How are these posts any different than what I posted in the US politics thread. ^ Massive misinformation.

They finally got Cornholio.

I'll just gonna leave this here:

I've not heard Jill debate before. Christ she was absolutely crumbling at the slightest bit of pressure, Lol.

British Journalists > American Journalists 😏

Pretty much any journalist > American journalists. I've never seem American journalists really grilling anyone, especially not political pundits or corporate CEOs which ought to be grilled.

Trump is escalating his immigrant rhetoric lately, a bit scary how he's trying to turn an entire country against immigrants of all kinds, making up outright disgusting lies about them stealing your pets and eating them, calling them animals, talking about how they're going to liberate America from them, it's all sorts of hateful and inflammatory language and it's being directed at immigrants of all kinds.

Yeah.

Jill Stein called BBC a propaganda organisation for the UK 💀 Maybe domestically the BBC leans towards whoever the ruling party is, but internationally BBC has a very strong reputation and I'm not sure what they're meant to be running propaganda for on behalf of the UK? What are we doing that is anywhere close to the equivalent of Russia?

The issue is, Imo, American journalists lean more towards treating journalism as "entertainment" rather than news, it feels like they forget what being a journalist actually means and stands for, they think soundbites are more important than reporting actual credible information. They forget that journalists are for the people, they are meant to deliver the truth and facts to the people, they're not meant to stand for billion-dollar owners or treat it as entertainment like a TV Show, we need the cold hard truths and we need people to be called out on their bullshit.

BBC does do an annoying amount of "both sides" though, Lol.

Aside from the winner takes all, first past the post, zero-sum aspects of the political system in this country, Jill Stein illustrates a secondary reason why third parties don’t do well in the U.S.

They’re novelty candidates. At best they can start off sounding reasonable and then veer completely off the rails. They think that by virtue of being alternatives to the main parties that they’re entitled to make Hail Mary runs at the White House. They never demonstrate their actual policies on the ground trying to win local elections. They think that they’re the candidates for the people who are too “smart” for the main parties.

The only third party candidate who had any measure of success in the past hundred years was George Wallace, who ran on a platform fueled entirely by Southern hate and anger. Kind of like what Trump is running on now. The Wallace-LeMay ticket actually won 46 electoral votes in 1968. It didn’t make a difference in the election itself - Nixon won 301 votes, more than Humphrey and Wallace combined - but it did contribute to the Southernization of the Republican Party.