What's new
By:

2020 Presidential election

NAOS said:
At one point, there was some public discussion about what would happen if news outlets stopped identifying elected officials by putting an (R) or a (D) next to their name when they appeared on camera. Such a thing would obviously prevent the viewer from making an immediate assumption about the perspective they were about to hear.

I’m all ears when it comes to these kinds of experiments.
Click to expand...
I would love this.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
NAOS said:
At one point, there was some public discussion about what would happen if news outlets stopped identifying elected officials by putting an (R) or a (D) next to their name when they appeared on camera. Such a thing would obviously prevent the viewer from making an immediate assumption about the perspective they were about to hear.

I’m all ears when it comes to these kinds of experiments.
Click to expand...

I would love to see this. But people aren't used to having to think about what they are hearing. It would be surprising to many how much they actually agree with the other side if they weren't already predisposed to disbelieve it.
 
JazzGal said:
I would love to see this. But people aren't used to having to think about what they are hearing. It would be surprising to many how much they actually agree with the other side if they weren't already predisposed to disbelieve it.
Click to expand...

fishonjazz said:
I would love this.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I believe the FCC could make this happen with the stroke of a pen.

People will moan about the precedent it sets for the muzzling of free speech, though.

I wish lawmakers would work together to make this happen in a bipartisan effort. Let’s see a temporary measure (like, 4 years of this), and then let’s have a public debate on how we thought it worked.

^ see, I need to move to Scandinavia. That’s the kind of **** they do. Le sigh.
 
NAOS said:
^ see, I need to move to Scandinavia. That’s the kind of **** they do. Le sigh.
Click to expand...

What country has the least messy history with good outcomes now? Is there such a place?
Switzerland keeps sounding nice.
 
JazzGal said:
What country has the least messy history with good outcomes now? Is there such a place?
Switzerland keeps sounding nice.
Click to expand...
I’m hoping that Scotland goes independent in about 1.5 years (that seems about as soon as the movement could finally coalesce and get over the top with a solid majority). I think they’ll have a lot of good ideas for how to promote participation, protect labor and the environment, etc.

My wife and I were there for a couple of weeks last year and we really loved it. I think we’d seriously consider moving there if they went independent.
 
NAOS said:
Two sincere questions:

1. a long way toward what?

2. what specific use value do you anticipate this information will have as of Thursday, July 16th?
Click to expand...

A long way towards seeing what her contemporaneous statement was at the time, which is likely more accurate/believable. Clearly everyone would have some mixed details after so many years. It would give the public a better understanding of what may have happened. It takes a lot of courage to make a claim like this against your boss.

At this point, it honestly won't do anything, except perhaps give us a better understanding of who Biden is.
 
Beer said:
It is not unreasonable at all for both Kavanaugh and Ford to both be completely honest. Something that happened 30 years ago is hard enough to remember and even something that happened 10 min ago is open to 2 very different interpretations. I assume the same with Biden though I don't know as much about it.
Click to expand...


I agree. However, indelible memories are formed by more traumatic experiences, so I would subjectively trust hers more than his. I am watching the Epstein documentary and those women are scarred and credible. What an effin scumbag.

But, as I said, I don't think you change your vote based on totally unproven stuff. The Dems were out for blood and out of line. Many could care less about Ford except to the extent that it would block his approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top