This isn’t what she’s trying to do. Instead of trying to blend in with moderates, she represents a radical and extremist part of the party that she wants to paint as the true moderates in order to leverage the opinion of the republicans upon Trump’s reelection.

The stance of tearing down speakers of the house is not new, she has railed against every speaker of the house this term for not enacting her extremist policies. What she is doing is trying to force the republican party’s hand to become more extremist because they can’t get over the line to win anything as a party without the extremists supporting them.

I fear that many people don’t understand this move from her but it’s clear if you’ve been paying attention. The point is to sell out the rest of the party that does not side with her. Her philosophy is “MAGA party or no party” and she has a small group of 5-10 allies that also believe this. If Trump loses, the party splits along these lines. If he wins, this fascist group will suddenly represent the whole party. That’s the bet she’s making.

I don’t have much to add because I agree with you on almost all of this. If the summation is pretty much that the Democratic Party is more unified in a post-trump era and that a third party would only serve to hurt them less because of that reason, then I agree with that. Whereas if republicans win this election, the US has a very dark future that may unite extremists and the death of the party would be less of a mess and more of an uphill battle for the entire country. At that point a third party would almost be irrelevant under the threat of a fall of democracy.

However, the only parts I disagree with are the parts where you talk about how the left is more cohesive. I think the problem that I’ve long noted with the left is that they all have very different political bends which does cause infighting and I think you’re underestimated the infighting that’s present. I don’t think the republicans have anything quite as serious as the liberal vs leftist split that the dems have. They have extremists but I’d point out that the extreme right is just an extension or an exaggeration of most of their views.

For instance, most republicans support anti-immigration policy and a lot of them do it due to some variety of racism or xenophobia. So when an extremist comes along and says some racist things explicitly, they’ll have everyone else on board for 90% of the conversation despite the different intentions.

Whereas with the left, liberals and leftists have very different ideals. And while it’s usually fine to combat the anti-republican ideals together, aside from that we are very split. You see this when Kamala is supporting fracking live on stage despite the ecological impacts that most of her party claims to be worried about. More moderate people will be convinced by this, which is why she said it. But the divide between a moderate democrat and a serious liberal or leftist on that issue would be night and day and you won’t have much middle ground there. Just something to think about.

First thing, I think that the Republican Party is highly likely to face a crisis of identity after Trump so you’re correct there. A moderate cannot appeal to their voter base anymore so their only choice now is to find another populist and those aren’t super common. But also people are mostly ignoring that Trumps existence has raised the voter participation numbers. I think after his disappearance, republicans will face far less participation and excitement.

I only get to talk about these things rarely but it’s interesting to think about. See once the Republican Party realizes it can’t win with votes and it can’t just cheat its way upwards, we get interesting results. That’s when they must pivot on things that appeal to moderates. They’d have to drop their anti-LGBTQ stances. I can’t see a world currently where they aren’t forced to give up on abortion. Basically most of their social issues would have to go. The party would look very different.

But then that all will piss off their extremists and they can’t do that. So this is what I think splits the party.

We talk optics though and I’ve always criticized the left on its optics. They aren’t good. And that outward representation reflects inwards. Let me tell you right now that being in the middle of discourse, the right doesn’t argue with itself often. The left does.

My main example is this genocide situation with Biden and Gaza. Plenty of leftists and democrats are still prepared to waste their votes because of that situation despite the harm reduction argument. The right won’t do this.

It’s weird to say that the left is more cohesive as a base when the current MAGA people are basically in a cult and I don’t know what’s more cohesive than a cult. That’s at least half of their current party voters. So aside from them splitting, they value loyalty and nationalism, both of which create an alliance within them. They also aren’t sophisticated voters so they’re unlikely to break rank because they aren’t really thinking much about positions.

I agree that the right is on more shaky footing than people think but it’s due to their current position I assume. For instance, consider if they had a young populist in their ranks. Think about if Trump was 45. We’d all be scared and rightly so because that cultist behavior would prevail and unite the party.

Mark my words, the only thing saving the party from not splitting is a new populist and that would be very bad for everyone if they found one.

As much as I think that the right is going to split after trumps loss, I think they’re also more cohesive than the left is by far. There are many flavors of leftists and while I think that there are also many flavors of right wingers, they have a much easier time banding around their goals because to be honest they don’t do much. They’re a regressive party. Regression is inherently more unifying than progress because we all disagree on how to achieve progress but regress is pretty simple.

Basically my theory is that the right would lose less from a split than the left because half of the left is ready to jump ship at any moment, as is the right, but the right is more cohesive due to shared identity and regression.

It wouldn’t screw them over until a legitimate third party is in place. And then maybe. But you have to ask yourself what a third party looks like if it looks like an alternative to both parties. Surely the first third party would just be a split between the parties, it would still take them awhile to win anything at all. But I could see alternatives being a more eco focused party and I honestly think it would screw both major parties. Which is the ideal case. If anything, this screws the dems more because of their voters are more likely to break rank with how the party is going.

This would be a good time for Kamala to keep asking for a debate and challenging him. Maybe even agree to do it on Fox to show how weak he is. Even if he accepted, I don’t think Fox would save him from another bad performance. We’ll see how polling works out I guess.

What the EU actually needs to do is to spearhead and help find everyone a way to actually “own” digital things. I think I’d be fine with not having a disk drive if I could buy my game, not be reliant on servers to download it in the future, trade my games with friends, and choose to sell it when I felt like it.

We need to find a way to get back (most of) the benefits of physical media without actually having to go back to it.

Andromeda and the Milky Way shall merge in the most beautiful sex display you’ve ever seen, they will become one in the flesh and yet over millions of years bangin it’s unlikely a single ball will touch. Therefore my thesis of galactic homosexuality is false and our merging is not gay and the socks can be removed.

Thank you for coming to my defense, boring questions will not be allowed.

Yeah this is what I mean. I don’t get why people who don’t like their content bother hating them. You don’t like that they mostly exist for entertainment, cool, why bother caring? If you want deep tech dives or something else, there’s plenty of content out there. You’re upset they aren’t more knowledgeable as if everyone making tech content needs to know everything.

And yeah I did feel like they messed up with the Billet incident and it was one of the more important things they needed to address properly. They made a mistake and I do think that Linus handled it poorly to say the least. They deserved that part of the scandal. All I’ll say is I’m willing to wait and see if they improve or if they make similar mistakes. If that’s a big deal to you, I get that, but that’s not where a majority of the hate is coming from either. It’s coming from what I said before about tech people wanting different content

This was my impression. All of their scandals they’ve taken extremely seriously(it appears), done the work to fix and improve, and a lot of their issues seem to be results of fast scaling and organizational level problems that can be fixed.They haven’t just swept things under the rug where they’re able to be transparent. I just think the problem is what Luke has always said: When you open a company up to transparency, you gain criticism, and then the company has large incentives to shut down that transparency because all you use it for is to cause them problems.

Aside from that, the LTT community and outsiders seem very toxic toward them.

I’ll be that guy. I don’t understand why LTT gets so much crap from people constantly, they seem to have a very toxic community even without the scandals. But in regards to the more recent scandal, I really think a lot of those things are fixable and I’ll be watching to see if they fix them.

As far as the sexual harassment stuff goes I can see that as a legitimate reason to stop watching. At the same time though, how should we feel with such limited and one sided information? And especially how should I feel if the problems aren’t inherent to the company and if they don’t reoccur?

Maybe someone can help clear this up for me because I’m not that informed and I’m still giving them a chance but maybe I shouldn’t be.

People can say nothing was done but the only info you’re going to get is going to be from the accusers. The company isn’t going to speak publicly about it and so we won’t ever know what their views are or what proof they have.

Wild how the news bias is explained by its owners, 90% of whom are right wing billionaires or their companies. People wondering why CNN is “suddenly” airing Trump propaganda are in the dark

Totally agree but I’d add Reuters into your mix. From everything I’ve read, they’re highly factual and so bias almost doesn’t even apply to them. Most people mark them as dead center.

Ah I didn’t think about pushing it to the bottom. One feature I’ve always hated about Reddit is the mandatory auto mod sticky at the top of the comments on every post so I get it. I wish we could find a better solution though.

Well I think you’ve actually accurately communicated the need for such a bot. A lot of the sources here are sometimes far left sources that even I don’t trust or they can be just a Wordpress blog. Sometimes that’s fine but I really appreciate the bot being there to highlight it.

And I tend to know the sources pretty well. I know how the Washington post works for example, I know what NPRs articles are bent towards. But I know a lot of people don’t know that and that’s why I’m confused about the hate for the bot because in my eyes it’s only helpful and the sites it links to are decent sources of analysis on them.

I’m with you though, I have yet to see someone post as bad of a source as the NYpost or something but still, the bot is at worst useless and not harmful imo

It’s weird to me here though because I do view Reuters as a good source and it’s generally rated high factuality and minimal bias. I’ve seen elsewhere that the bot is off the mark but the ground news links are actually helpful

This comment comes off as if you think the people working at Pew, one of the most respected orgs for surveys out there, are just plain stupid and are dumb enough to leave a giant hole in their data when concerning young people. What you’re pointing out is a challenge in modern surveys but this is stuff that Pew is actively working to correct and with the midterm polling, they were far more accurate.

That’s all due to incorrect weighting of the data but Pew notes that polls specifically like the ones referenced here when looking at national sentiment tend to be much more accurate.

If you’d like to read more about the problems with polling Pew has a whole write up on it

Polls aren’t proven to be worthless, they just have error bars that people don’t pay attention to. They’re nothing crazy, just statistics. Problem is: most people do not understand statistics.

Can someone tell me what’s wrong with this info and why this bot gets downvoted to hell