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.
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 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.
I just don't get people and their nano aggressions.
I just agree with Carville that Dems can't make any change while losing so they should focus on winning.
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.
At this point, I have lost all faith in the American electorate to rise above bigotry and see past social media propaganda.
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.
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.
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!
On the other other hand, Biden won when the first-hand memory of what Trump was like was very fresh.
Well that sure worked out exactly how every single person with a functioning brain told them it would.
Good case for that in 2016, sure. 2024, not at all.
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.
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.
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?
Taking potshots is easy: putting down your own marker is hard.
This seems incredibly naive. Can you name any such reasonable candidate and explain why you think they would have won the election?
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...
He referenced / quoted it recently:
* https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-04-01/is-...
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.
We already ban defamation, fraud, the f-bomb and boobs on publicly available television channels, etc.
> 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.
Long, long after the damage was done, and it'll take equally long the next time they do the same thing. As the saying goes, if there's just a fine, the fine is just the cost of doing business.
Things like libel and slander are not damaging to free speech. I don't know how it happened but it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand how our right to free speech works and what it is for.
As for libel/slander laws - truth is an affirmative defense. If your "proof" is factual -- even if it's insufficient to prove your claim -- then go for it.
> it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand how our right to free speech works and what it is for.
I agree 100%.
So all we need now is an angry left-wing billionaire who can launch a thousand defamation lawsuits, or the most sympathetic group of parents of dead children in history.
The last great nightly news anchor was Dan Rather, who was fired symbolically because their organization merely neutrally reported the existence of a sketchy story about possible documents that turned out to be fabricated about George W Bush's military service.
Sandy Hook v Jones was not "political". It was deeply, profoundly personal.
The Gawker lawsuit was also about settling personal scores. Obviously Hogan wasn't as sympathetic of a plaintiff as the Sandy Hook parents. But it was more odious because Thiel wanted to punish Gawker simply for hurting his feelings, not lying about him.
> So all we need now is an angry left-wing billionaire
Is there such a thing?
The closest we've got is the zombie husk of liberal George Soros, who is a center-left finance bro from a Holocaust survivor family who isn't fond of authoritarianism. While a constantly mentioned specter of the right (the fact that he's Jewish and talks with a foreign accent factors, for paleoconservatives), and probably the largest single donor to Democratic causes...
He isn't actually particularly left-wing, and his work isn't remotely comparable in scope or in aggression to the ideological warfare waged by the Koch Brothers, or the dozens of other billionaires who have joined hand in hand to establish the durable top-down political infrastructure of the GOP. If a politician or pundit just plays along with these people, if you stay loyal to the cause even in the most tortured argument, you will be a made man. There are thousands of positions held open at endowed economics departments, think tanks, lobbying firms, and captive media to reward people who fight the good fight for the right. Lose an election? There is always the possibility of another campaign in another district. Conversely there is a constant threat of well-funded primary campaigns against anyone who doesn't toe the line and kiss the ring.
The Democrats have no such leverage. Their operational interests conflict with the interests of their political base. They mostly seem to come into politics poisoned by Mr Smith Goes to Washington, or The West Wing, and then the people who survive are the ones with more ambition than ideology who do whatever they need to do to ensure incumbency. Their institutional infrastructure seems to be ~five lobbying firms whose only apparent purpose is punching left when their base comes into conflict with corporate donors, and skimming off the top. The only time you will see money weaponized in a meaningful way is to fight against a primary challenge from the left, to include running independents against the primary winner in eg NYC's 2025 mayoral. So goes the "big tent" party.
But if by chance an angry left-wing billionaire spontaneously occurred (let's say the Trump vs Musk relationship went down a little differently)... There are tortious weapons sitting on the table unused, which could be put into effect dismantling this flavor of "journalism". As long as red America is being fed cradle-to-grave, violently ethnonationalist propaganda we're going to have a tough time persuading them out of their worldview.