And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[SimonNZ]

So you watched videos in Finnish language? I can follow American politics IN ENGLISH.

Speaking of  the Prime Minister of Finland, do you think she is hot?

Joke, honey. You may want to Google Images search Tom Of Finland. He's a national treasure.

Do I think your PM is hot? Remind me how "progressive" you think you are again...

[JBS]

I may want to Google? All Finns know Tom Of Finland!
What does  my progressiveness have to do with the hotness of prime ministers?

You are sexually harrassing her with your comments
.#minämyös

[71 dB]

New National poll (ABC/Washington Post):

Sanders 32 %
Biden 16 %
Bloomberg 14 %
Warren 12 %
Buttigieg 8 %
Klobuchar 7 %
Steyer 2 %

[Karl Henning]

The Daily Beast: Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get his a** kicked.

[greg]

Do I think your PM is hot? Remind me how "progressive" you think you are again...

Best looking leader of a country by far.

If this is progressive gatekeeping no wonder so many people are turned off by it. Or maybe this comment is ironic, idk.

[71 dB]

The Daily Beast: Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get his a** kicked.

Just imagine if he had spent those millions on fixing homelessness... 

[greg]

Ah...but are you recommending me a book you've read or a book a YT oracle has told you to recommend...hmm?



"I have been watching countless of YTchannels, many of them commenting on other channels."

my very first thought: "We play both kinds: Country and Western"

But does the channels that Poju watches comment on articles by the opposing side, and then offer arguments against them?

Because that is a very good practice. If they are opposing then your analogy doesn't hold up.

The Daily Beast: Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get his a** kicked.

LOL.
This is why I hate politicians.

[71 dB]

But does the channels that Poju watches comment on articles by the opposing side, and then offer arguments against them?

Because that is a very good practice. If they are opposing then your analogy doesn't hold up.

What do you think the left wing channels are doing? Their existence is a reaction to the one-sided mantras of corporate media. They comment on the claims and narratives of corporate media. When MSNBC says Bernie is not electable, Kyle Kulinski comments on this claim saying it's corporate bs and shows the polls where Bernie is one of the most electable if not the most electable explaining why Bernie is so strong against Trump: He is a true populist while Trump is only a fake populist. When CNN smears medicare for all saying it will cost over 30 trillion dollars in the 10 years, TYT can correct the smear saying that saves money because current system costs even more. When Fox News fearmongers people to accept more wars, lefties can expose these lies as an attempt to increase the profits of military industry complex. That's what they are doing.

[greg]

What do you think the left wing channels are doing? Their existence is a reaction to the one-sided mantras of corporate media. They comment on the claims and narratives of corporate media. When MSNBC says Bernie is not electable, Kyle Kulinski comments on this claim saying it's corporate bs and shows the polls where Bernie is one of the most electable if not the most electable explaining why Bernie is so strong against Trump: He is a true populist while Trump is only a fake populist. When CNN smears medicare for all saying it will cost over 30 trillion dollars in the 10 years, TYT can correct the smear saying that saves money because current system costs even more. When Fox News fearmongers people to accept more wars, lefties can expose these lies as an attempt to increase the profits of military industry complex. That's what they are doing.

That's a pretty good practice then.

The worst thing people can do is watch their strongly biased TV news that only ever offers one opinion, and then blindly believing it with no counterargument considered. Which is what most people do.

[Karl Henning]

The worst thing people can do is watch their strongly biased TV news that only ever offers one opinion, and then blindly believing it with no counterargument considered. Which is what most people do.

Poju isn't "most people." You are in error.

[greg]

Poju isn't "most people." You are in error.

Not sure what you mean? That's already what I was implying.

[Karl Henning]

Not sure what you mean? That's already what I was implying.

I mean, that that is exactly what Poju does. He wouldn't even know there are counterarguments, if his precious Kyle didn't tell him that he can safely disregard them. There's nothing in his post which indicates that he goes anywhere other than Kyle's YT channel. The bubble which he emptily asserts does not exist.

[Florestan]

Poju isn't "most people."

Truly he's in a league of his own.

[Karl Henning]

Truly he's in a league of his own.

Deo gratias!

[drogulus]

The worst thing people can do is watch their strongly biased TV news that only ever offers one opinion, and then blindly believing it with no counterargument considered. Which is what most people do.

     I hold it an important skill to extract the most information from a source and take or leave the bias. The left handles information better (journalism is a value in its own right for informavores).

     Conservatives are very beliefy and would rather not take the chance on a news outlet that's too facty. Fox hides as much news as it broadcasts.

     If you're low information the chance is great that you're a conservative. You are predisposed to be vulnerable to bias in what you watch or read. It's like a rule. Note though that if an elite news outlet reports something you believe is (horrors!) actually true you are unlikely to call it "fake news", are you? Instead you'll say "See, I was right, it was even in the NY Times!".

     Too much is made of bias and too little of the information density in various media, and the skill you need to extract it no matter what the bias of the source is.

[SimonNZ]

If someone wants an alternate analysis of the news to what's on the various TV then I'd recommend podcasts.

I've also often wondered why the average podcast is so very much better than the YT channels I've seen linked to and watched, given they have roughly the same level of Independence and run for roughly the same amount of time. My conclusion is that there's a type of person who wants to be in front of the camera and seen to be seen and a type of person who doesn't and this distinction and priority drives both content and presentation..

[greg]

If someone wants an alternate analysis of the news to what's on the various TV then I'd recommend podcasts.

They really can be great.
I've listened to so many Joe Rogan podcasts lately... out of the political ones, I've seen the Andrew Yang one... yet to see the Bernie one...

but the reason why they are good is that the presidential candidate is allowed to talk freely and clarify their reasons/beliefs in detail. You can't get much of that in short interviews/debates.

And interesting that that podcast has gotten so big that people are thinking it can influence the outcome of elections.

[SimonNZ]

sigh...that actually wasn't the kind of podcast I was talking about. Thats just a standard tv or radio talk show coming via a different delivery, and like those YT things the personalities are the story.

Forget it.

[JBS]

If someone wants an alternate analysis of the news to what's on the various TV then I'd recommend podcasts.

I've also often wondered why the average podcast is so very much better than the YT channels I've seen linked to and watched, given they have roughly the same level of Independence and run for roughly the same amount of time. My conclusion is that there's a type of person who wants to be in front of the camera and seen to be seen and a type of person who doesn't and this distinction and priority drives both content and presentation..

I think it's more fundamental than that.  Podcasters seem usually to limit themselves to a topic about which they have some indepth knowledge. YouTubers seem to be just a person ready to rant on any subject that is topical.  Also podcasts are often distributed through a subscription service that presumably tries to ensure its offerings are something worth hearing.  Whereas YouTubers just need to know how to upload a video to YouTube.

[Karl Henning]

RantTube