My memory was that we knew this at the time?

I guess 2000 was long enough ago to forget

If the dems ever sweep the house and senate, I hope they pass legislation

I mean, it’s pulling from MBFC and ground news, which are not both owned by Dave Van Zandt, and he doesn’t work alone. Also, when compared to other fact checking organizations, MBFC performs well, from what I’ve read. Well enough that if you find their output uncomfortable, you should be second guessing yourself.

It’s not really a bot’s opinion though? It’s reporting on salon in general, and letting you know that the reporting has a bias, which means generally, it might promote parts of the story that show Vance in a bad light compared to other reporting, and the. The Ground News link shows that reporting on this topic across several sources tends to be pretty non biased and factual. That’s all good information to have, and saying otherwise means you want to let yourself be misled.

And everything other than joining the topic and the source is written by humans who are trying to keep people informed.

If you’re down voting a fact checker, you might want to do some self reflection on why you’re upset that Salon doesn’t have a perfect rating

That’s what the article is about: how that change has pushed politicians to be open about their flaws and having much more public lives, like celebrities. Meaning that voters vote for politicians who act like celebrities. The sentiment in other comments of “No. No we don’t.” ignores the reality of who has been winning elections for the last 30 years.

I’m gonna guess there’s a lot of down votes from people who just read the title…

The author points out the last 30 years of presidential candidates as their evidence, and paints a pretty nuanced picture of his politicians have dealt with changing voter trends. No one wants to vote for the candidate that doesn’t act like that can emphasize empathize (glide typing failed me) with them, even though that’s not really the president’s job.

Don’t ruin your own experience because someone else is enjoying it differently than you like to

If those ~25 Lemmy users could read they’d be very upset

Pretty sure you just attacked someone for agreeing with you.

Excuse me if I don’t trust the infallibility of the foreign policy platform of a person who falls back to ad hominem attacks after reading 3 sentences, and failing to grasp their meaning

Oh dang u right, it ain’t nuanced, my b

And what happens when Egypt starts thinking Israel looks weak? Let them use Gaza as a reason to attack? I’m very against what Israel is doing, but this is very reductive. It’s foolish to think that peace in the middle east is not a nuanced subject

Well, this is an American election? There’s only so much one president can do about the actions of another sovereign nation. In fact, a lot of progressives wish the US would do less

This whole discourse reminds me of some pro-Bush Jr. Family members who were complaining during those elections that the fiscal plan they liked (which caused the crash in 2008, but whatever) had been tied to trying to appease the single issue voters who cared about limiting abortion and LGBTQIA+ rights. This all or noting stance about Gaza feels just as singularly focused as those wingnuts.

The lawyer wants to travel in this case, not Trump himself.

If that happens, I would say that’s an exception to every accusation being a confession

That assumes that things haven’t changed, and that Trump doesn’t represent the backlash to that change. The Dems don’t change things as fast as you would like, but why is back pedaling better than that? I swear, this whole line of reasoning sounds like some astroturfing movement to get liberals to skip the election. The republicans only win when voter counts are low. You are talking like you want Trump to win.

There is no room for these things to be a topic of conversation if Trump wins. This way of thinking has no path to resolving the problem.