in your example, the behaviour presented in both statements is equally bad
What a pair of demented loons though...
[interested in how others here would answer that, as well]
Cable delivery has evolved to accomplish eyeball control while stretching content over a 24/7 schedule. I don't watch either, but susceptible individuals watch endlessly.And in your statement you were factually wrong and had the sort of extreme narrowness of scope of which WIlliam Barr would approve. But to be honest I don't really think your technique is quite as illuminating as you suggest, especially in a political question where it looks very close to spin.
On the subject of US cable news, I gave up watching because it takes them 20 mins to cover something that could be done in five and, particularly in regard to Maddow, this bizarrely belabored way of presenting information as if designed for people who cannot follow the logic of a simple sequence of facts. But what really makes her unwatchable is her habit of not just the leading questions you mention, but how her questions are always prefaced be a two minute speech. Lots of the them do this and it's very for someone used to a UK style of news show.
Even worse is how this also happens in congress which is why AOC's and Kamala Harris's questions have been so excellent.
Re: 2020. The White house and McConnell are also pushing to defeat bipartisan election security legislation. Republicans really hate a fair election.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/election-security-russia-1296865
There are far too many random minor candidates who have no chance and I think should drop out, although I guess they all think Obama was once the random minor candidate.
I don't have a good overview of all the candidates/policies - just too many but Sanders certainly appeals & I've started to listen to Tulsi (thanks to Max)
I don't think Rachel Maddow cares about much, Vuk. She's extraordinarily wealthy, and got that way for parroting the Washington consensus, and rabidly spreading vile Russiaphobia and conspiracy theories non-stop for the last three years, while rarely, if ever mentioning the grotesque crimes of her own country including interference in elections and governments all over the world that makes any alleged Russian meddling in US2016 look like child's play, and the slaughter of thousands of innocents in Yemen, where a US supported blockade is starving the whole country, leading to the worst humanitarian crisis this century.i don't think they are demented. it's two very wealthy, intelligent women upset about the collapse of society as they like it -- in the control of a wealthy, educated and, perhaps above all, polite professional class.
I think the underlying psychology of those people is very far from that of a Tulsi Gabbard, or Bernie Sanders, or any of the people who support them based on their shared ideals.the underlying psychology is the same as that of the trump supporter or radical progressive leftists like us, just that we all have different ideals that are not being met. that said, some ideals are arguably better than others.
At the risk of annoying you, Tony, which is not my intention, I'd just like to point out that, based on what I've seen of the various candidates, and their records, which matter, it's not likely that all would substantially reverse the damage - as you put it - in those areas you mentioned, bar perhaps civil rights.Basically all of them would reverse the damage to civil rights, healthcare, gun control, foreign policy etc to some substantial degree.
I'd just like to point out that, based on what I've seen of the various candidates, and their records, which matter, it's not likely that all would substantially reverse the damage - as you put it - in those areas you mentioned, bar perhaps civil rights.