a love child with a stripper named Lunden Roberts, also known by the stage name 'Dallas', who worked at The Mpire Gentlemen's Club in Washington D.C.
Biden allegedly frequented that club after dating his late brother's widow.
'He was well-known,' a source told Page Six of Biden, the son of democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.
DailyMail.com revealed that Biden is the father of the Arkansas woman's child after obtaining court records.
How Joe Biden is still the front runner is beyond me.
Not a fan of Joe Biden, but i also really dislike that attack.
Firstly, i don't think what Hunter Biden does is very relevant to what Joe Biden does.
Secondly, this clearly aims at the evangelical right and the general idea that sex is bad. If someone wants to pay strippers to use a dildo on them, why is that horribly bad? The only problem i see here were if he were married and cheating on his wife. But since this claims it happened "after dating his late brother's widow.", which according to Hunter Bidens wikipedia is a point in his life when he was not married.
That whole piece just looks like an attempt at character assassination by proximity. It details a lot of things that people think are bad for some reason or another (strippers, sex, dildos, people using dildos on men, dating brothers widow, drugs, alcohol), links those to Hunter Biden, and then links that to Joe Biden.
I don't think that sort of mudslinging is a good thing. If you want to attack a presidential candidates, talk about them, or even better, about their policy. Don't dig deep into their family to find any sex stuff you can find, and pull that into the open.
What Hunter Biden does becomes relevant when he is on the Board of Burisma making a million per year, and has no reason to be on the board. Then the company gets investigated, and Joe biden (while vice president) uses a billion dollars in aid as leverage to get the investigator fired.
Hunter Biden isn't running for nor is the President of the United States. Maybe you should focus your energies on Trump and his installation of his children and in-laws instead, if you are worried about abuse of power. Like I don't know, he lets an American journalist be hacked to death in Saudi Embassies, or he uses state power to oppose political opponents. I don't think you realise how obvious it is that you don't actually care about actual instances of nepotism and abuse of power when you go after some random person instead of the president.
On November 28 2019 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT.
This is completely maddening because first of all, it isn't true at all. Federal taxes do not fund spending. And second of all, Bernie knows better than that. He surrounds himself with absolutely brilliant economic advisors- and has brought Stephanie Kelton back from his 2016 run. They are definitely not telling him this. So then why does he perpetuate the taxpayer dollar myth? I can only assume that he doesn't want to try to break the illusions people have of how the system works and all of the propaganda we've all been fed.
In fact, universal healthcare would likely require LOWER taxes as a deflationary event.
On November 28 2019 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT.
This is completely maddening because first of all, it isn't true at all. Federal taxes do not fund spending. And second of all, Bernie knows better than that. He surrounds himself with absolutely brilliant economic advisors- and has brought Stephanie Kelton back from his 2016 run. They are definitely not telling him this. So then why does he perpetuate the taxpayer dollar myth? I can only assume that he doesn't want to try to break the illusions people have of how the system works and all of the propaganda we've all been fed.
In fact, universal healthcare would likely require LOWER taxes as a deflationary event.
That guy is simplifying things a bit, in a way I feel disingenuous, when he says "the government" can just change numbers in people's accounts to pay for things. That is something the federal reserve can do. The treasury, which is controlled by the executive branch, cannot do that. The treasury has an account with a finite amount of money in it. Taxes go in, payments go out.
However, he's kinda right that the treasury can spend as much as they want, for all practical purposes. But, the caveat is, they must print and sell treasury bonds which pay interest for every dollar they overspend. Now, the federal reserve can and does, at times, purchase these treasury bonds. And when the federal reserve does so, it creates money to purchase the bonds out of thin air (prints the money, but no paper is needed).
But the federal reserve is not directly controlled by the president, although the president appoints the head of the federal reserve.
The main point he has is correct - we can easily fund medicare for all on deficit spending, and that deficit spending will probably not cause inflation (which is the primary reason to avoid deficit spending).
At the end of the day it's probably a matter of perception for Sander's campaign. Most people do not understand fiscal and monetary policy. They think if the government spends more, it must take more tax. Sanders could stand up and say in a debate "Yes, we will do medicare for all, and we won't increase any taxes to pay for it, because even though it's deficit spending, it won't increase inflation."
But then two things will happen:
1) Most people are gonna be confused.
2) Most people are gonna think he's full of shit.
Instead he combines medicare for all with a different goal of his: taxes on the wealthy. Now, not only does he move towards economic equality, but also people see him as more honest. Also, if there really is deflation, he'd be free to start doing deficit spending on another issue, like jobs and education programs.
Hunter Biden allegedly asked a strip club employee go out to buy him a sex toy that strippers then used on him at a Manhattan club.
This week shocking reports emerged accusing Biden of frequenting two Washington D.C. strip clubs where he met Lunden Roberts, the woman who sued Hunter Biden over the paternity of her child.
Biden also allegedly visited Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club NYC in Manhattan two times about a year ago, where he spent several thousand dollars and on one occasion sent an employee out to buy a dildo for strippers to use on him, according to a new Page Six report.
During both trips to the club, Biden and a female companion reportedly got a private room where they ordered bottles of alcohol and were joined by several strippers.
On one of those nights, workers suspected Biden was high and staff reportedly warned him that drugs weren't allowed on the premises.
That same night Biden allegedly sent a club worker out to purchase a dildo so the strippers could use it on him, a Page Six source reported.
'He was a pretty nice guy,' one source said. 'He was pretty friendly and a pretty good tipper.'
The news comes as it was revealed that Biden fathered a love child with a stripper named Lunden Roberts, also known by the stage name 'Dallas', who worked at The Mpire Gentlemen's Club in Washington D.C.
Biden allegedly frequented that club after dating his late brother's widow.
'He was well-known,' a source told Page Six of Biden, the son of democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.
DailyMail.com revealed that Biden is the father of the Arkansas woman's child after obtaining court records.
How Joe Biden is still the front runner is beyond me.
Not a fan of Joe Biden, but i also really dislike that attack.
Firstly, i don't think what Hunter Biden does is very relevant to what Joe Biden does.
Secondly, this clearly aims at the evangelical right and the general idea that sex is bad. If someone wants to pay strippers to use a dildo on them, why is that horribly bad? The only problem i see here were if he were married and cheating on his wife. But since this claims it happened "after dating his late brother's widow.", which according to Hunter Bidens wikipedia is a point in his life when he was not married.
That whole piece just looks like an attempt at character assassination by proximity. It details a lot of things that people think are bad for some reason or another (strippers, sex, dildos, people using dildos on men, dating brothers widow, drugs, alcohol), links those to Hunter Biden, and then links that to Joe Biden.
I don't think that sort of mudslinging is a good thing. If you want to attack a presidential candidates, talk about them, or even better, about their policy. Don't dig deep into their family to find any sex stuff you can find, and pull that into the open.
What Hunter Biden does becomes relevant when he is on the Board of Burisma making a million per year, and has no reason to be on the board. Then the company gets investigated, and Joe biden (while vice president) uses a billion dollars in aid as leverage to get the investigator fired.
It's also not true. Hunter Biden joined the board of burisma after Joe Biden hat pushed for the sacking of the state attorney. And he pushed because the attorney would not look into burisma. Even I know that because American media has to correct people parroting guilianis lies.
ya okay health care specifically is really inflated through capitalistic greed but free quality education and greatly subsidized kindergarten and maternity leave and our degree of social welfare, that costs more. I agree that overall costs go down for most people and that all those proposed social democratic policies would be a huge benefit for the US, but you still seem to be a population with a great amount of aversion for 'new taxes'.
In Norway if you add VAT and various taxes on gasoline sugar alcohol tobacco etc to the income tax, then many people do end up paying like 60-70% of their income in taxes. In Denmark average income tax is like 47%. This isn't actually a problem at all (because with education health care etc being free and general income levels being high, people in general aren't struggling economically), but it's still perceived as one.
On November 28 2019 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT.
Sanders and Warren have tried to explain that the net cost of these things would go down for the average American, because an increase in taxes would be offset by the lack of premiums and other healthcare-related fees that we currently have to pay. Sadly, many Americans stop listening when they hear "taxes would go up" and don't wait 10 more seconds to hear "but overall you'll pay less, and that's what matters financially".
I'm just curious what role you see liberal media outlets playing in that?
Hm, that's a good question. I think if most moderate/ left-leaning media outlets had to choose between a moderate candidate/ idea (Biden, Buttigieg, Medicare for "All who want it", keeping private insurance as an option) or a more progressive candidate/ idea, they would prefer the baby steps of the former, so I'd imagine that they wouldn't go out of their way to fully clarify the pro arguments for a progressive agenda, and focus mainly on either the con arguments of the progressive agenda or the pro arguments for the more moderate middle plan. I think they would prefer this because I'd imagine that most large corporations are uneasy when it comes to revolutionary ideas and radical changes, and Sanders and Warren haven't exactly been using rhetoric that sounds supportive of big influencers, one-percenters, big business, etc.
Do you believe the liberal/moderate outlets and the people they appeal to with this presentation are acting as allies to the people or those corporations?
I think that it's not necessarily the case that the interests of those corporations must line up with the best interest of the viewers, and while I don't think those liberal outlets are as bad as Fox, per se, I think they're definitely making sure they do what's best for themselves first. So I think they'll act as allies to the people as long as it doesn't undermine their company's well-being.
Where, besides healthcare, do you see liberal outlets best interests in opposition to the people? In alliance?
I'm not looking for a comprehensive list, I'm just trying to better understand the perspective.
I think that's the biggest difference between the progressives and moderates - healthcare - so I think that's the main issue. I also think that any time Sanders talks about regulations or breaking up corporations (which Biden doesn't do afaik), that puts them on edge.
What are the big structural changes (like breaking up corporations and healthcare) you think are needed, but supported by liberal media outlets?
-I think one thing is significant election reform to make it easier for people to vote (as opposed to more restrictive). -Another thing is appropriately promoting the seriousness and effects of climate change. -Another is the advocating for women's and LGBT and minority rights. -Another is the idea that the costs of higher education are unbearably high and that student debt is something that needs to be seriously addressed. -Decriminalization (and potential legalization) of marijuana. -Acceptance and destigmatization of mental health issues and addiction. -I also think conversations about gun violence are in good faith, even if some of the recommended solutions aren't viable.
I think most mainstream media outlets (besides Fox News) do more good than harm, even though they all can suffer from sensationalism and laziness.
On November 28 2019 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT.
Sanders and Warren have tried to explain that the net cost of these things would go down for the average American, because an increase in taxes would be offset by the lack of premiums and other healthcare-related fees that we currently have to pay. Sadly, many Americans stop listening when they hear "taxes would go up" and don't wait 10 more seconds to hear "but overall you'll pay less, and that's what matters financially".
I'm just curious what role you see liberal media outlets playing in that?
Hm, that's a good question. I think if most moderate/ left-leaning media outlets had to choose between a moderate candidate/ idea (Biden, Buttigieg, Medicare for "All who want it", keeping private insurance as an option) or a more progressive candidate/ idea, they would prefer the baby steps of the former, so I'd imagine that they wouldn't go out of their way to fully clarify the pro arguments for a progressive agenda, and focus mainly on either the con arguments of the progressive agenda or the pro arguments for the more moderate middle plan. I think they would prefer this because I'd imagine that most large corporations are uneasy when it comes to revolutionary ideas and radical changes, and Sanders and Warren haven't exactly been using rhetoric that sounds supportive of big influencers, one-percenters, big business, etc.
Do you believe the liberal/moderate outlets and the people they appeal to with this presentation are acting as allies to the people or those corporations?
I think that it's not necessarily the case that the interests of those corporations must line up with the best interest of the viewers, and while I don't think those liberal outlets are as bad as Fox, per se, I think they're definitely making sure they do what's best for themselves first. So I think they'll act as allies to the people as long as it doesn't undermine their company's well-being.
Where, besides healthcare, do you see liberal outlets best interests in opposition to the people? In alliance?
I'm not looking for a comprehensive list, I'm just trying to better understand the perspective.
I think that's the biggest difference between the progressives and moderates - healthcare - so I think that's the main issue. I also think that any time Sanders talks about regulations or breaking up corporations (which Biden doesn't do afaik), that puts them on edge.
What are the big structural changes (like breaking up corporations and healthcare) you think are needed, but supported by liberal media outlets?
-I think one thing is significant election reform to make it easier for people to vote (as opposed to more restrictive). -Another thing is appropriately promoting the seriousness and effects of climate change. -Another is the advocating for women's and LGBT and minority rights. -Another is the idea that the costs of higher education are unbearably high and that student debt is something that needs to be seriously addressed. -Decriminalization (and potential legalization) of marijuana. -Acceptance and destigmatization of mental health issues and addiction. -I also think conversations about gun violence are in good faith, even if some of the recommended solutions aren't viable.
I think most mainstream media outlets (besides Fox News) do more good than harm, even though they all can suffer from sensationalism and laziness.
Okay. I disagree with pretty much all of that being something where I would identify liberal media outlets as allies rather than opposition (other than cannabis). I also disagree those are structural changes along the lines of healthcare and breaking up corporations.
I disagree on them doing more good than harm as well, but now I do better understand the reasoning of people that disagree.
On November 28 2019 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Sanders and Warren have tried to explain that the net cost of these things would go down for the average American, because an increase in taxes would be offset by the lack of premiums and other healthcare-related fees that we currently have to pay. Sadly, many Americans stop listening when they hear "taxes would go up" and don't wait 10 more seconds to hear "but overall you'll pay less, and that's what matters financially".
I'm just curious what role you see liberal media outlets playing in that?
Hm, that's a good question. I think if most moderate/ left-leaning media outlets had to choose between a moderate candidate/ idea (Biden, Buttigieg, Medicare for "All who want it", keeping private insurance as an option) or a more progressive candidate/ idea, they would prefer the baby steps of the former, so I'd imagine that they wouldn't go out of their way to fully clarify the pro arguments for a progressive agenda, and focus mainly on either the con arguments of the progressive agenda or the pro arguments for the more moderate middle plan. I think they would prefer this because I'd imagine that most large corporations are uneasy when it comes to revolutionary ideas and radical changes, and Sanders and Warren haven't exactly been using rhetoric that sounds supportive of big influencers, one-percenters, big business, etc.
Do you believe the liberal/moderate outlets and the people they appeal to with this presentation are acting as allies to the people or those corporations?
I think that it's not necessarily the case that the interests of those corporations must line up with the best interest of the viewers, and while I don't think those liberal outlets are as bad as Fox, per se, I think they're definitely making sure they do what's best for themselves first. So I think they'll act as allies to the people as long as it doesn't undermine their company's well-being.
Where, besides healthcare, do you see liberal outlets best interests in opposition to the people? In alliance?
I'm not looking for a comprehensive list, I'm just trying to better understand the perspective.
I think that's the biggest difference between the progressives and moderates - healthcare - so I think that's the main issue. I also think that any time Sanders talks about regulations or breaking up corporations (which Biden doesn't do afaik), that puts them on edge.
What are the big structural changes (like breaking up corporations and healthcare) you think are needed, but supported by liberal media outlets?
-I think one thing is significant election reform to make it easier for people to vote (as opposed to more restrictive). -Another thing is appropriately promoting the seriousness and effects of climate change. -Another is the advocating for women's and LGBT and minority rights. -Another is the idea that the costs of higher education are unbearably high and that student debt is something that needs to be seriously addressed. -Decriminalization (and potential legalization) of marijuana. -Acceptance and destigmatization of mental health issues and addiction. -I also think conversations about gun violence are in good faith, even if some of the recommended solutions aren't viable.
I think most mainstream media outlets (besides Fox News) do more good than harm, even though they all can suffer from sensationalism and laziness.
Okay. I disagree with pretty much all of that being something where I would identify liberal media outlets as allies rather than opposition (other than cannabis). I also disagree those are structural changes along the lines of healthcare and breaking up corporations.
I disagree on them doing more good than harm as well, but now I do better understand the reasoning of people that disagree.
So are you saying that when it comes to the rights of various demographics, the recognition of climate change, and the idea of election reform to help voters vote, moderate/ liberal news sources are in opposition to a progressive agenda, and that they generally do more harm than good (to a progressive agenda and/or what would best serve the American people) when they report on these issues?
On November 28 2019 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I'm just curious what role you see liberal media outlets playing in that?
Hm, that's a good question. I think if most moderate/ left-leaning media outlets had to choose between a moderate candidate/ idea (Biden, Buttigieg, Medicare for "All who want it", keeping private insurance as an option) or a more progressive candidate/ idea, they would prefer the baby steps of the former, so I'd imagine that they wouldn't go out of their way to fully clarify the pro arguments for a progressive agenda, and focus mainly on either the con arguments of the progressive agenda or the pro arguments for the more moderate middle plan. I think they would prefer this because I'd imagine that most large corporations are uneasy when it comes to revolutionary ideas and radical changes, and Sanders and Warren haven't exactly been using rhetoric that sounds supportive of big influencers, one-percenters, big business, etc.
Do you believe the liberal/moderate outlets and the people they appeal to with this presentation are acting as allies to the people or those corporations?
I think that it's not necessarily the case that the interests of those corporations must line up with the best interest of the viewers, and while I don't think those liberal outlets are as bad as Fox, per se, I think they're definitely making sure they do what's best for themselves first. So I think they'll act as allies to the people as long as it doesn't undermine their company's well-being.
Where, besides healthcare, do you see liberal outlets best interests in opposition to the people? In alliance?
I'm not looking for a comprehensive list, I'm just trying to better understand the perspective.
I think that's the biggest difference between the progressives and moderates - healthcare - so I think that's the main issue. I also think that any time Sanders talks about regulations or breaking up corporations (which Biden doesn't do afaik), that puts them on edge.
What are the big structural changes (like breaking up corporations and healthcare) you think are needed, but supported by liberal media outlets?
-I think one thing is significant election reform to make it easier for people to vote (as opposed to more restrictive). -Another thing is appropriately promoting the seriousness and effects of climate change. -Another is the advocating for women's and LGBT and minority rights. -Another is the idea that the costs of higher education are unbearably high and that student debt is something that needs to be seriously addressed. -Decriminalization (and potential legalization) of marijuana. -Acceptance and destigmatization of mental health issues and addiction. -I also think conversations about gun violence are in good faith, even if some of the recommended solutions aren't viable.
I think most mainstream media outlets (besides Fox News) do more good than harm, even though they all can suffer from sensationalism and laziness.
Okay. I disagree with pretty much all of that being something where I would identify liberal media outlets as allies rather than opposition (other than cannabis). I also disagree those are structural changes along the lines of healthcare and breaking up corporations.
I disagree on them doing more good than harm as well, but now I do better understand the reasoning of people that disagree.
So are you saying that when it comes to the rights of various demographics, the recognition of climate change, and the idea of election reform to help voters vote, moderate/ liberal news sources are in opposition to a progressive agenda, and that they generally do more harm than good (to a progressive agenda and/or what would best serve the American people) when they report on these issues?
Yup. It's not that they report on them that makes it that way, but the way and volume with which they cover them. That said, I don't think they are as bad as most more notoriously right wing outlets in their outright distortions of facts so no one thinks I'm making that equivocation (though I don't think it's the prize some do).
To pick a particular example, climate change. I'd describe liberal media outlets as fitting the moniker of climate delayers.
On November 29 2019 03:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
Hm, that's a good question. I think if most moderate/ left-leaning media outlets had to choose between a moderate candidate/ idea (Biden, Buttigieg, Medicare for "All who want it", keeping private insurance as an option) or a more progressive candidate/ idea, they would prefer the baby steps of the former, so I'd imagine that they wouldn't go out of their way to fully clarify the pro arguments for a progressive agenda, and focus mainly on either the con arguments of the progressive agenda or the pro arguments for the more moderate middle plan. I think they would prefer this because I'd imagine that most large corporations are uneasy when it comes to revolutionary ideas and radical changes, and Sanders and Warren haven't exactly been using rhetoric that sounds supportive of big influencers, one-percenters, big business, etc.
Do you believe the liberal/moderate outlets and the people they appeal to with this presentation are acting as allies to the people or those corporations?
I think that it's not necessarily the case that the interests of those corporations must line up with the best interest of the viewers, and while I don't think those liberal outlets are as bad as Fox, per se, I think they're definitely making sure they do what's best for themselves first. So I think they'll act as allies to the people as long as it doesn't undermine their company's well-being.
Where, besides healthcare, do you see liberal outlets best interests in opposition to the people? In alliance?
I'm not looking for a comprehensive list, I'm just trying to better understand the perspective.
I think that's the biggest difference between the progressives and moderates - healthcare - so I think that's the main issue. I also think that any time Sanders talks about regulations or breaking up corporations (which Biden doesn't do afaik), that puts them on edge.
What are the big structural changes (like breaking up corporations and healthcare) you think are needed, but supported by liberal media outlets?
-I think one thing is significant election reform to make it easier for people to vote (as opposed to more restrictive). -Another thing is appropriately promoting the seriousness and effects of climate change. -Another is the advocating for women's and LGBT and minority rights. -Another is the idea that the costs of higher education are unbearably high and that student debt is something that needs to be seriously addressed. -Decriminalization (and potential legalization) of marijuana. -Acceptance and destigmatization of mental health issues and addiction. -I also think conversations about gun violence are in good faith, even if some of the recommended solutions aren't viable.
I think most mainstream media outlets (besides Fox News) do more good than harm, even though they all can suffer from sensationalism and laziness.
Okay. I disagree with pretty much all of that being something where I would identify liberal media outlets as allies rather than opposition (other than cannabis). I also disagree those are structural changes along the lines of healthcare and breaking up corporations.
I disagree on them doing more good than harm as well, but now I do better understand the reasoning of people that disagree.
So are you saying that when it comes to the rights of various demographics, the recognition of climate change, and the idea of election reform to help voters vote, moderate/ liberal news sources are in opposition to a progressive agenda, and that they generally do more harm than good (to a progressive agenda and/or what would best serve the American people) when they report on these issues?
Yup. It's not that they report on them that makes it that way, but the way and volume with which they cover them. That said, I don't think they are as bad as most more notoriously right wing outlets in their outright distortions of facts so no one thinks I'm making that equivocation (though I don't think it's the prize some do).
To pick a particular example, climate change. I'd describe liberal media outlets as fitting the moniker of climate delayers.
How so? I guess I get confused as the right’s use of liberal in the Yank context is ‘anything left’, but the left’s is more a ‘not actually left wing.’
I wouldn’t say either definition would fit climate change denial. To me the liberal position is to acknowledge it, say it’s bad and not actually do anything about it, nor challenge the underlying culture that drives it, but I wouldn’t go as far as ‘climate deniers’
To me the stock liberal position is ‘how do we consume as much but cut our carbon emissions?’ rather than ‘why are we consuming so much?’
Edit - Also just realised I misread ‘climate delayers’ as ‘deniers somehow, apologies.
I guess this is as good a time as any to ask again what exactly does GH mean by "liberal media" and by "liberal" in general as he is known to use his own personal meanings of words.
On November 30 2019 10:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I guess this is as good a time as any to ask again what exactly does GH mean by "liberal media" and by "liberal" in general as he is known to use his own personal meanings of words.
Don't think it matters much to this discussion since I'm leaving it up to the reader to define "liberal media outlet" for themselves.
But generally speaking, one can imagine my use of "liberal" as "to the right of AOC and Sanders" more or less.
On November 30 2019 10:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I guess this is as good a time as any to ask again what exactly does GH mean by "liberal media" and by "liberal" in general as he is known to use his own personal meanings of words.
Don't think it matters much to this discussion since I'm leaving it up to the reader to define "liberal media outlet" for themselves.
But generally speaking, one can imagine my use of "liberal" as "to the right of AOC and Sanders" more or less.
That's what I figured you meant. Out of curiosity, are there any examples of media outlets that you would consider to be truly progressive - at the Sanders and AOC level?
On November 30 2019 10:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I guess this is as good a time as any to ask again what exactly does GH mean by "liberal media" and by "liberal" in general as he is known to use his own personal meanings of words.
Don't think it matters much to this discussion since I'm leaving it up to the reader to define "liberal media outlet" for themselves.
But generally speaking, one can imagine my use of "liberal" as "to the right of AOC and Sanders" more or less.
That's what I figured you meant. Out of curiosity, are there any examples of media outlets that you would consider to be truly progressive - at the Sanders and AOC level?
The Nation comes to mind. I feel like "progressive" isn't so much a thought out political perspective as it is a demarcation of being left of the status quo for most people though.
I really think we should collectively agree never to use the term "liberal". It's just meaningless at this point.
Classical laissez-faire liberals are all the way over on the economic right, but in general parlance it's often used to mean the progressive left (eg. the hated "inner-city libs"), while GH is using it as shorthand for the "left but not left enough" democrat establishment.
The word immediately obscures the point of any discussion it appears in. Can we just say something else?
On November 30 2019 11:41 Belisarius wrote: I really think we should collectively agree never to use the term "liberal". It's just meaningless at this point.
Classical laissez-faire liberals are all the way over on the economic right, but in general parlance it's often used to mean the progressive left (eg. the hated "inner-city libs"), while GH is using it as shorthand for the "left but not left enough" democrat establishment.
The word immediately obscures the point of any discussion it appears in. Can we just say something else?
neoliberal is probably more accurate and would prevent the duel usage issue if it's really that confusing for people?
"Left but not left enough" would probably also more accurately describe my perception of progressives, not neoliberals.
EPT
