Another thing - he’s setting up precedents for a future populist from either side of the spectrum.
Imagine an US version of Morales, steeped in identity politics but with a strong authoritarian streak.
He’s a billionaire. His children and in-laws also have their own money making schemes from drones to shipping.
In fairness, I would ban Acosta from any area I had to inhabit if I had that power. I cannot stand that windbag.
Do you think this is only since the internet and cable? When was this not true?
This is really important - in one sense we got very lucky: yes, we elected a European-style populist strongman for four years, but he is lazy and incompetent. Bad as he was, it could have been way worse. Imagine where we’d be if he was motivated, smart on moving the levers of government, and a competent executive?
We dodged a bullet. We need to appreciate that, big picture, we we’re very fortunate, and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Am I misremembering that there was some scheme tied to him or his family that made money from Isis controlled oil fields?
Yes, his son was raking in hundreds of millions smuggling oil from ISIS.
Son-in-law is the owner of Baryaktar UAVs, whose value just skyrocketed after they singlehandedly won the war for the Azeris - and allegedly Erdogan is behind that as well.
It’s always been true to an extent. However, prior to the explosion of internet and cable “news” sources our choices were more limited and more people got their information from a smaller number of outlets. Because of that, there was a more common perception of reality. Now, because of the larger number of sources and just as, or more importantly how well they target people and show them what they want to see our news feeds have diverged to the point where they’re miles apart.
There has always been competition for our attention. But 25 years ago the tv channels, newspapers, etc. were using tools to track us that were like stone axes compared to today’s laser guided precision weapons. Big tech companies are tracking us right now in real time and feeding us what they think we want to see. As a result the people who have no interest in opposing viewpoints can skip along merrily without ever being exposed to information they don’t like.
I thought it was supposed to mobilize people who wanted things to go back to what they were before.
Before blacks could be POTUS. Before manufacturing jobs were scarce. Before people with less qualifications couldn’t get a job. That kind of stuff.
I think it press the right buttons, at least when it comes to the average person you’d see on a Trump rally.
So exactly what period of time does maga cover? Who was it great for?
Does more common equal more correct?
Do you mean the period of time when America was GREAT?
I dunno, was it ever that great? I don’t think the slogan was meant to be that specific. Maybe some people thought or hoped things would be like That 70s Show (without Fez), others would picture it different. Like Skyz said before, it’s vague enough to appeal to a great (the GREATEST) number of people.
I’m not sure, but even the worst tragedies, like war, Trump, or Covid, are good for someone.
You do have a point there
Personally I think it is more true in the cable/internet age. I say this because the ease with which someone can bury their head in a bubble is far and away much more easily accomplished now.
Bubbles always existed, but with common sources of news (network, papers, etc) there was some shared reality. Fast forward to now and you could get almost your entire information supply from alternative sources of your choice. Customized news feeds, “articles for you” suggested based on your whims…yeah I think it’s easier now.
I don’t necessarily think it means more correct, but because there were a limited number of sources they had to cover a more disparate viewership – this inevitably leases to more centered coverage IMO. Let’s go back to a time before cable news for example…
You have what, 5 major networks covering national news, and a limited window to get events across. This means that you can’t endlessly opine about events because the same number of things happening today had to be crammed into a 1-2 hour show. You didn’t have to search for ways to stretch coverage.
Papers had much the same thing. No doubt things slipped under the radar due to limited time, but combining a much more diverse viewership with less time to cover events AND less ability to custom track preferences… Yes I think it was at minimum more centered.
But a big part of our issue today is that common ground seems so slim to many. I think in part more common does equal more correct, because people have to start from more or less the same assumptions.
This is the thing that has been keeping me up at night so to speak. This is something I legitimately never thought would happen. Whatever happens once can happen again, and current precedents can be used again. This was one big reason I get so upset at the short term thinking of many legislators
I think less pure bullshit is probably closer to the mark. I struggled with my first post a bit in getting out my meaning but I’ll try again. Back in the days of network news and newspapers dominating the news scene, the sources were closer to the center and it was harder to run and hide from all of those sources. Now, as Aragorn said above, people can immerse themselves in far right/left sources and get a completely skewed version of what’s happening really easily.
You said something interesting upthread about people voting based on feelings. I think that’s certainly a strong tendency for many or most people. What a balanced view and a rejection of far right/left media allows is for some rational thought to also play a role in the choices we make in the voting booth. When people go in a deep dive down a rabbit hole created with the help of big tech algorithms, they often just get their initial feelings amplified with almost no space for rational alternative ideas.
Outstanding post. I find one of the ironies of the times is that the more connected we become technologically the more fragmented we are becoming, not less as the founders of the tech age thought.
I’ve was always taught and still believe today that this experiment that we call America has endless amounts of potential but you know what they say about potential? Add a buck and you can get a cup of coffee.
It has not yet lived up to that potential but as most I still believe in this experiment.
When people of color hear that term”maga “ and the people using it can’t answer that simple question it smells of racism to us because that’s what it is.
Ask the white nationalist. It doesn’t really matter if I think it’s racist but the racist definitely think it is.
It’s a loud bullhorn for them and that’s why they overwhelmingly support trump. He speaks their language.
All I’m saying is people should have focused less time on calling out insignificant morons and calling out stuff like the Covington nonsense and every time CNN purposefully misrepresented Trump.
It simply cannot be “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” when it comes to something as important as the integrity of a free press. Trump is now gone. It’s over. HE’S GONE. The press will always be there.
How much sensationalism they will engage in from now is anyone’s guess, but I’m willing to bet they’re going to continue with this shit since people gave them “permission” to do so because they hated Trump so much.
I mean, Jesus Christ, a bum today with a webcam can build a career on youtube by READING THE NEWS and pointing out all the biases and spins. How would this be even possible if the MSM hadn’t been doing so much spinning these last 4 years lol.
The dude literally READS THE NEWS. He fucking READS THE FUCKING NEW@@$()$&Q)#($
Sorry, just ranting as much as I’m trying to make a point.
People watching CAT VIDEOS makes more sense.
Since when is loudly saying Soros deep state dominion fake news legal votes and I WON over and over again not evidence?
Good lord what are you asking for here?
Oh I don’t think any of that started the last four years. Cable news channels with 24 hour news became big and “opinion news” channels have dominated radio for years.
If you want to get news without spin it’s probably best found by local news. Anything with a national market not so much.
I would say most people get their news now from opinion people or at least get how they think about the news from them.
This is a winner. You can completely filter the stuff you want to hear and see. Hell Tucker Carlson got roasted by the Trumpers for the mere suggestion that he needed evidence. And he quickly walked it back. Meanwhile you can find a far right talk show that linked him to pizza gate right after he said that.
If you want only far far left viewpoints and far far right viewpoints it’s there for the taking. And sadly I fear more and more people head down that path. A lot of people don’t want to believe anything that may challenge what they want to be correct.
I’m not sure how that changes or if it can.