[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

The Obituary Page - R_P - Oct 23, 2020 - 6:09pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Oct 23, 2020 - 5:51pm
 
Make Scott laugh - Lazy8 - Oct 23, 2020 - 5:31pm
 
Trump - R_P - Oct 23, 2020 - 5:22pm
 
2020 Elections - kcar - Oct 23, 2020 - 4:32pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Oct 23, 2020 - 4:07pm
 
Things that piss me off - cc_rider - Oct 23, 2020 - 3:46pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Oct 23, 2020 - 3:20pm
 
Among Us - R_P - Oct 23, 2020 - 3:06pm
 
Trump Lies - miamizsun - Oct 23, 2020 - 2:44pm
 
RPeeps I miss. - haresfur - Oct 23, 2020 - 2:32pm
 
China - miamizsun - Oct 23, 2020 - 11:27am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - miamizsun - Oct 23, 2020 - 10:46am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Oct 23, 2020 - 10:42am
 
Health Care Stories - hayduke2 - Oct 23, 2020 - 9:55am
 
Economix - R_P - Oct 23, 2020 - 9:33am
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Oct 23, 2020 - 9:00am
 
The Dragons' Roost - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Oct 23, 2020 - 8:55am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - Oct 23, 2020 - 7:09am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - sunybuny - Oct 23, 2020 - 5:26am
 
Thanks for putting "Favorites" Channel back - chriswep - Oct 23, 2020 - 5:24am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - buddy - Oct 22, 2020 - 6:39pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Manbird - Oct 22, 2020 - 4:55pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Oct 22, 2020 - 3:42pm
 
Joni Mitchell categorization error - pmrt - Oct 22, 2020 - 11:57am
 
Name My Band - Jester - Oct 22, 2020 - 10:52am
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Oct 22, 2020 - 9:16am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Oct 22, 2020 - 8:40am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Oct 22, 2020 - 8:34am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Oct 21, 2020 - 9:59pm
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - ScottFromWyoming - Oct 21, 2020 - 9:37pm
 
Things You Thought Today - jlf778 - Oct 21, 2020 - 5:19pm
 
Radio Paradise is awesome! - jlf778 - Oct 21, 2020 - 5:16pm
 
NASA & other news from space - oldviolin - Oct 21, 2020 - 4:17pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Oct 21, 2020 - 3:13pm
 
New Music - scrinz - Oct 21, 2020 - 1:01pm
 
Republican Party - R_P - Oct 21, 2020 - 12:39pm
 
You might be getting old if...... - Ohmsen - Oct 21, 2020 - 9:05am
 
Rhetorical questions - oldviolin - Oct 21, 2020 - 8:37am
 
Working from home - rhahl - Oct 21, 2020 - 7:01am
 
How's the weather? - miamizsun - Oct 21, 2020 - 5:05am
 
Live Music - R_P - Oct 20, 2020 - 10:48pm
 
how do you feel right now? - kurtster - Oct 20, 2020 - 7:43pm
 
audiophile - kurtster - Oct 20, 2020 - 7:27pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Oct 20, 2020 - 6:10pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - kcar - Oct 20, 2020 - 4:39pm
 
Bolivia - R_P - Oct 20, 2020 - 4:09pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - KarmaKarma - Oct 20, 2020 - 2:29pm
 
Freedom of speech? - miamizsun - Oct 20, 2020 - 2:18pm
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - KurtfromLaQuinta - Oct 20, 2020 - 1:04pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - Oct 20, 2020 - 1:03pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Oct 20, 2020 - 12:49pm
 
Health Care - R_P - Oct 20, 2020 - 8:41am
 
Android app playing same playlist - bevgerry - Oct 20, 2020 - 5:42am
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - kurtster - Oct 19, 2020 - 9:36pm
 
Quick! I need a chicken... - R_P - Oct 19, 2020 - 4:46pm
 
I have no idea what this thread was about, but let's talk... - miamizsun - Oct 19, 2020 - 9:35am
 
Art Show - Coaxial - Oct 19, 2020 - 5:33am
 
Graphic designers, ho! - Proclivities - Oct 19, 2020 - 5:27am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Oct 18, 2020 - 3:10pm
 
Feature Request: My Ratings Sort by Date - jarro - Oct 18, 2020 - 2:19pm
 
A "Kinky" Twist - sirdroseph - Oct 18, 2020 - 5:59am
 
New Zealand - oldviolin - Oct 17, 2020 - 8:30pm
 
Small-town news - Antigone - Oct 17, 2020 - 1:35pm
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Oct 17, 2020 - 7:03am
 
Play the Blues - sirdroseph - Oct 17, 2020 - 4:20am
 
Astronomy! - Red_Dragon - Oct 16, 2020 - 5:40pm
 
It's the economy stupid. - westslope - Oct 16, 2020 - 3:18pm
 
Radio Paradise on multiple Echo speakers via an Alexa Rou... - jarro - Oct 16, 2020 - 1:43pm
 
Alexa skill - not working :( - jarro - Oct 16, 2020 - 1:36pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Oct 16, 2020 - 10:57am
 
Turkey Sandwiches? Veev Wants to Know What's For Lunch - oldviolin - Oct 16, 2020 - 9:43am
 
RP App in Android Auto: - jwaldrep - Oct 16, 2020 - 9:30am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Oct 16, 2020 - 8:52am
 
American Justice - Red_Dragon - Oct 16, 2020 - 7:59am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » 2020 Elections Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 49, 50, 51  Next
Post to this Topic
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 4:32pm

WTF is going on at the WSJ? The news side of the organization shot down an opinion piece on the Bidens that the op-ed side of the paper put out. 

I knew that the opinion and editorial people are regarded as extremist even within the paper—it's been like that since the editorial board promoted economist Arthur Laffer and supply-side economics—but this is messed up. 

A Wall Street Journal columnist said Joe Biden was part of Hunter’s business deal. Hours later, its news reporters said the opposite.



Readers of the Wall Street Journal may have felt a bit of whiplash on Thursday over a news story and an opinion column that presented sharply conflicting accounts of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s alleged role in one of his son’s business ventures.

The Journal column — hailed as a bombshell before the final presidential debate by Biden critics, including President Trump — asserted that Biden was involved in a deal arranged by his son Hunter with a Chinese energy conglomerate in 2017.

Columnist Kimberley Strassel relied on the account of Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, who provided documents that “suggest Hunter was cashing in on the Biden name and that Joe Biden was involved.”

But a few hours after Strassel’s column was published, the Journal’s news side offered a much different take.

“The venture . . . never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals, according to people familiar with the matter,” Journal reporters Andrew Duehren and James Areddy wrote. “Corporate records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden.” The reporters also quoted another partner in the venture, James Gilliar, who said he was “unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president.”

Biden has long denied that he ever had foreign business dealings with his son, and there is no evidence beyond Bobulinski’s assertions. Trump himself has faced questions about foreign business interests while serving as president.

Dueling accounts from the same publication about a major news story are rare. Also unusual: Opinion columnists typically don’t attempt to break news. Large, mainstream news organizations such as the Journal manage their news-reporting and opinion operations separately. The Journal’s news side is under editor in chief Matthew Murray; Paul A. Gigot is editor of its editorial page.

In the Journal’s case, there’s an ongoing civil war between its news staff and its opinion side, as well as a wider war among news organizations controlled by the family of media baron Rupert Murdoch.

In July, more than 280 employees at the Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones, protested what they said was the spread of “misinformation” by the paper’s opinion pages. “Opinion’s lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources,” the employees wrote to new publisher Almar Latour. “Many readers already cannot tell the difference between reporting and Opinion. And from those who know of the divide, reporters nonetheless face questions about the Journal’s accuracy and fairness because of errors published in opinion.”


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 3:13pm

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Re 1) Ideally, of course, it would be great to have something like an ancient Greek forum where we could all go down in our togas to hammer out public policy without any parties taking root. Having read the Persian Fire from Tom Holland recently, I discovered that democracy in ancient Greece was 1) not very widespread and 2) stumbled into by accident and 3) fraught with family affiliations. But the lure remains. It just isn't very realistic in a pluralistic society. You will always have groups of free-thinking individuals banding together to promote some kind of common cause unless you actively prohibit it (like we prohibit price-fixing I guess).

Nevertheless, you could lower the barriers for the one-person party by removing the paper work. This is after all, just a technicality. So your objection is not based on
principle, but on the technicalities.

Re 2) here I don't follow you either. Voter disaffection is firmly rooted in the current system. So why not change the system? Maybe those voters would come out and support an independent candidate? MMP is a solution here, not a cause. Using the failings of the old system to damn the new system before it has a chance doesn't make much sense.

As long as we have representative government (another Greek idea) we get to delegate our votes so we can labor in our vineyards (well, oversee the slaves working our vineyards, anyway) and practice up for war and the Olympic games and stuff. The closer we can get to a broadly-distributed representation (some evening when time and beer is plentiful I'd be happy to discuss my utopian vision for a hybrid direct/representative democracy) the better, but for the moment we're stuck with regional representation here.

Lower the barriers enough to allow single-person parties and the party becomes a mere formality. At that point drop the pretext.

There seems to be some confusion about what the system is. Constitutionally there is no problem; the fundamental laws don't impose unreasonable barriers to participation. The problem lies in the accretion of procedural rules and regulations imposed by the parties in power that just happen to favor the parties in power. Changing those rules would theoretically be straightforward, but in practical terms it means you have to defeat not just the two teams but the referees...who are on those teams. If my team gets in power that will happen—at least that's what we promise, from our position outside of power.

We're facing a cultural problem as well: the assumption that the status quo is the only possible state, and that what has become customary is in fact required. As some wise person once said law lags culture. So we've got a fair amount of work to do, and not all of it is political.

MMP makes you happy, at least in the context you're in. Here it would cement in place a power structure that has no business having any power at all. I think we can do much better given a cleaner slate.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 10:55am

 ColdMiser wrote:
Who the f**k is Tony Bobulinski? Was he in that movie The Big Bobulinski? I remember, he was the detective in the VW following Jefffery around looking for the missing girl.
 

apparently he is just an idea

but bobulinski?

sounds russian
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 10:50am

 Steely_D wrote:


 rgio wrote:
As Morgan Freeman said..."Get busy livin, or get busy dying"

The choice is yours.
 

Dylan beat him to that with “He not busy being born is busy dying”

 

all information is serial...




"to be or not to be"

-shakespeare
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 10:37am



 cc_rider wrote:


 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 kurtster wrote:
Yes, the Electoral College does at time negate the popular vote.  But as mentioned with all the inequities, so does a popular vote negate the smaller population areas.  With a strictly popular vote for POTUS, there would be effectively 3 metropolitan areas of the country always controlling who is POTUS leaving everyone else in the cold before they even showed up at the polls.  The election would be a forgone conclusion.  The Electoral College keeps everyone else more in play than does a strictly popular vote.  It allows for other POV's to be considered and hold sway and sometimes win.
 

This is from the point of view of someone who's lived his whole life in areas that are often in play every 4 years. California swings left and right pretty dramatically —Reagan, Pete Wilson, Deukmejian, Swarzenegger et al, all Republicans, have been governor, so you can't convince me it's solid blue and a lost cause. Ohio is always mentioned as being a swing state. So when you vote for president, you are used to going home and wondering which camp your electors will be in. I voted for president twice in California, and both Dukakis and Mondale lost by a wide margin. So in relatively recent memory, California has been in play. 

Wyoming voted for the Democrat in 1964. Voted for Truman in 48 (Dewey in 44). Since then, it's pushed 70% GOP every time. I don't care who you are, left or right, your one vote cannot make a difference. We all imagine a really close race where we trudge to the polls in 4' of snow and cast a ballot and it's the one! Hooray! President-by-one-vote! Well Wyoming will never have that voter. Ohio might. California might. But here, no. 

So anyway, don't feel like you're sticking up for me OR the lifelong GOP Trump voter with this position.  These peoples' individual votes DO NOT MATTER

 
Yep.
I don't understand why we can't keep the EC but change how the votes are cast. Winner-take-all seems to exacerbate the problem. As it stands, the most populous states are essentially non-players in presidential elections.

Why not apportion electoral votes by House districts, and the two Senate votes go to the state-wide popular vote. EC voting is set by individual states, right? Only two have proportional EC votes. The People could pressure their states to change their electoral system - to ensure their votes might actually mean something. Republicans in CA and NY  would be all for it, right? Same for Dems in TX. It just doesn't seem that complicated.
c.

 

Until the Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, they won't support reform. This isn't out of the question though, so I expect it to come around and the Rs will get on board. But once the Democrats lose the popular vote but win the election anyway, I expect them to find religion or at least a justification for keeping things as they are.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 9:27am

 black321 wrote:
Biden used his position to advance his families interests? Terrible.
Hmm, it does remind me of some other politician out there?
 
I'm afraid you're gonna have to give a clue. Some of these folks ain't terribly smart lack introspection.
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 8:23am



 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 kurtster wrote:
Yes, the Electoral College does at time negate the popular vote.  But as mentioned with all the inequities, so does a popular vote negate the smaller population areas.  With a strictly popular vote for POTUS, there would be effectively 3 metropolitan areas of the country always controlling who is POTUS leaving everyone else in the cold before they even showed up at the polls.  The election would be a forgone conclusion.  The Electoral College keeps everyone else more in play than does a strictly popular vote.  It allows for other POV's to be considered and hold sway and sometimes win.
 

This is from the point of view of someone who's lived his whole life in areas that are often in play every 4 years. California swings left and right pretty dramatically —Reagan, Pete Wilson, Deukmejian, Swarzenegger et al, all Republicans, have been governor, so you can't convince me it's solid blue and a lost cause. Ohio is always mentioned as being a swing state. So when you vote for president, you are used to going home and wondering which camp your electors will be in. I voted for president twice in California, and both Dukakis and Mondale lost by a wide margin. So in relatively recent memory, California has been in play. 

Wyoming voted for the Democrat in 1964. Voted for Truman in 48 (Dewey in 44). Since then, it's pushed 70% GOP every time. I don't care who you are, left or right, your one vote cannot make a difference. We all imagine a really close race where we trudge to the polls in 4' of snow and cast a ballot and it's the one! Hooray! President-by-one-vote! Well Wyoming will never have that voter. Ohio might. California might. But here, no. 

So anyway, don't feel like you're sticking up for me OR the lifelong GOP Trump voter with this position.  These peoples' individual votes DO NOT MATTER

 
Yep.
I don't understand why we can't keep the EC but change how the votes are cast. Winner-take-all seems to exacerbate the problem. As it stands, the most populous states are essentially non-players in presidential elections.

Why not apportion electoral votes by House districts, and the two Senate votes go to the state-wide popular vote. EC voting is set by individual states, right? Only two have proportional EC votes. The People could pressure their states to change their electoral system - to ensure their votes might actually mean something. Republicans in CA and NY  would be all for it, right? Same for Dems in TX. It just doesn't seem that complicated.
c.

Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 8:09am



 rgio wrote:


As Morgan Freeman said..."Get busy livin, or get busy dying"

The choice is yours.
 

Dylan beat him to that with “He not busy being born is busy dying”


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 7:31am



 kurtster wrote:
Yes, the Electoral College does at time negate the popular vote.  But as mentioned with all the inequities, so does a popular vote negate the smaller population areas.  With a strictly popular vote for POTUS, there would be effectively 3 metropolitan areas of the country always controlling who is POTUS leaving everyone else in the cold before they even showed up at the polls.  The election would be a forgone conclusion.  The Electoral College keeps everyone else more in play than does a strictly popular vote.  It allows for other POV's to be considered and hold sway and sometimes win.
 

This is from the point of view of someone who's lived his whole life in areas that are often in play every 4 years. California swings left and right pretty dramatically —Reagan, Pete Wilson, Deukmejian, Swarzenegger et al, all Republicans, have been governor, so you can't convince me it's solid blue and a lost cause. Ohio is always mentioned as being a swing state. So when you vote for president, you are used to going home and wondering which camp your electors will be in. I voted for president twice in California, and both Dukakis and Mondale lost by a wide margin. So in relatively recent memory, California has been in play. 

Wyoming voted for the Democrat in 1964. Voted for Truman in 48 (Dewey in 44). Since then, it's pushed 70% GOP every time. I don't care who you are, left or right, your one vote cannot make a difference. We all imagine a really close race where we trudge to the polls in 4' of snow and cast a ballot and it's the one! Hooray! President-by-one-vote! Well Wyoming will never have that voter. Ohio might. California might. But here, no. 

So anyway, don't feel like you're sticking up for me OR the lifelong GOP Trump voter with this position.  These peoples' individual votes DO NOT MATTER

black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 7:15am



 ColdMiser wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:

Tony Bobulinski statement on Biden family


 

Who the f**k is Tony Bobulinski? Was he in that movie The Big Bobulinski? I remember, he was the detective in the VW following Jefffery around looking for the missing girl.
 
a navy lieutenant/jr. officer.

ColdMiser

ColdMiser Avatar

Location: On the Trail
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 7:12am



 KarmaKarma wrote:

Tony Bobulinski statement on Biden family


 

Who the f**k is Tony Bobulinski? Was he in that movie The Big Bobulinski? I remember, he was the detective in the VW following Jefffery around looking for the missing girl.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 7:09am

Biden used his position to advance his families interests? Terrible.
Hmm, it does remind me of some other politician out there?
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 6:57am

Tony Bobulinski statement on Biden family


black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 6:50am



 Steely_D wrote:


 kurtster wrote:

Zero.  It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do that.  It is a fundamental part of our Republican as in a Constitutional Republic form of government.  It only pertains to the office of POTUS and nothing else.

Yes, the Electoral College does at time negate the popular vote.  But as mentioned with all the inequities, so does a popular vote negate the smaller population areas.  With a strictly popular vote for POTUS, there would be effectively 3 metropolitan areas of the country always controlling who is POTUS leaving everyone else in the cold before they even showed up at the polls.  The election would be a forgone conclusion.  The Electoral College keeps everyone else more in play than does a strictly popular vote.  It allows for other POV's to be considered and hold sway and sometimes win.

A strictly popular vote for POTUS would make this a one party government for all the branches.
 

Voting by area is an irrelevancy.
Less dense/more dense population is an irrelevancy.

It’s fine if three metropolitan areas make the decisions at this point - because that’s where most Americans are. When people move away (because things are always shifting) then those centers won’t be relevant as focii of votes, and that’s OK too.

It’s fine if the people who live in rural areas don’t get what they want, because this is America where everyone matters. What’s also wrong would be if people in urban areas don’t get what they want - jurst because of where they live. Oooops - are people of color mostly in urban areas? That’s certainly a coincidence, isn’t it?

In a country where people aren’t idiots (so maybe not the USA) the folks in rural, food-growing areas would still be looked out for - because we look out for everyone, if we’re sincere about a nation that looks out for all its citizens. As long as we intentionally lessen the vote voice of some of its citizens, it’s a bad thing. Amendment or not, it need fixing.
 
seems like the electoral college is a burdensome unnecessary regulation that should be repealed....and let freedom ring!

rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 6:13am

In the end, COVID is the issue that will decide the election.  

More than 75,000 cases of the coronavirus were announced in the United States on Thursday, the second-highest daily total nationwide since the pandemic began. Eight states set single-day case records, and 13 states have added more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day stretch.

The bleak numbers came as President Trump declared at the final presidential debate on Thursday that, despite evidence, the virus was “going away,” while his challenger, Joseph R. Biden Jr., warned of a “dark winter” ahead that required aggressive federal action.

When Mr. Trump said “we’re learning to live with” the coronavirus, Mr. Biden shot back, “we’re learning to die with it.”

As Morgan Freeman said..."Get busy livin, or get busy dying"

The choice is yours.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 5:03am

hayduke2

hayduke2 Avatar

Location: Southampton, NY
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 4:42am

The Ultimate “Bullshit Job” | The New Yorker
hayduke2

hayduke2 Avatar

Location: Southampton, NY
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2020 - 4:37am

seems Krustee and KaKa had their firm convictions in The President reinforced last night, no plans for our nation, no evidence of ANY successful activity, and more blatant lies.  More of the outrageous bullshit Chump made his “career” on, gobbled up by idiots and other crooks hoping to rake in their share. Chumps incorporated, ruining our nation.  
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 22, 2020 - 11:23pm



 davidharper wrote:
Why are republicans trying to suppress voting with restrictive voter I.D. laws, closing polling places, trying to end early voting, trying to end mail in voting?  Because the more people who vote the more the democrat tends to win. Small voter turnout benefits republican candidates. I think it was Christopher Hitchens who once said "if every american was required, by law, to vote no republican would ever win another election"
 

Weirdly, when I was in high school (the mid 70s) one of our topics on the debate circuit was regarding voter registration being mandatory. I wrote up a plan which was straightforward: you’re registered whenever you get a driver’s license or its equivalent. Simple, done.
Which political party would find that to be a problem?...
Hint: the same party that uses gerrymandering to control the results of an election.
Spoiler: the Republican Party
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Oct 22, 2020 - 10:44pm



 kurtster wrote:

Too lazy to watch it yourself and form your own conclusions, eh ? 

Instead you rely on a "summary" by the NYT which completely reinforces and confirms your prior bias, because the NYT has formed your personal bias from day one.  Really ?

Sigh ... at least you are honest about it.
 

I avoid watching debates and speeches live.  I start yelling at the TV when i tune in. And I lose interest about a half-hour in. Reading a transcript or a summary is so much quicker. 

I do look over summaries and sometimes transcripts. 

Yes with the Times there is the risk of confirmation bias in reading its summary but I suppose you could say that about every newspapers and major network.  

But then there's this: 


The first post-debate polls say Biden won

CNN, Data for Progress, and YouGov all found more debate watchers thought Biden won.


CNN conducted its usual instant poll with SSRS, and they found that 53 percent of respondents who watched the debate thought Biden won, and 39 percent thought Trump won. (This poll and the others discussed in this article are different from those simple web polls in which anyone can vote — they’re methodologically sound, albeit somewhat hasty, polls.)

...

A second poll of people who watched Thursday’s debate, conducted by the progressive firm Data for Progress, found a similar result — 52 percent of respondents said they thought Biden won, and 41 percent said they thought Trump won.

...

Finally, a third poll, from YouGov, found the biggest margin for Biden, with 54 percent of debate-watching respondents saying he won while 35 percent saying Trump did.

Overall, these results suggest that Trump’s performance did not do anything to shift the dynamics of the race, in which he is trailing, in his favor. As we may remember from 2016, the final debate doesn’t end the campaign — there is still time for dramatic news events to shake things up, or for voters to change their minds. But that time is ticking away.


Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 49, 50, 51  Next