Yeah, the non-citizens. Disenfranchised felons who have served their time as well. Maybe prisoners too.

Or maybe zikzak's right and we all deserve it. Well, not the children.

Whatever the experts say to do in response to gaslighting. That's the answer.

The goal isn't trying to change the Trumpkins' minds. They're beyond saving.

There are plenty of people who are fooled by whataboutism, and thus see the whole situation as a battle between two similarly rotten sides. These ambivalents are the ones to focus on. Things like this interview give them a fighting chance of seeing through the bull****, and give the anti-Trump crowd the tools to fight back against the nonsense when someone spouts a "yeah but that uranium deal was rotten" line.

But another downside of this approach would seem to be keeping Hillary in the conversation at all. For whatever reason--I don't think I've heard a fully satisfactory explanation--a large group of people despise Hillary. Even people who aren't fond of Trump. I don't get the severity. But it seems obvious that keeping Hillary in the conversation is deliberate, just as the degradation of her character was deliberate. It's not just that this is fake and a distraction. She's an albatross at this point; it's an issue where even if we win, we lose.

What are you talking about with the NYT/Bannon thing? I've never heard about that.

re: zikzak doomsaying.

The jury is still out on whether we deserve it. If Gillespie wins in Virginia, then yeah, we deserve it. If Kim Gaudino somehow wins in New Jersey, then by God do we deserve misery for the next hundred years.

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/924816252736024578

Really wish that Joy clip ended with the white lady shouting “But her e-mails!”

Krugman is right, of course.

If/when he gets away with axing Mueller, it's gg democracy.

It's only gg democracy if nobody picks up a brick. And nobody will because iPhone 10, and American Idol is back.

lol, remember when John Lewis came straight out the gate calling Trump an illegitimate president and the Democratic establishment was just shocked at his incivility? The time for godfearing Americans to march in the streets passed a year ago.

Why hasn't he been to Mar-A-Lago much recently?

idk if suggesting that our media should be more like Fox News is the greatest idea...

You don't go to Florida in the hot months, Mar-A-Lago season is just about to begin again.

Counterpoint: cf. the Comey letter. Covering that extensively was disastrous, despite it being nothing. We should not be trying to upset our allies with our team over bull****.

It definitely should not embrace dishonesty and shameless partisanship, but if they are to live up to their stated goal (as opposed to their profitability goal) and do their best to inform people about newsworthy events, then the whole Uraniumgate is maybe a few sentences at the top of the hour which conclude with, "We can not identify any factual information to back up these claims, or any coherent narrative that makes even a lick of sense. Up next, you won't believe what this puppy does with yarn!"

Instead we get 15 minutes segments where disingenuous trolls get to spread bull****. And bull**** is completely immune to factual rebuttal. Once it's out, it's a permanent part of the landscape. There is no way to effectively cover bull**** in the news, because it's bull**** and it doesn't follow the rules of right and wrong, true or false.

This, entirely. Getting frustrated with people's apparent inability to grasp this.

The reason for that was because the nature of the coverage gave it an aura of credibility, and it wasn't presented skeptically as it should have been.

I dunno, I think the bull**** got served pretty hard in that segment.

Again, I agree with you guys, this stuff shouldn't be covered. But if it is gonna be covered I at least hope someone will stand up and point out that it's bull****.

Merely being on TV gives it credibility. People assume that there are two sides, and they pick the side that aligns with their team. The rest doesn't matter.

theres tons of youtubes where so and so "totally owned so and so conservative/liberal" and they are almost always just totally lame and bogus.

this one actually delivered though.

“Dinesh D’Souza owns millennial leftist”

uhh dude its out there already. it needs to be refuted. now people who watched her show can refute it.

Then don't invite a conservative mouthpiece to give their side. Just refute it.

Anyone else going trick or treating at the Flynn and Manafort residences at 6am this morning dressed as cops?

It's came up before. It's very expensive and no-one wants to pay much, if anything, for their news at the point of delivery. We are incredibly well served by the centrally funded BBC in the UK although I fear even that is in decline. An independent, well researched news source that has at it's core the ethos of remaining politically neutral is vital for a democracy.

Obviously you are correct that ignoring stories or taking a 1-sided approach is never going to work. The 'adherence towards facts and the truth' comes from the political independence and from being well researched. The idea that the conservatives side don't even get invited is beyond bizarre.

This is the other thing that matters. If there are substantive policies to discuss then more of the news cycle is taken up with real politics.