We know this.
In an electoral college system, only swing states matter.
But parties will pay attention if votes are siphoned from them. If you’re not in a swing state, a third party vote has basically no negative effect but may have a positive effect of influencing a major party.
I think it’s more than arguable that voting for Kamala in Louisiana or Mississippi or even potentially California is a bigger waste of a vote than voting third party.
Withholding a protest vote (for either side) and supporting voter apathy is lame as hell.
What are you talking about? You know there are more than two candidates running, right? I’m literally saying I will be voting third party in a presidential election as I always have, and me voting third party has literally never mattered because the electoral college. Who’s withholding their vote? Although, that doesn’t mean I think voting in a bourgeois democracy is actually a meaningful expression of political power and organization.
You’re all hand winging about people on the left who just don’t want to vote Democrat, again even in states where the result is already known. You can’t even dare to criticize Democrats or send any message even in safe states like CA, WA, or NY. Because the handful of conscientious leftists are definitely gonna flip CA red or could definitely flip MS blue if they sucked it up and went for Kamala.
When the capitalists continue to fuck us , you’ll have done fuck all to push socialism because you spend all your time, again, running defense for one of the two most powerful capitalist institutions in the world.
Guess what dummy, you’re playing soccer with these Yahoos whether you like it
Yeah, actually a lot of us are very aware of the game and how it’s played. Are you? You know most of us aren’t in swing states, right? So what is my protest vote going to affect again? My vote already doesn’t matter in a presidential election. It’s literally never mattered as long as I’ve been a voting adult.
or not so pick a fucking side and THEN ALSO DO MORE."
Yeah I have picked a side. The anti-capitalist side. Which of these parties are anti -capitalist, again?
99% of y’all are calling out this user saying they’ll “do nothing and be smug” instead of voting, but y’all are just gonna vote blue and similarly be smug, do nothing, but continue to run defense for millionaires and one of the most powerful capitalist political parties in the world.
At least this user won’t be doing the latter.
As long as there is an appeals process. And it seems there was.
You think this organization’s judgement is some objective algorithm and doesn’t contain its own subjective biases?
Most of the population doesn’t live in a swing state
Nothing. But a good portion of the electorate did get to learn about the power of marketing and the difference between liberalism and socialism
deleted by creator
Yeah, some people work. Have you read Manufacturing Consent?
Either way, the summary is pretty accurate after watching. He devoted 30 seconds to recognizing that anti communism was a major pillar of the news media back then, at least. But that is a major reflection of exactly how they weren’t “unbiased” and basically shows how the regulations and fairness doctrine did very little to expose Americans to ideas outside those accepted by the elites who owned and ran NBC, CBS, ABC, and NYT/WaPo. So to claim that it’s mostly true that they were “unbiased” back then is still a bit ridiculous after such an acknowledgement. “They were mostly unbiased unless you count mainstream, elite American opinion of the 50s/60s as a type of bias”…
Again, no look at the structure of the news media and how they treated the US government’s and major corporations’ words as a major form of sourcing, the importance and influence of advertising, etc.
He has a handful of chosen examples. Manufacturing Consent has case studies documenting coverage of specific events from these media sources.
The populace wasn’t more educated when everyone got their news from the same 5 sources (and a more educated populace is what we should want from our news media.)
They just all mostly agreed and said the same things. There was still bias, it just wasn’t as partisan and people were less likely to disagree because there wasn’t anyone saying otherwise. The faux neutrality was a facade.
If that’s the summary, then the video is overly simplistic and doesn’t understand the actual concept of media bias. The news was biased then too, especially foreign coverage, and it was biased before then. I mean, this goes all the way back to the USS Maine at the very least.
Anyone who wants to talk about media bias and hasn’t read Manufacturing Consent or other similar work needs to be banned from the topic. Learn about the propaganda model. Maybe also read about the Committee on Public Information and Edward Bernays while you’re at it.
I can’t take anyone seriously who really thinks the overall news landscape was less biased when there were only a handful of networks determining news on TV and less alternatives in the print media as well.
Edit: Longer, but better
You’re being pedantic. The dominant ideology of the Democratic party is neoliberalism. Democrats continued neoliberal policies following Reagan, like NAFTA and others. They will consistently defer to the market based solutions and “free enterprise” as opposed to actual socialism. The dominant political user on these platforms (especially .world) are capital D Democrats and liberals. You see this on Reddit a lot in /r/neoliberal.
This user likely isn’t wrong when using this description as a generalization.
^ This is a decently accurate account of how neoliberalism grew to become the dominant economic ideology in the US and Western Europe. Though it was really just a description of Reaganism and Thatcherism at first. Read David Harvey if you disagree.
Do you remember 9/11? The war in Iraq? Are you aware of what happened with the assassination attempt against Reagan? Do you remember how those affected the approval ratings of politicians?
You don’t even necessarily have to flip people. You just have to get them to come out and mobilize.
It’s not a sure thing, but a lot of y’all are coming across as coping. Political violence has often united this country around figures and policies.
Isn’t Biden already polling poorly?
An antended at the rally and the shooter were killed per the AP
It’s incredible people are down voting you because they don’t like this thought. Y’all know how America is right? If this is all real, his approval numbers likely grow and his base gets fired up. Reagan got a bump back in the day.
You don’t have to like that, but it’s not misinformation to speculate on how this plays out. These images will be used for the rest of this race.
Yeah because language barriers, cultural differences, and time zones don’t matter
I’m sorry but this isn’t “world news” to me. Random drunken tragedies are hardly something useful to keep me informed on what is happening in the world.
No, you see:
The original user didn’t reply to my disagreement like a maladjusted prick, unlike you. So they got a civil disagreement back.
Unlike them, I do hope you get “attacked” by a 5 year old with a water gun this summer. 🤓
Because your analogy is ignoring both the volume of water involved and the context that surrounds both actions, one being actual bullying.
There is a world of difference in the psychological impact of a bullied child being soaked with a bucket of water by their peers and strangers being squirt with water guns by locals as a form of protest.
In the former, I would be dealing with peers and the feelings of social exclusion that come from bullying and unacceptance. People in my peer group would likely have been there pointing and laughing. There would be fear of having to run into my bullies on a daily basis who would be specifically targeting me as a single individual for no other reason but aggression or to assert dominance or whatever reasons a bully would have. The bullying period would likely have no definite end in sight.
In the later, I would at worst feel a bit of embarrassment and maybe some annoyance. Maybe I’d worry about running into the protestors again. But then my trip would end and I would be home. The protesters also are unlikely to be following me and my family around as specific people to harass and will instead be protesting generally.
And yeah this just comes off as Internet debate stuff to me. I said “it’s water” instead of specifically “it was a water gun squirt”. “hmm, having you ever considered tidal waves though. Water can be violent”. Wow. Thanks.
And again, my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word “attacked”.
If someone jumped out of a bush and squirt you with a water gun a few times then ran away, would you call emergency services and tell them you were “attacked” by someone? If so, you really think that would be a good use of your local police force’s time and wouldn’t be exaggerating the situation?
It’s incredibly soft to describe being shot at with a water gun as “attacked”. Sorry. I hope a 5 year old doesn’t “attack” any of y’all this summer.
People win suits against the police all the time. It’s just the police rarely face consequences for it, especially as an institution.