It's pretty sad that is these sort of ticky-tacky lawsuits are really the only mechanism we seem have of holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society (like saying a election was stolen). And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation.
mandeepj · 1d ago
> holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society
But that moron in WH is still spreading lies about that election; he has no shame, no remorse, no nothing. On the contrary, he was successful in portraying himself a victim and win people’s sympathy. Even though he’s the one who called insurrection. There’s no accountability for him.
Look at South Korea, who indicted their politician who did same act. As well at Brazil, who’s rogue politician is in house arrest. But, fking only here, they are awarded with a 2nd term.
UmGuys · 1d ago
Right. Shouldn't the judgement be against the main perpetrator? They're wrong too, but if they are isn't everyone else also doing slander and libel?
dimal · 1d ago
I had been worried about what would happen as the American republic goes down, whether other countries would follow suit. So those two examples are cause for hope.
As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win. And they did absolutely everything wrong. I almost blame them as much as Trump for this mess.
dragonwriter · 1d ago
> As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win.
Good case for that in 2016, sure. 2024, not at all.
dimal · 1d ago
You think that running a candidate with dementia, then giving the nomination to the next default person in line was a good strategy? Even with those fuckups, Harris didn’t get completely trounced. If they had put up any reasonable candidate who got the nomination fair and square, they probably would have won.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF · 6h ago
> If they had put up any reasonable candidate who got the nomination fair and square, they probably would have won.
This seems incredibly naive. Can you name any such reasonable candidate and explain why you think they would have won the election?
platevoltage · 1d ago
When you’re marching one of the most hated republicans in the country around on stage pretending like it’s going to get you more votes, while kicking one of the most popular left-wing online voices out of your convention, I understand why people would get this impression. Dems would rather lose than cede any power at all to the left flank of the party.
ethbr1 · 1d ago
The left flank of the party is the problem. Democrats would win more elections if they focused on economic issues.
Zigurd · 1d ago
The left of the Democrats are the people focusing on economic issues. I'm not just saying that to be contrary. The relevant economic issues are things like the decline of unionization and the divergence of wages from productivity and profit. Big money donors don't want you touching that.
bearl · 1d ago
If the left were really the left they wouldn’t be the left though. The NBC left is the problem, the Democracy Now left is not. The left doesn’t want Bernie, Chomsky or Amy Goodman they want The View. Turns out young men don’t want The View, so the left is stuck now much like the American right because there is no ideological coherence, just aesthetic and hatred for the other team however they are imagined (e.g. “tax and spend republicans”).
ethbr1 · 1d ago
The path to winning elections is by appealing to voters who can be swayed while keeping the base on board.
The problem with Democrats winning elections (since 2016) has been the ideological purity tests their social-left demands from candidates, rendering them toxic to independents.
It'd be nice if internet SJWs grew up and realized that winning elections with "don't ask don't tell" is better than losing elections with overly socially progressive platforms.
It feels like a large chunk of the party would rather lose an election smugly than win it with compromise.
Republicans since 2014 have been in somewhat of the same mutually exclusive bind, which is why Trump emerged as the primary candidate. Turns out reconciling mutually exclusive promises is possible if you're willing to say things without intending to do them and bank on charisma and a cult of personality.
Tl;dr - Democrats need to cure their case of SJW Tourette's. When someone asks a question about trans rights, say "I support equality for all Americans, because that's what our Constitution promises" and leave it at that.
platevoltage · 1d ago
This is basically a Bill Maher monologue. We live in a country where a pathological liar can turn less than a dozen people in the NCAA into a national issue, but you think the best way to counter that is march a robot out on to the mic to say "I believe we are all equal, vote for me". This is who those "Join the conversation" Pepsi ads that went over so well were designed for.
ethbr1 · 1d ago
It's strawmaning the argument to imply that only a robot can choose what to dive into details on.
Democrats should be diving into the details on progressive economic platforms every chance they get, as wholly, messily, and authentically as they can.
But yes, they should refuse to jump on progressive social landmines their opponents lay out.
What's your alternative and better suggestion?
platevoltage · 23h ago
Going all in on Israel in 2024 WAS the social political landmine. A half-assed attempt at sorta kinda defending trans people wasn't.
ethbr1 · 22h ago
So your offered alternative is {everything the same, except harder/softer? on Israel}?
platevoltage · 1h ago
Yeah dude. That's totally what you should have gathered from this exchange.
Zigurd · 1d ago
I'll bet you a beer that the analysis after the midterms is going to be that Republicans shouldn't have capitulated to the tech bro neoreactionaries.
ethbr1 · 1d ago
Depends which way control goes, which depends on the economy in November 2026 + redistricting outcomes.
And I'd say the excesses are equal part tech bro neoreactionaries + nativist Heritage / Project 2025 folks, each of which contributed their own toxic ingredients.
It's rapidly becoming apparent that Trump doesn't actually care about much ideologically and generally blows whichever way the last person in the room asked him to.
southernplaces7 · 19h ago
And despite saying perfectly reasonable and debate-worthy things, you get downvoted by the man-child hive mind on HN.
To add: Regardless of how left-leaning or right-leaning any given dem candidate is, they shot themselves in the foot with an AK by a lack of focus on pragmatic economic issues, the border and on absurdly sticking to a doddering president-as-candidate until it was far too late despite all obvious indicators of his lack of fitness for a second term (then so quickly switching tack along with so many of their media and pundit followers that it gave lots of credit to Trumps ranting about the media's lock-step pro-dem bias.) This was plainly insulting to way too many fence-sitting voters who might have otherwise voted democrat.
Then yes, there's the SJW issue and the completely unfounded amount of obeisance to it that many democrats and their supporters expressed. This may not have been a problem for their core of voters, but then, that's not where elections get won.
platevoltage · 1h ago
Anyone still using the term "SJW", especially as a liberal, deserves to be downvoted. It's 2025, "woke" is the new pejorative for anything remotely progressive.
defrost · 19h ago
As much as I agree with your main central paragraph, this
Then yes, there's the SJW issue and the completely unfounded amount of obeisance to it that many democrats and their supporters expressed.
seems misplaced.
For context, I've been watching UK, US, AU, and CA news and politics for decades and my observation is that relatively few on left | liberal | progressive could honestly be described as all in, full on, brain washed followers of SJW issues, trans rights, drag shows, et al. The majority didn't seem to deeply care much past the basic human rights issues of everyone should be able to find a bathroom and most people should be allowed to express themselves.
Almost without exception everything I heard about SJW issues originated from right wing, post Reagan Republican, neo Conservative, Fox | Sky Media type sources.
Without taking a side, just observing the political strategy aspect, this was a strong winning tactic for the US right - hammer endlessly on essentially meaningless issues and raise the perceived threat level to sway the masses, offering a solution to breadcrumbs in the bedding type issues that now rank as empire ending catastrophic confrontations.
southernplaces7 · 9h ago
I'll have to partly disagree. I don't want to imply that the whole SJW issue was a driving factor, because I don't think it was. The American dems lost the narrative on many practical subjects that too many fence margin voters really cared about, and while the conservatives, MAGA types and republicans overblew aspects of the SJW side of Dem discourse, it was and is a real thing, frequently given obiesance to and in ways that often subtly or not so subtly implied that anyone who didn't immediately do likewise must be some kind of racist, sexist troglodyte.
I'm sorry, but enough of exactly this was visible on the cultural side of support for democrat social politics that it can't just be ignored. It had its impact. Too many sacred cows were encased in too many groupthink bubbles of rigid "permissible" discourse and this was heavily associated specifically with the kind of social circles that democrat politicians are most popular with and pander to very often. For many voters on the margins, this caused a reactionary dislike that led to lost votes.
Take for example the illegial immigration issue. This was something that many voters of all stripes (including many Afican American and even latino American voters) took very seriously for reasons they thought very valid to their contexts. Often, however, stating that you worried about it would be smeared as a part of being a racist in general, and that must have felt bloody insulting, even ridiculous to a hefty number of people who simply viewed it as a baseless character attack.
platevoltage · 1d ago
Pretty sure things like universal healthcare are economic issues.
platevoltage · 1d ago
You're not wrong. Biden, who is basically an unwrapped mummy at this point would have won easily if he handled Israel/Gaza with any sort of grace.
All Harris had to do was challenge Biden's position on the issue, and not parade Liz Cheney out on stage like the "disillusioned Republican vote" was a real thing.
AuthAuth · 1d ago
No he wouldnt have. The non voters didnt make enough of a difference and people who voted for trump over harris and said it was because of Gaza are not serious people and should not be catered to.
platevoltage · 1d ago
Yeah, it’s not like there was national movement of voters threatening to withhold their vote or anything.
wolrah · 1d ago
> Yeah, it’s not like there was national movement of voters threatening to withhold their vote or anything.
Well that sure worked out exactly how every single person with a functioning brain told them it would.
platevoltage · 1d ago
Yeah it did didn’t it? Your point?
Onawa · 1d ago
Harris would have had an uphill battle even if she had a full campaign cycle. After quizzing many conservatives, I unfortunately heard entirely too many responses of, "women leaders are unstable", "wouldn't be respected on the world stage", "she fakes her accent(s)", "I don't even know what she campaigned on", and other mind-boggling reasons they wouldn't vote for her.
At this point, I have lost all faith in the American electorate to rise above bigotry and see past social media propaganda.
platevoltage · 1d ago
I generally have a cynical view of the people in this country, but I’m not ready to believe that a mixed race woman would have an uphill battle against a felon who already did a bad job once. Obama had an uphill battle, but he said the right things. Harris couldn’t even do that because she was only interested in Republican votes, not Leftist votes.
deeg · 1d ago
Maybe. On the other hand the only times Trump won was against a woman.
platevoltage · 1d ago
One of those women was universally hated, but actually got more votes than him, the other had the stink of being part of the previous administration on her.
AnimalMuppet · 1d ago
And Biden was not, shall we say, an inspiring candidate.
On the other other hand, Biden won when the first-hand memory of what Trump was like was very fresh.
RajT88 · 1d ago
I have one conservative friend who insists she is stupid and has none of her own opinions (just a mini-Biden). Mind boggling indeed.
mandeepj · 1d ago
> friend who insists she is stupid
I believe she did great during her nomination acceptance speech and during debate as well. But, you can’t make people understand something if they don’t want to.
platevoltage · 1d ago
I'm not her biggest fan, but yes, she did good in her debate and acceptance speech.
Nursie · 1d ago
> has none of her own opinions (just a mini-Biden)
She did mess up an opportunity to show that she wasn't just Biden v2 in an interview at some point, when asked what she might have done differently, there was nothing she could think of. Nothing at all.
That was an open goal to differentiate that she missed.
But I'm not sure it would have made a difference.
mandeepj · 1d ago
> But I'm not sure it would have made a difference.
If she’d have given an eloquent response, at least she’d have escaped the damage she had got onto herself by saying nothing or no change.
She could have handled similar to how JD handled 2020 election integrity or peaceful transfer questions.
platevoltage · 23h ago
I struggle to think of anything she could have said.
As much as this feels crazy to say, Biden was the most progressive president we've ever had in modern times.
She could have said that she would address some of the many boogie-men that the republicans created. I don't see how that would have helped. She was already running as a 90's republican to begin with.
She could have said she would push for universal healthcare, which she was not willing to do.
She could have said she would re-evaluate our relationship with Israel, that was not going to happen.
She would get student load forgiveness done. Hard to believe given all of the roadblocks there.
The only thing I can think of is saying she would get cannabis legalized. Definite missed opportunity there.
Nursie · 21h ago
> I struggle to think of anything she could have said.
Me too, but that's why I'm not a politician with a legion of advisers :)
I get that she didn't want to bad-mouth Joe or accidentally criticise her own record as VP in the process.
I think the cannabis one might have made some difference - it's clear that the US is ready for it, she could have declared she wanted to hand the power to the states to make their own decisions by legalising it at a federal level, that sort of thing. Hard to tell even in hindsight!
RajT88 · 1d ago
Probably not. And while there's some angle which it's fair to claim she's Biden v2, much of what my friend was sending me was edited clips making her seem like she was babbling nonsense (like the left does with Trump, except they don't have to edit the clips).
I always try to explain to him that these people he's complaining about are not exactly beloved by progressives, and that the issues they have with the candidates do not at all resemble the perception the right wing is trying to push. Progressives for example find Harris to be smart and capable, just part of the justice system which prioritizes conviction metrics over actual justice.
senderista · 1d ago
When it comes to pleasing the base, or the voters, Democrats always choose the former. At least they can feel good about losing.
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 1d ago
I see so much hate for James Carville but he was right. Grocery prices affect more people than abortions so why the hell did Dems run on abortions?!
mandeepj · 1d ago
The other candidate went on stage and said - he’d lower the grocery prices on day 1, and then declares off-stage: once prices go up, they never come down . He told Palestinian-Americans in Michigan - he’d bring peace in Palestine. People were so desperate to hear what they wanted to hear - whether lower prices or peace back home. He sold lies to everyone; I don’t see Democrats doing that. Ironically, prices are comparatively high now and going to get even higher. You know the statements coming from Israel.
I wish there was a way to challenge - these corrupt and lying politicians - in court. Unfortunately, currently, Supreme Court is compromised as well.
nradov · 1d ago
Lying is generally not illegal so the composition of the Supreme Court is irrelevant on that point.
Gud · 1d ago
The democrats were rerunning Joe Biden as their candidate when he was obviously unfit mentally while they were claiming he was.
They were also lying.
deeg · 1d ago
You have somewhat of a point except...the Democrats forced Biden to sit out. That's one of the major differences between R and D right now: D's largely force out the problems (Biden, Cuomo), the R's line up behind the p*** grabber.
UmGuys · 1d ago
Um. Tr*mp is the most unhinged and stupid person. He's never been able to form a coherent sentence and can only exist because he was born a millionaire.
I always thought Biden was much smarter, well spoken, and honest than Tr*mp. Do you disagree?
asdfasvea · 1d ago
What's the * doing? Is that you civil disobedience? Is that how you stick it to the man? Do you think it's the way to sway people who are in the fence about trump?
I just don't get people and their nano aggressions.
UmGuys · 17h ago
I censor his name in order to not boost it for his benefit. I don't want to be ambivalent about my opposition to violence.
Gud · 1d ago
The democrats ran with and lied about Joe Biden. That is why you now have an unhinged narcissist running the show.
UmGuys · 1d ago
I disagree. We have Tr*mp because his team is able to successfully motivate angry, hateful, and scared people. There are a lot of these people, they are not smart, and they are mad. MAGA directs that anger. They simply figured out how to enthrall bad people.
dimal · 1d ago
All the Democrats needed to do was get 5% in the middle, not the core MAGA voters. There’s no way they could reach those people. Putting up Biden and then lying about his mental health destroyed their credibility. Even with that, Harris was within striking distance.
UmGuys · 11h ago
Democrats have always been pretty crappy. That doesn't excuse going full Nazi. And standing by it. These are bad people. It's not the Democrats fault. If you voted for Trump, you're likely a bigot.
Gud · 1d ago
Ok, I have a lot more faith in democratic processes.
I fundamentally disagree with how the USA is run. I believe it needs to be dismantled and increase the democratic processes. I guess I would wish my state to secede, considering the current failure mode of the federal state, if I were American.
This collapse has happened to every empire in history by the way.
Or I would probably move to Mexico or Canada or something.
UmGuys · 1d ago
Yeah. It's tough for people as most don't even have the means to afford health care or a house. They can't simply relocate. Most Americans now live in fear of abuse. It's a shame.
UmGuys · 1d ago
Additionally, we didn't prosecute the ring leader of the Jan. 6 insurrection. We need to finish reconstruction and punish the people who spread hate, fear, and anger. We can only grow divided otherwise.
jurking_hoff · 1d ago
I’ll wager whoever y'all run in 2028 will be equally as spineless though.
UmGuys · 17h ago
I don't know who y'all is. It's unlikely the US will have free or fair elections ever again. Remember what happened on Jan 6?
defrost · 17h ago
There's over 9,000 names for the US forces that'll ensure an absence of free and fair* elections.
and while I suspect the meconium account that made the GP comment you responded to was aping being a non-US citizen (by referring to "you all" regardless of aisle affiliation) and implying that any 2028 elected POTUS would avoid prosecuting Jan 6 charges for fear of fallout, I also took the opportunity to remind ourselves of some of the notable nom de guerre's coined to ridicule various US quasi-militias of the pro Jan6 persuasion.
Y'all Qaeda was gem of a description for the Vanilla ISIS types.
Zigurd · 1d ago
Are there any women on this thread? They might know the answer to your question.
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 1d ago
I didn't say it wasn't important only that it affects relatively few people compared to food prices. Everyone eats.
Zigurd · 1d ago
Everyone has a mother. Most people have at least one of a sister, a wife, a daughter. But I would venture to guess that most people here think more about what Moldbug thinks about democracy, than what their sister might have to make decisions about.
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 1d ago
I don't like or follow Moldbug. Most women never have or need abortions so it doesn't affect them. Even if it affected every woman (half the population) food prices are still better to run on because everyone eats.
I just agree with Carville that Dems can't make any change while losing so they should focus on winning.
ilovecurl · 1d ago
During Dominion's case against Fox News around this same issue Fox News' own lawyers stated that they were not stating actual facts about the topics under discussion and instead were engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. It's not news, it's infotainment.
lesuorac · 1d ago
Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet it's just slick if it'd help them win their case.
I don't see any fix for the news cycle besides slowing it down. Even if enough happens to fill 24h in a day there isn't enough time to actually analyze it at all.
UmGuys · 1d ago
I don't think you understand. It's not news, but entertainment. Unbiased news is: AP, Reuters, CSPAN.
cj · 1d ago
> Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet
Sure, but do you really think the Fox News anchors honestly believed what they were saying?
I’d venture a guess: no. They said what they said because that’s what they had to do to get their paycheck at the end of the day.
Yes, lawyers will say whatever to win a case. But I highly doubt those news anchors really thought the election was stolen. It’s all for ratings. Let’s be honest.
mapt · 1d ago
To willingly lie about something you need to be able to differentiate truth from fiction. Defamation hinges on either this willing lie ("malice") or on negligence (and the expected due diligence for a self-professed news organization is high). There is a little performative middle ground here, but WHATEVER is argued in court does not moot the things argued at every commercial break about trusting their news institution to report the facts. Fox news is not, and never has been, intended as satire.
cj · 1d ago
> Fox news is not, and never has been, intended as satire
Their homepage right now is featuring a pull up and push up contest between Hegseth and RFK jr.
It hardly appears as though they’re trying to be a legitimate news network. (Same goes for CNN - both are incredibly and undeniably outrageous in their reporting)
But I agree, their audiences take their reporting seriously, even if they themselves are just saying what they say for the ratings.
mapt · 1d ago
A light comedy piece or a plucky human interest story do not erase the statements of fact made or the repeated insistence on being taken seriously which pervade the rest of this institution. It isn't even reliant on their audience taking them seriously, it's reliant on the intended tone and how a reasonable person would perceive that intent.
You can argue that Fox News is intended to be basically the Colbert Report satirizing a certain mindset, but it's an obviously bad-faith argument. The Colbert Report was literally created to satirize the seriousness and mendacity of Fox News and its attempts to persuade people into a set of not just interpretations of the world, but factual beliefs about that world.
There is a line, and Fox runs way over the line into defamatory content multiple times an hour.
I can't immunize myself from currency counterfeiting charges by claiming that I never thought the copies were real, that it was all just in fun, that I was pranking the businesses I spent them at, and that my Youtube channel includes other fun bits of me deceiving people and telling jokes. The one does not exculpate the other.
TheOtherHobbes · 1d ago
It's the narcissist's "Ha ha ha only joking" defence.
RajT88 · 1d ago
Jeanine Pirro likes to talk about Treason for example.
When Trump is accused of it, her background as a lawyer kicks in and she can correctly articulate the reasons why Trump has not committed Treason.
However, in any other case she will accuse all manner of folks of committing treason and request they face harsh consequences.
Fox News is lies and rage bait.
bearl · 1d ago
National television news will always be what it is. The business model is ad sales, from that all else inevitably follows. A news corporation is a corporation first and foremost. That said, there wasn’t anything anomalous about the 2020 election that can’t be claimed of other elections so there’s that.
RajT88 · 1d ago
I would describe the difference as being between broadcast and 24 hour cable news. The latter will always be what it is, the former (although not quite what it used to be) is much less rage baity.
The news has always been, "if it bleeds, it leads" though.
UmGuys · 1d ago
Do actors believe their lines? This makes no sense.
mapt · 1d ago
This is a general defense to try and moot the existence of defamation law, and a judge who isn't on the right-wing payroll is likely to take offense.
Fox settled with Dominion for $800M.
tyre · 1d ago
Related:
“I find all of this so weird because of how it _elevates_ finance. [Various cases] imply that we are not entitled to be protected from pollution as _citizens_, or as _humans_. [Another] implies that we are not entitled to be told the truth _as citizens_. (Which: is true!) Rather, in each case, we are only entitled to be protected from lies _as shareholders_. The great harm of pollution, or of political dishonesty, is that it might lower the share prices of the companies we own.”
— Matt Levine
Here he is talking about shareholder lawsuits (securities fraud) being the primary mechanism of holding social responsibility.
throw0101a · 1d ago
> Matt Levine
I was curios for the exact source, and the link is:
I was thinking this opens them up to a shareholder suit for mismanagement, breach of duty, or possibly even fraud?
nickff · 1d ago
Matt Levine often repeats the phrase ‘everything is securities fraud’. Any statement which turns out (with hindsight) to be false is grounds for a shareholder class-action lawsuit. Even many correct statements are grounds for shareholder class actions. The problem is that the only people who actually profit from shareholder class actions are the lawyers.
Ancapistani · 1d ago
I don't understand how it became the expectation that media report truth. That has _never_ been the case, since the founding of the country.
Media's role is to provide facts, sources, and synthesis. It's a starting point for discourse, not an immutable record.
If you expect _any_ media outlet to be 100% reliable and without bias, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
UmGuys · 1d ago
They are entertainment and should be treated that way. And what of the damage our federal government is doing to many corporations, universities, cities, and individuals? Should they have sue the government? It's all so absurd when people stop following the rules.
FridayoLeary · 1d ago
Wouldn't that damage the right to free speech? Regulating what the media is and isn't allowed to say is a very slippery slope and it is open to abuse. If the government was responsible for this task what would prevent Trump and the republicans from hijacking it? It might be frustrating but free speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy and we are much better off with it then without it.
> And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation
That's the first time i've ever seen anyone on HN sympathize with a billion dollar company:)
But that is exactly what the article was about! Dominion was libelled by Newsmax, so they was able to claim damages from them in a court of law. The law didn't allow them to get away with it. The First Amendment is working as inteneded. Some damage to society is tolerated to protect a much bigger and longer term benefit.
But that moron in WH is still spreading lies about that election; he has no shame, no remorse, no nothing. On the contrary, he was successful in portraying himself a victim and win people’s sympathy. Even though he’s the one who called insurrection. There’s no accountability for him.
Look at South Korea, who indicted their politician who did same act. As well at Brazil, who’s rogue politician is in house arrest. But, fking only here, they are awarded with a 2nd term.
As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win. And they did absolutely everything wrong. I almost blame them as much as Trump for this mess.
Good case for that in 2016, sure. 2024, not at all.
This seems incredibly naive. Can you name any such reasonable candidate and explain why you think they would have won the election?
The problem with Democrats winning elections (since 2016) has been the ideological purity tests their social-left demands from candidates, rendering them toxic to independents.
It'd be nice if internet SJWs grew up and realized that winning elections with "don't ask don't tell" is better than losing elections with overly socially progressive platforms.
It feels like a large chunk of the party would rather lose an election smugly than win it with compromise.
Republicans since 2014 have been in somewhat of the same mutually exclusive bind, which is why Trump emerged as the primary candidate. Turns out reconciling mutually exclusive promises is possible if you're willing to say things without intending to do them and bank on charisma and a cult of personality.
Tl;dr - Democrats need to cure their case of SJW Tourette's. When someone asks a question about trans rights, say "I support equality for all Americans, because that's what our Constitution promises" and leave it at that.
Democrats should be diving into the details on progressive economic platforms every chance they get, as wholly, messily, and authentically as they can.
But yes, they should refuse to jump on progressive social landmines their opponents lay out.
What's your alternative and better suggestion?
And I'd say the excesses are equal part tech bro neoreactionaries + nativist Heritage / Project 2025 folks, each of which contributed their own toxic ingredients.
It's rapidly becoming apparent that Trump doesn't actually care about much ideologically and generally blows whichever way the last person in the room asked him to.
To add: Regardless of how left-leaning or right-leaning any given dem candidate is, they shot themselves in the foot with an AK by a lack of focus on pragmatic economic issues, the border and on absurdly sticking to a doddering president-as-candidate until it was far too late despite all obvious indicators of his lack of fitness for a second term (then so quickly switching tack along with so many of their media and pundit followers that it gave lots of credit to Trumps ranting about the media's lock-step pro-dem bias.) This was plainly insulting to way too many fence-sitting voters who might have otherwise voted democrat.
Then yes, there's the SJW issue and the completely unfounded amount of obeisance to it that many democrats and their supporters expressed. This may not have been a problem for their core of voters, but then, that's not where elections get won.
For context, I've been watching UK, US, AU, and CA news and politics for decades and my observation is that relatively few on left | liberal | progressive could honestly be described as all in, full on, brain washed followers of SJW issues, trans rights, drag shows, et al. The majority didn't seem to deeply care much past the basic human rights issues of everyone should be able to find a bathroom and most people should be allowed to express themselves.
Almost without exception everything I heard about SJW issues originated from right wing, post Reagan Republican, neo Conservative, Fox | Sky Media type sources.
Without taking a side, just observing the political strategy aspect, this was a strong winning tactic for the US right - hammer endlessly on essentially meaningless issues and raise the perceived threat level to sway the masses, offering a solution to breadcrumbs in the bedding type issues that now rank as empire ending catastrophic confrontations.
I'm sorry, but enough of exactly this was visible on the cultural side of support for democrat social politics that it can't just be ignored. It had its impact. Too many sacred cows were encased in too many groupthink bubbles of rigid "permissible" discourse and this was heavily associated specifically with the kind of social circles that democrat politicians are most popular with and pander to very often. For many voters on the margins, this caused a reactionary dislike that led to lost votes.
Take for example the illegial immigration issue. This was something that many voters of all stripes (including many Afican American and even latino American voters) took very seriously for reasons they thought very valid to their contexts. Often, however, stating that you worried about it would be smeared as a part of being a racist in general, and that must have felt bloody insulting, even ridiculous to a hefty number of people who simply viewed it as a baseless character attack.
All Harris had to do was challenge Biden's position on the issue, and not parade Liz Cheney out on stage like the "disillusioned Republican vote" was a real thing.
Well that sure worked out exactly how every single person with a functioning brain told them it would.
At this point, I have lost all faith in the American electorate to rise above bigotry and see past social media propaganda.
On the other other hand, Biden won when the first-hand memory of what Trump was like was very fresh.
I believe she did great during her nomination acceptance speech and during debate as well. But, you can’t make people understand something if they don’t want to.
She did mess up an opportunity to show that she wasn't just Biden v2 in an interview at some point, when asked what she might have done differently, there was nothing she could think of. Nothing at all.
That was an open goal to differentiate that she missed.
But I'm not sure it would have made a difference.
If she’d have given an eloquent response, at least she’d have escaped the damage she had got onto herself by saying nothing or no change.
She could have handled similar to how JD handled 2020 election integrity or peaceful transfer questions.
As much as this feels crazy to say, Biden was the most progressive president we've ever had in modern times.
She could have said that she would address some of the many boogie-men that the republicans created. I don't see how that would have helped. She was already running as a 90's republican to begin with.
She could have said she would push for universal healthcare, which she was not willing to do.
She could have said she would re-evaluate our relationship with Israel, that was not going to happen.
She would get student load forgiveness done. Hard to believe given all of the roadblocks there.
The only thing I can think of is saying she would get cannabis legalized. Definite missed opportunity there.
Me too, but that's why I'm not a politician with a legion of advisers :)
I get that she didn't want to bad-mouth Joe or accidentally criticise her own record as VP in the process.
I think the cannabis one might have made some difference - it's clear that the US is ready for it, she could have declared she wanted to hand the power to the states to make their own decisions by legalising it at a federal level, that sort of thing. Hard to tell even in hindsight!
I always try to explain to him that these people he's complaining about are not exactly beloved by progressives, and that the issues they have with the candidates do not at all resemble the perception the right wing is trying to push. Progressives for example find Harris to be smart and capable, just part of the justice system which prioritizes conviction metrics over actual justice.
I wish there was a way to challenge - these corrupt and lying politicians - in court. Unfortunately, currently, Supreme Court is compromised as well.
They were also lying.
I always thought Biden was much smarter, well spoken, and honest than Tr*mp. Do you disagree?
I just don't get people and their nano aggressions.
I fundamentally disagree with how the USA is run. I believe it needs to be dismantled and increase the democratic processes. I guess I would wish my state to secede, considering the current failure mode of the federal state, if I were American.
This collapse has happened to every empire in history by the way.
Or I would probably move to Mexico or Canada or something.
Y'all Qaeda | VanillaISIS | Yeehawdists | Yokelharam | Talibundy** | Talibaptists | ...
* for some archaic value of 'free & fair'
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODGXw0AZX4
> I don't know who y'all is.
and while I suspect the meconium account that made the GP comment you responded to was aping being a non-US citizen (by referring to "you all" regardless of aisle affiliation) and implying that any 2028 elected POTUS would avoid prosecuting Jan 6 charges for fear of fallout, I also took the opportunity to remind ourselves of some of the notable nom de guerre's coined to ridicule various US quasi-militias of the pro Jan6 persuasion.
Y'all Qaeda was gem of a description for the Vanilla ISIS types.
I just agree with Carville that Dems can't make any change while losing so they should focus on winning.
I don't see any fix for the news cycle besides slowing it down. Even if enough happens to fill 24h in a day there isn't enough time to actually analyze it at all.
Sure, but do you really think the Fox News anchors honestly believed what they were saying?
I’d venture a guess: no. They said what they said because that’s what they had to do to get their paycheck at the end of the day.
Yes, lawyers will say whatever to win a case. But I highly doubt those news anchors really thought the election was stolen. It’s all for ratings. Let’s be honest.
Their homepage right now is featuring a pull up and push up contest between Hegseth and RFK jr.
It hardly appears as though they’re trying to be a legitimate news network. (Same goes for CNN - both are incredibly and undeniably outrageous in their reporting)
But I agree, their audiences take their reporting seriously, even if they themselves are just saying what they say for the ratings.
You can argue that Fox News is intended to be basically the Colbert Report satirizing a certain mindset, but it's an obviously bad-faith argument. The Colbert Report was literally created to satirize the seriousness and mendacity of Fox News and its attempts to persuade people into a set of not just interpretations of the world, but factual beliefs about that world.
There is a line, and Fox runs way over the line into defamatory content multiple times an hour.
I can't immunize myself from currency counterfeiting charges by claiming that I never thought the copies were real, that it was all just in fun, that I was pranking the businesses I spent them at, and that my Youtube channel includes other fun bits of me deceiving people and telling jokes. The one does not exculpate the other.
When Trump is accused of it, her background as a lawyer kicks in and she can correctly articulate the reasons why Trump has not committed Treason.
However, in any other case she will accuse all manner of folks of committing treason and request they face harsh consequences.
Fox News is lies and rage bait.
The news has always been, "if it bleeds, it leads" though.
Fox settled with Dominion for $800M.
“I find all of this so weird because of how it _elevates_ finance. [Various cases] imply that we are not entitled to be protected from pollution as _citizens_, or as _humans_. [Another] implies that we are not entitled to be told the truth _as citizens_. (Which: is true!) Rather, in each case, we are only entitled to be protected from lies _as shareholders_. The great harm of pollution, or of political dishonesty, is that it might lower the share prices of the companies we own.”
— Matt Levine
Here he is talking about shareholder lawsuits (securities fraud) being the primary mechanism of holding social responsibility.
I was curios for the exact source, and the link is:
* https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-31/senato...
* https://archive.is/9WcxD
He referenced / quoted it recently:
* https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-04-01/is-...
* https://archive.is/B7yvw
Media's role is to provide facts, sources, and synthesis. It's a starting point for discourse, not an immutable record.
If you expect _any_ media outlet to be 100% reliable and without bias, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
> And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation
That's the first time i've ever seen anyone on HN sympathize with a billion dollar company:)
But that is exactly what the article was about! Dominion was libelled by Newsmax, so they was able to claim damages from them in a court of law. The law didn't allow them to get away with it. The First Amendment is working as inteneded. Some damage to society is tolerated to protect a much bigger and longer term benefit.