I mean, yah, there’s no libs to trigger on right wing sites. And what’s the point of spouting right wing rhetoric if you’re not making someone visibly angry about it?

Also, twitter and Facebook let them all back in, so why go to the shitty knock offs?

“The Death of Stalin” is perhaps similar to what you’re thinking of, basically about the shenanigans with in the Kremlin fallowing Stalin’s death.

I mean, I guess the term might just be “historical comedy”

News outlets make a fraction of the money they did 3 decades ago, people having previously payed directly for a newspaper. Now they basically have to rely on web page ad revenue and subscriptions which most people won’t sign up for since they can get the news for free somewhere else.

So news outlets understaff to cut costs, leading to more mistakes and less due diligence. journalists get under paid, so independently wealthy people have an easier time taking the positions and pushing personal agendas. And news outlets need outside funding to stay afloat, making them beholden to the interests of those outside interests.

So yah, the quality is worse, objectivity is down, sensationalism is up to drive clicks, and they’re pushing agendas and world views way harder than they used to.

When metrics become targets they cease to be useful metrics.

Worth adding that “unemployment” in this context just means people who are claiming unemployment benefits, a things that runs out, and when they run out, they no longer are counted by it.

Also difficult to claim unemployment if you lose a gig economy job. So many people who lost their “job” doing something like uber eats are not represented.

A better metric is workforce participation rate which is at an all time low. There are a lot of factors to that, including a higher rate of retirement, but that alone does not account for the record low number.

Normally I’m not a big fan of protectionist tariffs since they often are just a way to allow uncompetitive domestic manufacture to stay afloat rather than adjusting to the market, it’s a different story when one state begins to intentionally price dump on the global market to push other countries manufacturers out of business.

A lot people are up in arms because they think cheap battery electric vehicles will help assist in the energy transition, and thus see this as a step back, but I’m a lot less bullish on BEVs than others are. I think they have a place but they’re not a panacea to decarbonization of transport, and often discussion of them seems to bury discussion of other arguably more important elements of transport decarbonization, such as rail transit or trams which we are way further behind on getting momentum behind than electric cars.

That is also for NG plants is the bigger win TBH, coal is such a minor part of power generation in the US these days. Methane powered NG plants also have a worse heating effect as, although it produces less CO2 per BTU, it also has between 5-12% leak rate with in the supply chain, depending on who you ask, and that methane has about 40 times the GHG power as co2.

I do not think any but a slim minority on here seriously believes that Trump is preferable, but being better than trump does not make one immune to criticism and doesn’t entitle Biden to enthusiastic support from people who didn’t want him as the candidate in the first place and only settled on him in the primaries as a compromise.

If a second trump term is as bad as we fear, then the democratic establishment should probably work harder to speak to the concerns of disaffected voters. A failure to make real commitments to pursue significant policy changes is tantamount to voting for trump at this point.

Doing better than trump is a low damn bar.

The consumer confidence index has been on a down ward trend over all since an initial jump with vaccine rollouts. If you pick small parts of the graph and focus on fluctuations that support your argument you can make it look good but if you map it all the way back to the end of lock down, the trend is clear.

There are also other metrics beyond the consumer confidence index, such as Gallup’s economic confidence index which shows the same over all downward trend.

This is just the reality the number show, people are not happy with the sate of the economy and they don’t expect it to get better. Telling people they should be happier because unemployment is low is an awful political strategy.

There are many different metrics that can be used, in politics and campaigns we’ve focused on one set for a while now because it generally gave us an accurate idea of how people were going to feel. If it no longer accurately predicts that, then we need a new set for political discussions.

This is not a case of online spaces filtering experience, nation wide polls and indicators suggest that people are generally unhappy with the economy. To turn around and tell people their wrong for not liking the state of the economy because one set of metrics looks good is tone def at best and political suicide at worst.

This is a serious issue with the Democratic Party right now, they’re relying on metrics and measurements that do not properly reflect the realities of the average voter. It goes beyond just misreading economic numbers, they are struggling to even understand what voters will respond positively to in general.

Many of the questions they ask in polls are somewhat obtuse and don’t touch on what voters think the issue is. They ask “how important is X to you” but be it, immigration, environment, healthcare, or guns. All that question does is tell the party how much to talk about certain issues, not how the voters want them to be addressed or treated.

Decision makers with in the party apparatus have a strategy of working with in narratives that are accepted by the voters they’re trying to court. Narratives crafted and popularized by traditional media/news/journalistic sources. Ideally these narratives would be crafted to best reflect reality, a difficult task that requires a lot of talent and large dedicated staffs. Right now though narratives are being crafted by under staffed, underfunded teams, at the behest of powerful moneyed interests who are keeping news sources afloat; revenues from digital distribution having failed to match that of old print and cable distribution. These same interests provide the bulk of funding for political campaigns.

So narratives are crafted that are divorced from reality the public is experiencing, in a shallow effort to control public opinion, making the public increasingly distrustful over time of these traditional news sources. The party relies on these narratives to communicate with voters. They also takes ques on what policy to support based on how the voters identify with the narratives and what the campaign donors want. But increasingly voters do not identify with the narratives at all, so the party is left speaking past voters trying to speak to narratives that voters ether haven’t seen or are baffled by.

Dutch babies are generally made with more a batter than a dough. Kind of like pancakes or Yorkshire pudding.

How much you want to bet that a lot of that money is going to end up being used to pay trumps legal fees, fines and settlements?

See the consistent problem these kinds of groups have, is that there just aren’t enough people who agree with them and fit their preferences to do even a fraction of what they want.

They think they can just repress everyone who doesn’t agree with them, but repression is expensive and inefficient, and it takes more people to maintain that kind of governing system than a system where people just go along with it.

Accessing public domain content that’s not hosted digitally otherwise.

I mean, they didn’t need machine learning systems to do this. they’ve been paying people to take pictures with him for a while now, got plenty of mouth pieces they have on the payroll too. Just a bit cheaper now.

This election was going to be dirty with our without this nonsense. As far as ride or die trumpers are concerned, there are no rules this election. They’ve convinced them selves the last election was stolen, so, they have a moral blank check to do anything in their minds.

Recommending that he be investigated for treason is not the same as him going to court and being convicted of it. That’s kind of the rub of the whole situation, removing a candidate from a ballot because they’ve been accused of treason is a really bad precedent to set.

The case was about wether he could be removed from the ballot (having not actually been convicted for treason yet) but some of the judges used it as an opportunity to state that only congress could do that for federal elections. The case was pretty open and shut on the first part, not so much on the second.

Daily reminder that the constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the right of judicial review, they gave them selves the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional by “interpreting implied powers” from the constitution.