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
I like the Crooked products, specifically Pod Save America. I wouldn't call them strictly progressive or liberal because they're far too analytical to be a blind cheerleader. Some of the other podcasts under their umbrella do get into the cheerleader effect a bit though.
I mean, look, you are probably going to take this the wrong way, and you should.
But Pod Save is some of the most toxic garbage there is available, and if someone tells me this is where they get their news, I'm writing them off. The are PURE neoliberal, Blue-MAGA, cultist; the culimination of why the modern Democratic party is a failure for all humanity.
They are a crew of one-off Obama era consultants whose primary job it is to manufacture consent for the extant power structures within the Democratic Party. They are incredibly pretentious and their takes are about as vapid a helium gas. They have no ability to predict what comes next in politics; the predictive capacity of their internal models is zilch. The advice they put out their is almost always the opposite of what one should do.
They aren't just representative of whats wrong with the Democratic party, they are the thing that is wrong with the Democratic party.
I'm not sure what I could take the wrong way. I think you were pretty straightforward.
I do think you're partly wrong about their pod though. They're pretty analytical. I find that they try not to take sides too much within the left, but they do try to understand and they're pretty honest when it's clear. When they do take a position on divisive wedge issues (within the Democratic Party) they tend to land progressive (not Leftist or liberal).
Calling them blue maga is some retarded shit though, FR. And I wish that's what neolibs were, we'd all be a lot better off. I think maybe you're just upset that they aren't completely radicalized?
You know its funny right. Because the only people who say that are the ones who take it personally.
For those not in the cult, it is a very useful and accurate term. Whoopi said she would vote for Biden if he personally shit himself on stage (on the view). She opposed removing him as the candidate to an audience of millions. How many people did she convince to vote for Biden with her perspective? And when we look at the kind of behavior, like insisting on running an obviously failed candidate well past the point of even being able to recover, an insistence on strategies and approaches that did not work in the past, that were not working then, and that obviously weren't going to work in the future: how can we classify such a movement as anything other than cultlike?
And PodSave, I mean they were that movements vanguard. And they pretty much lost the election for us. Blue MAGA as a movement, they precluded us having a robust primary because "of course we should just run the incumbent". They precluded us swapping out the candidate when they were' obviously floundering in the polls (ages before the meltdown Biden had on stage). They insisted we had to do almost every bad idea, because of their fundamental strategy: any blue would do.
But it turns out, any blue wont do. Candidates actually have to be grounded in the needs of the people they are asking to elect them.
And if you were / are Blue MAGA (which if podSave was/ is your primary source for poltiical interpretation, you almost assuredly are), sad day for you, and sad day for all of us.
Blue MAGA as a movement were wreckers who destroyed our ability to stop the death cult of the Republican party with their half-a-loaf, warmed over neoliberalism. On their insistence of decorum. On their wait your turn approach to leadership.
If that was you, the current state of things rests on your shoulders. Trump was as unpopular as Biden last election. And we lost because of Blue MAGA.
I think you're projecting your own frustrations about the Democratic leadership because most of what you're saying is wrong. There was a lot more discourse and a lot less defense than you're remembering.
I'm not sure what your definition of Blue Maga is. But if it's accusations against anyone that doesn't support whatever you think with undying loyalty, that sounds like you. I'm not saying that the absolute defense people doesn't exist, but that's not them. And your absolutism is just as bad as what you're complaining about.
Its pretty clear you don't really know what you are talking about. Ask around. Its a thing. And the thing is the definition I'm giving you. I've been posting on this exact topic here, to originally, a chorus of downvotes, and more recently, a growing chorus of support, for years. And I've specifically used the language Blue MAGA/ BNMW. The term has been around for over a decade.
Your ignorance isn't a form of evidence; nothing I'm saying is wrong, its just not a telling of history you would learn on PodSave.
It's pretty clear you're going to hear whatever you want from me and anyone else. You're no different from what you're attacking.
I mean you out here trying to tell me a thing isn't a thing. Bruh, its been a thing for almost 10 years. You being ignorant of that is on you brother.
2016:
2019:
2024:
Since you #BlueMAGA, I suppose appeals to authority are your bag. Here's an article from Mehdi Hassan on the matter: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/15/democrats-joe-biden-maga
The gaslighters prayer
Ive listened to pod save for years and after the election just couldn't bring myself to listen to it anymore. It's been a lot of bad takes and frustrations. Who do you recommend I go to for news?
I'll be honest, sometimes I can't handle the full hour, because Amy puts it out there raw as it is and sometimes when the shit is real bad, I just can't emotionally handle it. But the sanitizing of our news, thats a major part of the problem; sane washing in an insane time is a form of lying. If I don't have time for that, then I just watch the headlines.
I try and separate the politics from the news as best I can. I consider Majority to be much heavier on the Politics than the News side, which is fine. They also have complementary schedules. If its an interview I'm not interested in, I'll turn it off. The fun half is good for getting an understanding of what MAGA is doing.
I do try and keep track of what the "centrists", or better phrasing, neoliberal/ neoconservative, "raised on corpo media take" is. Don Lemon is about as safe as you get. I also feel like I owe him one because he put a project of mine on his show right after J6, and that launched us in a big way. I watch Don Lemon to get an idea for what corporate media is thinking.
I do watch Meidas Touch, but only if there is an important trial going on. As far as courtroom news, these are the ones to follow. They have the best "judiciary"/ law takes, because, well, they are all lawyers. Their politics are drivel and not worth listening to.
Ben barely ever puts out content since he started preaching again but he was one of my favorite contributors in the early days of TYT. I was making bootleg Benjamin Dixon show swag almost a decade ago and was one of his first patreons. I always tune in and love his takes. He was making the clearest most consistent points about the rise of white nationalism from 2016-2024 of anyone, but just had to step back because it was grinding him down.
Squirrelgang rise up. These guys know how to win elections and ultimately, thats what matters. They take an unapollegitically black male perspective, which imo, needs to be elevated. They stream on Tuesdays.
I like Nathan J. Robinson, even though I think he's a Chomsky fanboy and Chomsky is mostly not worth listening to.
Just to keep tabs on the zoomers.
Again, too much of an apologist for the system and for power, but i've got a thing for Jon.
My goal with my media consumption is to gather a diversity of opinions, evaluate those opinions against what they say is going to happen versus what does happen, and weight them accordingly.
@chase_what_matters@lemmy.world made a point below about my "strong opinions"; yes, I have conviction around what I believe to be true. But my goal with my perspective is to have opinions and takes that predict future states of the world, and I think I've demonstrated a strong track record for that. I've been following politics, in excruciating detail, since like.. 1997/8/9.
I think too often people offer charity that news sources don't deserve because they like the "tone" or manner in-which information is presented, rather than evaluating a given sources ability to predict future states. That's the only signal of virtue to me: does your opinion of what will happen predict the future?
There is too much weight put on conventional wisdom and conventional news sources when they are trash at predicting future states of the world.
I used to watch TYT for the evening news. DN! for the morning with Sam and Emma for politics and then TYT in the evening was a great way to keep on top of pretty much everything that mattered. I also liked the more international focus DN! and MR (when it had Micheal Brookes, RIP) had.
But I'm a boat adrift for a decent evening news program now.
Thank you, I'll follow the top few for a while and see how they hit. Here's a specific question: which one do you go to for hope?
Thanks, and yeah I don’t dislike strong opinions. You gave an essay answer about some folks you didn’t like so much, so I figured you’d have an essay for those you did like.
Do you ever listen to On the Media? I have appreciated their more focused goal of analyzing how the news is reported.
On the Media is fine, but I have a strong and deep distaste for "manufactured consent" experience which is NPR. Its prob the take that would get me most heavily down-voted most heavily. It was January 2015, and NPR ran some segment which was basically an explainer on why no one should bother running in the DNC primary that cycle because obviously Hillary should and will be the nominee, and would just wipe the floor with any Republican. I remember how idiotic they sounded, considering that even then , Hillary was just about the worst candidate you could have ever ran.
I have a special hole in my heart just for hating on NPR. I think its been one of the most destructive forces in American politics because it creates the illusion, the sensation of understanding without anything to back it up. It makes you feel like you are smarter than you actually are, just like pod-save. Its a pro-corporate narrative (I mean just listen to who gets the sponsor spots) with a veneer of "Americanism" and centrism, as if its just L v R and we'll still go to bed under the same sheets. The world is an existential and material fight for existence and NPR creates the sensation in people that they are doing something, that they are involved in something, when they are not. Its like the DNC. It stands in where something real should be.
I dip in and out with them. Sometimes I just need to hear some other people bitching about shit (because it’s easier than riling up my group of friends all the time). But I definitely tire of the constant outrage.
Also I’m not sure I agree with the other guy’s take on “consent for extant powers” when they were pretty fucking vocal about and critical of Biden last year… long before the catastrophic debate.
I prefer Offline and PSTW for the (usually) more even-keeled discussions and thoughtful interviews.
You’ve got a lot of very strong opinions here. What news are you yourself listening to regularly?
I mentioned you in my answer, written above.