> ... @MikeGravel had already established that Mike Gravel was not just an individual but also a kind of group project. Strangely enough, this had opened up a loophole that allowed him to talk like an actual person — and somehow it seemed as if this person mattered least. I found myself imagining a candidateless campaign — fronted by a hologram of George Washington, or “freedom,” or Apple ...
There's an old saying to the effect that:
1. FDR proved that a person can be president forever;
2. Nixon proved that anyone can become president; and
3. Regan proved that nobody need be president at all.
There's a case to be made that a good chunk of the current president's success stems from the fact that his administration/campaign appears to be so tightly controlled by the man himself. Like him or loathe him, with this president, what you see is what you get, and he has gone to the mat repeatedly to make good on his campaign promises no matter how misguided.
So the mental model of a presidential campaign being run by a bunch of kids wrapped in a trench coat is fascinating. As the article points out, the Gravel campaign's uniqueness stems from the fact of how open it is about this:
> In an online world where everything is understood to be a performance, @MikeGravel looks us squarely in the eye and admits, “Every politician is just a bunch of kids in a trench coat — so why not make them actual kids?”
It's also not outside the realm of technical feasibility that an AI could make a viable presidential candidate. Whether or not the necessary legislation would ever come to pass is another question, but I sometimes wonder whether this might be the ultimate legacy of Corporate Personhood:
Not saying he's been successful, but he has tried repeatedly.
I'm also trying to set aside whether I agree with these policies. Failure to do so is part of the reason so many Democrats have been so utterly ineffective against this president.
Oddly enough, the latest iteration (threatening new tariffs on Mexico) appears to have lead to a concession by Mexico to station 6,000 of its national guard units at the border to prevent emigration to the US.
I'd say this more than demonstrates that this president will take things to extremes few thought possible in an effort to make good on his campaign promises.
I even suspect a large number of Mexican national guard troop stationed at the border might even qualify as a "wall" that was "paid for" by Mexico. It also hints that further concessions by Mexico to fund a constructed wall might be forthcoming by making the same threat again.
> Oddly enough, the latest iteration (threatening new tariffs on Mexico) appears to have lead to a concession by Mexico to station 6,000 of its national guard units at the border to prevent emigration to the US.
Just for the record, Mexico were already doing all of those things.[0] Mexico didn't just form a National Guard over night; they were already planning to send 6,000 troops their southern border.
Mexico refused to accept that people fleeing should seek asylum in Mexico, if they enter it first. Which would have been pretty significant.
> It’s a incredibly partisan, biased source that blurs opinion into news.
We're living in a post-Thompsonian world. There's no difference anymore. The far left gets it, the right certainly gets it, it's the mainstream "liberal" J-school crowd who think there's still such a thing as objective reporting.
There’s no such thing as no bias, but there’s more than just left and right, and certainly sources that are upfront about their bias are more reputable than ones that try and act non-partisan.
There is “a difference”. Quality still exists outside bias, and that matters very much.
But yes, read far and wide these days so you can yourself understand the various world views and not be fooled into thinking the NYTimes or Politico are “centrist”.
You’re very wrong and if you think Politico doesn’t lean very far left you live in a bubble.
Here’s a direct refute showing them about the same polarization:
According to this The New York Times leans more to the left than Politico. So by your logic The New York Times should also be banned. I really have a hard time equating The New York Times with Breitbart.
Note: I never said anything about banning anything. Also, while this chart is probably more accurate than the other, I read Politico, NYTimes and many of the others here, and I'd personally rate them differently: NYTimes is fine, but Politico is further to the left of it.
But.. the sources used by that page put it on the "Lean Left" range, along with The Economist and The Washington Post, while Breitbart is put on the "Right", and much farther from the middle than Politico...
Go read the entire home page of the Politico right now and ask yourself if each article:
1. Benefits or takes the liberal side / attack’s the conservative side
2. Focuses on the issues that matter to liberals
I’d say Politico averages about 9/10 articles that answer yes to both, at least.
The difference from Breitbart is that Politico “dresses up” much nicer. Their tone is calm, the headlines seem objective. Their style is one of authority and objectivity, their content is entirely left leaning and oftentimes shamelessly so. I’m not left or right really, but it’s painfully obvious if you read from across the spectrum.
That they seem not as biased (and probably why they rate as only somewhat left leaning in many of these charts) is probably helped by that. To me, that they present that way is a negative not a positive.
You've revealed only your bias: I never stated or even hinted at being pro-Trump, but you have assumed so. I merely was pointing out a fact: Politico is heavily biased for/by the left. That is all.
Fun fact: Bloomberg also tends to publish more liberal opinion than contrary, which makes sense given Mr Bloomberg himself is a Democrat/Democratic candidate.
Further: pointing out a random article from a different website as some sort of proof, is a real great example of moving the goalposts. I never said a thing about Trump - you brought him in. I also never said anything about media having to preset both sides. I merely had one point, a true one, and it stands.
No, you've pointed out your bias. I didn't imply you approved of Trump. You stated that Politico's articles were biased towards liberals. I posted an article - from another news source because I couldn't find one on Politico's home page at that time that I felt would meet this criteria - I assumed you would consider biased towards liberals. That doesn't mean I think you agree or disagree with any particular politician.
I posted that to see whether or not you found it biased - do you or do you not?
Your point does not stand. It's ludicrous both siderism to conclude that Politico is on the same level as Breitbart. It's dangerous.
> I'm guessing you do - because it points out that Trump is lying.
First, I can only assume what you meant by your statement was this, rephrased: You think I'd find any negative reporting on Trump to be "biased", even if its a proven lie.
Can you see how uncharitable of a statement this is? If you can't, that's unfortunate for you, if so (and you chose to write it anyway), you've lost my respect.
Politico is a consistently far left-leaning site. Yes, Breitbart is slightly further on the other side, but the point stands. That Politico dresses up nice just makes more need to point it out. Breitbart isn't dangerous either, it's a populist and nationalist site that generally aligns with the current president's policies pretty well, ie, 48% of voters choice in 2016.
There's an old saying to the effect that:
1. FDR proved that a person can be president forever;
2. Nixon proved that anyone can become president; and
3. Regan proved that nobody need be president at all.
There's a case to be made that a good chunk of the current president's success stems from the fact that his administration/campaign appears to be so tightly controlled by the man himself. Like him or loathe him, with this president, what you see is what you get, and he has gone to the mat repeatedly to make good on his campaign promises no matter how misguided.
So the mental model of a presidential campaign being run by a bunch of kids wrapped in a trench coat is fascinating. As the article points out, the Gravel campaign's uniqueness stems from the fact of how open it is about this:
> In an online world where everything is understood to be a performance, @MikeGravel looks us squarely in the eye and admits, “Every politician is just a bunch of kids in a trench coat — so why not make them actual kids?”
It's also not outside the realm of technical feasibility that an AI could make a viable presidential candidate. Whether or not the necessary legislation would ever come to pass is another question, but I sometimes wonder whether this might be the ultimate legacy of Corporate Personhood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood